I debated all four years in high school. I graduated four years ago and have been volunteering as a judge for the Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League for about three years. 

I allow tag team cross examination. Debaters should keep track of their speeches and prep time. If flashing evidence takes longer than a minute it will be taken out of their prep time. I'm ok with spreading as long its clear and tags are emphasized. If a team runs K, in order for me to vote on it, it has to be thoroughly explained. I'm open to analytical arguments but you should have evidence to support your clam. I personally like Topicality when it's done properly. I also like when debaters give an impact cal during their rebuttals and use debate terminology throughout the debate round. 

1. I believe the topic is a hypothesis that is to be tested by argument and analysis during the specific round in which I am assigned to critique. I focus, generally, on line-by-line analysis of the arguments and analysis generated by each team to determine which side did the proverbial "better job of debating." I typically render my decisions based on the positions taken in constructive arguments and advanced through rebuttals. I welcome and invite debaters to provide me with the frameworks and meta-analysis needed to render a decision, but, in the final analysis, I rely on the arguments on the flow and how they are developed in each round. I depend on evidence-based argument as a general rule, but am also open to analysis and strategic constructs which may arise in any particular round. The following may be helpful to in-round participants. I also welcome queries from the in-round participants so long as no attempt is being made to "pre-condition" my ballot.

2. T - When I debated in HS and College, T was "the last refuge of the damned." I have a very high bar for T because I think limiting the topic limits creativity in argument. Also, because I am a lawyer and not necessarily connected to the debate community I don't have the credibility to limit research outside of a debate coach's perogative. In the past, I have rarely balloted on T. I will, however, "pull the trigger" when T arguments are mishandled. With respect to extra-T, I tend to give a little more
"love" to such claims when linked to a specific violation.

3. Counterplans - I tend to be somewhat conservative with C-Plans. I tend to require that they be 1) non-topical, 2) competitive, and 3) provide some net benefit. I perfer that C-Plans are solvent with evidence independent of the affirmative. That being said, I have balloted for topical c-plans, and have balloted for net benefit c-plans. I have also balloted for partial c-plans (not completely solving the aff harm area).

4. K - Affs - I find critical affs interesting and will ballot when they carry the day. To defeat a critical aff, I tend to require specific evidence taking out the authors or positions advanced. As for Neg K, I am generally open to them but usually require some impact analysis - with evidence, please, that overcomes the affirmative.

5. DA - With respect to DA's, I need intrinsic and extrinsic links to some type of terminal impact to ballot. If the links are weak, you need to explain things to me in late rebuttals - althought it's never to early to start this process.

6. I do try to line up and compare analysis and argument at the end of the round to reach my decision, but the more help you give me, the more likely I will find in your favor.

7. The same holds true for LD and POFO debates that I witness.
8. I flow cross-ex and hold teams to the positions they take.

email= rbuscho59@gmail.com

I have been out of debate for a couple years, so if there are normative trends that have developed there is a good chance I do not know them. At the end of the day the debate round is a narrative, and I prioritize narrative coherence. I did NPTE style debate for 5 years, 2 at Irvine Valley College and 3 at Cal State Long Beach. As a judge I default to the Framework or Role of the Ballot, and I try my best to let the debaters run what is best for them. In When it comes to Impact framing I default to Magnitude over probability unless I am given reasons why Probability should be preferred. The most important thing for me to see in a debate is a good collapse from the debaters in the final rebuttal as this will give me a clear view of what arguments you think are important enough to be given deep evaluation in the round. Below I give more specific feelings about types of arguments.

Likes: Topical Affirmatives, claims with data and warrants, clear alternatives, in depth topicality

Dislikes: politics, blippy arguments, gratuitous speed.

General beliefs:

1. Being condo probably hurts the neg more than if helps

2. Textual competition is not a thing

3. Parli is aff biased

4. Education and Fairness are arbitrary

5. Performance is cool

6. Framework makes the game work

Experience -

I debated for 5 years in Parliamentary, Policy, and Lincoln Douglas. I began in 8th grade in Parliamentary placing 3rd at nationals, then did Policy in 9th, LD 10th-12th, and Parli again 11-12th. I competed at NFL Nationals as a sophomore in LD, and placed at countless tournaments, so I've seen a lot.

I have judged a bit over a dozen tournaments, and I have assisted in judging and coaching at my high school and middle school as an alum in all three of these types of debate as well as Public Forum and many speech events. I've never posted a judging paradigm, but here it is now!

I'm a senior in college, so it hasn't been that long since I was the debater. I think each round dictates what to vote for, and I want you to highlight your voters clearly especially if you're spreading because I can flow just fine, but it will take me a lot longer to decide, and I might miss something important if you don't tell me why I'm voting. Don't drop points, but if someone drops your point, that's not an automatic voter, tell me why it's important/crucial/the end of the world because of this.

Kritiks are fine as long as you explain them well. Contradictory stuff is risky if you're opponent calls you out, so be careful. I won't just vote you down if your opponent says your points are contradictory, but if they can turn it into a major voter, then I will.

I like to be somewhat entertained, and I tend to give highish speaker points because I would always get pissed when judges gave me low ones, but I've had debaters say I'm ridiculously high or ridiculously low with those.

Don't hate me if I vote you down. I'm really not a bad person. If you think I missed your main point or whatever, that's just how it goes. I know what I'm doing, and I stick to my decision. 

Experienced debate judge.  Did some policy in high school.  Considered a lay judge.  Any Questions, just ask.

Im open to vote for anything. I flow cross ex and I dont always vote for argument just because they are dropped. Team with bigger impact calculus usally wins for me.

LAMDL Program Director (2015 - Present)
UC Berkeley Undergrad (non-debating) & BAUDL Policy Debate Coach (2011-2015)
LAMDL Policy Debater (2008 - 2011)

Speech Docs: Include me on the email chain: jfloresdebate@gmail.com*

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

*I only check the above email during tournaments, if you're trying to get in touch with me for anything outside of speech doc email chains, my main work email is joseph@lamdl.org.

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

TL;DR Do what you do best. I evaluate you on how well you execute your arguments, not on your choice of argument.

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

I believe debate is a space that is shaped and defined by the debaters, and as a judge my only role to evaluate what you put in front of me. There is generally no argument I won't consider, with the exception of arguments that are intentionally educationally bankrupt. I generally lean in favor of more inclusive frameworks, but do still believe the debate should be focused on debatable issues. Regardless of the framework you provide, I need offensive reasons to vote for you.

Most of my work nowadays is in the back end of tournaments, and this implicates how I judge somewhat. I might not be privy to your trickier strategies. Feel free to use them, but know if I do not catch it on my flow, it will not count.

I'm a better judge for rounds with fewer and more in-depth arguments compared to rounds where you throw out a lot of small blippy arguments that you blow up late in the debate. My issue with the latter isn't the speed (speed is fine), rather I'm less likely to vote for underdeveloped arguments. Generally, the team that takes the time to provide better explanations, applications, and warrants will win the debate for me. The team with more complete arguments (claim, warrant, evidence) will will get ahead for me more often than not as long as you also instruct me on the significance of those arguments to the round.

This includes dropped arguments. I still need these to be explained, applied, and weighed for you to get anything out of it - I won't do the work for you when it comes to weighing anything.

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

Feel free to read your non traditional Aff, but be prepared to defend why it is relevant to the topic (either in the direction of it or in response/criticism of it), and why it is a debatable issue. Feel free to read your procedurals, but be prepared to weigh and sequence your standards against the specifics of the case in the round. Either way, I'll evaluate it and whether or not I vote in your direction will come down to execution in the round. I've voted for and against both K Affs and Framework. Articulate the internal links to your impacts for them to be weighed as heavily as you want.

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

Speaker Points: I don't disclose speaker points. I don't give 30s because you tell me to for an argument.

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

Engage your opponents. Avoid being rude and/or disrespectful.

If you have specific questions about specific arguments let me know.

If email chains needed: forrestfulgenzi [at] gmail [dot] com, please format the subject as: "Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School AF vs Neg School NG"

Background: Debated policy debate for four years at Damien High School and currently the head coach over at OES. Have been involved in the debate community for 10+ years teaching LD and Policy Debate.

General thoughts:

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

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

Be smart. I rather hear great analytical arguments than terrible cards.

Overall, I'm open to any arguments - feel free to run whatever you'd like!

Who I am:
My name is Sohin Gautam and I debated at the University of Kentucky
High School: Westwood HS (Tx) and McNeil HS (Tx)

UK TOC Silver PF (4-20-2017):

I debated policy for 8 years for University of Kentucky ending my junior year in the quarterfinals of the NDT. I coach policy and pf debate for Westwood High School.

Paradigm:

1. If you do not extend impacts, I cannot evaluate your argument. Warrants do not matter if you do not impact them. With that in mind, you have to WEIGH your impact.

2. Terminal defense extensions are cool with me. I do not believe the second rebuttal must cover the first rebuttal, however you can’t read new cards in second summary (so if you want to read a card responding to 1st rebuttal, do that in 2nd rebuttal).

3. Speed is fine, be clear. If i can't understand you, I will shout, "clear," and if you're still unclear I will stop flowing you. 

4. Open to any argument – if you wrote a kritik or theory shell for this topic, this is the round to read it!!

5. Big picture not line by line in summary and final focus.

6. SPEAKS: you will get higher speaks if you do the following:

            - you don’t take 3904820934 hours to hand your opponents evidence

            - you are not rude and annoying in cross fire

            - you extend both the author and the argument

            - your sources are all peer reviewed and come from reputable organizations!

How I Judge:

Primer: I don't have a presumption to either the Kritik or Policy sides, I generally did both in College and enjoy watching either type of debate. I evaluate a round based on the 2AR and 2NR and work my ways backward, using my flow and your evidence to figure out what just happened. I try not to read a ton of evidence, my brightline being a clear warrant extended with the author, and then deciding relevance (e.g. if i decide a CP isn't competitive for x reason then I am more likely to find it unnecessary to read the Net Benefit's cards). 

Specifics:

Topicality:
I love T, it's by far the most underrated tool the negative has.  I have NOT judged a lot on this topic, so I'm not sure what are the main arguments on T. Having said that, here is how I evaluate T debates: First things first, if you're going for T, go for T I'm not going to vote on 15 seconds of T in the 2NR, spend the necessary minutes on it closing doors and extending warrants. Otherwise I'm going to be heavily leaning AFF on T.

I err towards competing interpretations, if the AFF doesnt contest this I will use competing interpretations to decide the debate. Limits and Ground are usually all people say--nobody ever talks about precision and grammar and resolutional integrity (let alone ever impacts these things) and the more impact analysis in the 2nr/2ar the better ("their interpretation destroys fairness because x"). Extra T and FX-T can be independent voters I guess, but more often than not I'm going to view it as a DA to the AFF interp. I'm generally not a fan of the stupid T arguments, I don't think anybody specs their A anymore so get over it. OSPEC really doesnt make sense (they are spotting you ALL the counterplan ground...how dare they). 

The Kritik:
I'm game. You're not going to perplex me with a storm of Baudrillard and D and G because at some point you have to make an argument and I can evaluate that. I'm also interested in the alternative, not necessarily what it practically does (i really don't care) but how it resolves the link debate. AFF teams are encouraged to make vauge alt arguments to keep the NEG in check. K impacts usually fall by the wayside, but it's very helpful to have something external to weigh, so i'm not just voting on a giant case turn, a giant case turn + no value to life/ZPH/Foucault '76 is much better for your chances.

Aff Framework:
Do it. against a K make them win their impact is bigger than yours, or even that their K should be in the debate at all. If you're going for FW then it needs to be a big part of 1ar/2ar strategy otherwise I'm going to lean negative on it.

the Kritik AFF:
this means any aff that doesnt read a plan, reads a plan but "doesn't defend it", any aff that affirms as a mobius strip, any aff that does something "different" than reading a plan with nuke war implications based on the rez. I don't care if you don't have a plan, I'm not going to sign my ballot and walk out of the room if your 1ac has no plantext defending instrumental USFG action. Do your stuff, i'm fine with it. 

CPs:

I don't care...if you read one CP that solves everything, fantastic, if you read 3 CPs that solve different amounts of the aff, fanstastic. It's up to the AFF to tell me why the NEG shouldn't be able to do that. 


DAs

please and thank you. Bonus points for warranted internal link extensions/take outs--most DA debates lack internal link analysis, and that's where DAs are the weakest. 

Random other thoughts:
-drop advantages = drop disadvantages
-2NC answering dropped 1ac advantages is okay because of a CX...in the 1nr it's not okay. Generally avoid reading new offense in the 1NR
-add-ons are fantastic things
-2NC CPs are justifiable
-2NC CP amendments justifiable
-I'm not sure what the speaker point scale if its .5 to 30 than i average a 27.5 with 29-30 being outround quality-->first speaker
-be nice, be funny

INCLUDE IN EMAIL CHAIN! Ggonzalez0730@gmail.com

Experience:

CSUF policy debate 5yrs (2010-2016)

The Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League 2yrs (2008-2010)

Currently: Coach and Program Manager for The Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League

I engaged and debated different types of literature: critical theory (anti-blackness and settler colonialism) and policy-oriented arguments during my early years of debate. I am not very particular about any type of argument. I think that in order to have a good debate in front of me you have to engage and understand what the other team is saying.

My experience in college debate and working with UDLs has taught me that any argument has the ability to or Critical arguments. All of them have a pedagogical value. It’s your job as the debater to prove to me why yours is a viable strategy or why your arguments are best. Prove to me why it matters. If you choose to go for framework or the politics DA, then justify that decision. I don’t really care if you go for what you think I like and if you are losing that argument then it would probably annoy me. Just do you.

Framework vs. Plan less or vague affirmatives

As a critical affirmative, please tell me what the affirmative does. What does the affirmative do about its impacts? If you are going for a structural impact, then please tell me how your method will alleviate that either for the world, debate, or something. I don’t want to be left thinking what does that affirmative does at the end of the 2ar because I will more likely than not vote negative.

I don’t mind framework as long as you can prove to me why the method that you offer for the debate, world, policy, etc. is crucial. Please explain how you solve for "x" harm or the squo goes. I promise you this will do wonders for you in front of me. I will not be doing the work for you or any of the internals for you. As long as your argument has a claim, warrant, and evidence that is clear, then what I personally believe is meh. You either win the debate based on the flow or nah.

Seems rudimental but debaters forget to do this during speeches.

Clarity

If I can't understand what you're saying when you are speaking, then I'll yell out "clear" and after the second time I yell out clear then I won't flow what I can't understand. I will also reduce your speaker points. I tend to have facial expressions during rounds. If you catch me squinting, then it is probably because I can’t understand what you are saying. Just slow down if that helps.

DA+ Counter Plans

Cp have to have a net benefit.

I need specific impact scenarios--just saying hegemony, racism, global warming, and nuclear war does not win the ballot please explain how we get to that point. I really like when a 2AR gives a good explanation of how the aff solves or how the affirmative triggers the impact.

Make sure to articulate most parts of the DA. just bc you have a big impact that doesn't mean much for me please explain how it relates to the affirmative especially in the rebuttal. impact comparisons are pretty good too.

Theory debates

Not my strong point, but if you are going for this which I understand the strategic reasoning behind this, then explain the "why its bad that X thing" and how that should outweigh anything else. Also, slow down during these debates especially on the interpretation.

Speaker Quirks to watch out for:

Being too dominant in a partnership. Have faith that your partner is capable of responding and asking questions during CX. If you see them struggling, then I am not opposed to you stepping in but at least give them a chance.

Lincoln Douglas

For the most part, my paradigm applies to much of the args made in this sector of the activity a couple of things that you should mindful of when you have me as a judge:

1) I appreciate disclosure, but any theory args that are made about disclosure I don't appreciate, especially if I wasn't in the room to make sure neg/aff accusation are actually being saiD. If I'm not in the room its just a case of "they said I said." If you have it in writing, then I guess I can appreciate your arg more. I would still vote on it, but its not a decision I am happy about.

2) Time: LD leaves a lot of unresolved problems for me as a judge. Please make sure:

aff with plan text *make sure to not forget about the plan solvency mechanism and how you solve for your harms. this should be throughout the debate but especially in the last speeches. I understand there is an issue of time but at least 30 sec of explaining aff mechanisms.

sympathetic towards time constraints but be strategic and mindful of where to spend the most time in the debate. Ex: if you are too focused on the impact when the impact is already established then this is time badly spent.

Negative:

If you are concerned with the affirmative making new arguments in the 2AR have a blip that asks judges not evaluate. Because of the time (6 vs 3min), I am usually left with lots of unresolved issues so I tend to filter the debate in a way that holistically makes sense to me.

DA (Reify and clarify the LINK debate and not just be impact heavy)

T ( make sure to impact out and warrant education and fairness claims)

"I believe that debate is an activity where the boundaries are defined its participants. This means that I am open to hear whatever kind of debate you want. If you wish to innovate new radical approaches to debate, I am open to hear them. If you wish to have a more traditional debate I am open to hear that as well. It is important for me that you situate my space in the debate. This means that if you want me to decide the debate by comparing the size of your impacts you should say it, and if you wish for me to take a different approach you should make that explicit. Despite my attempt to allow the debaters to control the direction of the debate no one is a truly blank slate, I do have some debate dogmas. I will try hard to make them obvious here, and if there is any confusion feel free to ask me.

You only get credit for arguments that I have on my flow. If you are difficult to understand, and I miss something, that is YOUR fault. 

I prefer debates where there are a smaller number of well developed arguments as opposed to debates with 11 off. This does not mean that you have to read slowly, it just means develop your arguments, and make the block small and deep, In general the team with the better explained, better developed arguments will win the debate.

While I encourage debaters to find new, innovative ways to affirm the topic, this is not carte blanch to say anything you want. The topic is important, and as intellectuals, compettitors, and activists we have an obligation to find something related to it to affirm. This does not mean that I am excited about hearing T debates. In general I lean aff on T and will let the Aff do their thing as long as it is germane to the topic, and debatable. In sum, feel free to read your non traditional Aff, but be prepared to explain why it is relevant to the topic, and why it is a debatable issue. I believe that voting Aff is an affirmation of the resolution. You can affirm the resolution in any way that you choose (as long as you can defend it, and it is debateable), but in the end of the day, voting Aff means that I am saying yes to some version/interpretation of the resolution. While I am open to all sorts of Affs, the one kind of Aff that will make me lean Neg on Framework/T questions is an Aff that says that the resolution is bad, or totally eschews any semblance of a connection to the resolution. This doesn’t mean that you have to fiat anything, or pretend to be the federal government, but if you don’t want to defend those things you should explain what you think the resolution means, and defend it.

Be prepared to debate the framework. I generally don’t like debates that are entirely about this, but it can be an important element of a debate. It’s alright to kritik someone’s approach to the debate, but be prepared to describe what your alternative approach is and why it is better.

Slow down on theory. If I miss something because you are blazing through a block with reckless abandon, you won't get credit for it. I tend to lean negative on CP theory, and if a theory issue can be resolved by rejecting the argument instead of deciding the entire debate on it, I will try to do so. 

Don’t just assume that I have read the critical theory that you are debating. I used to read the k all the time but I don’t spend all day reading it now. YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO EXPLAIN YOUR ARGUMENTS! This applies to kritiks as well as other policy based arguments. I won’t vote on an argument that you win but I don’t understand, and I won't be embarrassed or feel any regret about telling you that I don't understand your argument, as this is evidence of your failure to clearly explain your argument, and not evidence of my inability to comprehend sensible arguments."

TLDR VERSION

I've been around a long time. I've seen a lot of conventional wisdom come and go. I don't always agree with the consensus of the moment. Be fast, be clear, read a K and/or a counterplan.

Remote Debates:

I flow on paper and actually make an effort to watch you and listen to the words you are saying. It's hard to give speaker points to a glowing dot, so turn on your camera when speaking if possible. I will not follow the speech doc as you are talking, so be clear.

Want to be on the email chain? - Yes, but know that I won't look at the docs until the debate is over.

Please send docs to: samhaleyhill@gmail.com

Speed? - Yes

Open CX? - Sure, but if you aren't involved somewhat, your speaker points suffer.

When does prep time stop? - When you cease to alter your speech doc and to talk about the debate with your partner.

Judge Disclosure - Unless the tournament has some terrible counter-educational policy preventing it (looking at you, NCFL).

Can I read (X argument)? Yes, if it's not offensive.

T? - Reasonability (whew - really feels good to be honest there)

Will you vote on disclosure theory? - No. Disclosure is a good community norm which I support, but I do not think ballots can or should enforce this norm. The exception would be if you can prove that someone straight up lied to you.

Tech over truth? - Yes, but I think people often take this way too far.

FULL VERSION

Biography

Years Judging: 16
Years Debated: 4

I debated for four years in high school for Nevada Union (1998-2002) during which time I made two TOC appearances. I did not debate for Berkeley during my time there, but I was an assistant coach for the College Preparatory School from 2002-2006. After that, I was off the circuit for a few years because I moved to Hong Kong for a year and then went to graduate school. 2010-2011 was my first year back. I worked for New Trier for a year after that and at Nevada Union from 2011-2012. After that I went back to CPS for three more years. I then spent four years running the program at St. Francis. I now work with the Washington Urban Debate League. I have judged a lot for a long time.

Tech Over Truth - This is not dogma

I think that the phrase "tech over truth" is just as vacuous as its inverse, "truth over tech." I honestly have no idea what either of these slogans is trying to say, but I do know that people who repeat either of them incessantly tend to make decisions that I don't get.

"Tech" is just as subjective as "truth" because whether someone's embedded clash has answered something, whether an argument has a warrant, whether someone has explained something enough to have extended it, etc. are all judgement calls at some level anyhow.

I think that dropped arguments are conceded. I think that I should refrain from dismissing arguments that I don't agree with. I think that arguments which I think are bad should still win the debate if the debater advancing them has argued better than the opponent. I guess that's tech over truth?

At the same time, I am the kind of judge who thinks that one compelling, well-developed argument can be more important than three specious, underdeveloped ones. I don't think that the concession of a less significant argument necessarily outweighs a more significant argument that is won despite contestation. Is that truth over tech? Is this whole tech vs. truth binary kind of pointless?

My bumper sticker slogan would be something like: "Analysis over blips."

Speaker Points - No, you can't have a 30.

It used to go without saying that I award speaker points solely based on how well I feel the debaters performed in each round. These days, it seems that I need to say that I will continue to do this regardless of what anyone else does and regardless of what debaters tell me to do during the debate.

I think that there's a performative/communicative aspect to this activity. Speak persuasively and your points will improve.

Try to be nice.

Judge Disclosure - I do it.

I'll disclose my decision and talk about the round with you in depth afterwards. I remember getting a lot out of post-round discussions when I was a debater, and I hope I can pass something along. If your analytics are in your speech docs for my later reference, I'll even give you my flows.

Speed - Go ahead, but be clear

I can flow any rate of delivery.

Lately, someone out there has been telling high school debaters to slow down and emphasize tags. Stop it, whoever you are. This advice implies that I don't care about the text of the card. In fact, I care about how you tagged the card far, far less than I care about what the text of the card actually says. When you slow down for the tag, but slosh unintelligibly through the card, you are implying that I can't understand high speed and that the actual card text is a mere formality. If this is so, you may as well just paraphrase the card like a PF debater.

Believe it or not, I actually can understand your card at high speeds if you read it clearly. I'm actually flowing what the card says. Often as not, I won't flow your (often misleading) tag at all.

I'll yell "clear" at you if you're not being clear. I'll do this twice before putting my pen down and pointedly glaring at you.

Line By Line - Please and Thank You

I'll look at evidence, sure, but I will be grumpy if you make me sort out a huge rat's nest of implied and unexplained clash for you. I am a believer in directly responsive line-by-line debate. I think that explaining warrants is good, but comparing warrants is better.

Framework - Can't we all just get along?

I am one of the last folks out there who won't take a side. I vote neg on framework sometimes; I vote aff on framework sometimes. I think framework debates are kind of fundamental to the activity. I'm up for any kind of argument. I love a good K debate, but I'm equally pleased to adjudicate a game of competing policy options. Run what you love. In my heart, I probably don't care if there's a plan text, but I'll vote for theory arguments demanding one if the better debating is done on that side. Please don't read offensive/amoral arguments.

Conditionality - Yeah, sure, whatever

I think one or two conditional CP's and a K is just fine. You can win a debate on conditionality being more permissive than that or being bad altogether. I won't intervene.

T - I am different from the folks at Michigan

I think that winning complete or nearly complete defense on T is sufficient for the aff even in a world of competing interpretations. If the aff meets, they meet. I'm unlikely to give this RFD: "Even though you're winning a we meet, the neg interpretation is better, so any risk that you don't meet etc etc." Ever since someone told me back in 1999 that T should be evaluated like a DA, I have not agreed. It's a procedural issue, not a predictive claim about the consequences of implementing a policy. As such, I evaluate T procedurally. Whether or not the aff meets is a binary question, not a linear risk.

I think sometimes people think that "competing interpretations" means "the smallest interpretation should win." To me, smallest is not necessarily best. Sure, limits are a big deal, but there is such a thing as over-limiting. There are also other concerns that aren't limits per se, like education, ground, and predictability.

I can be persuaded otherwise in a debate, but I think we should evaluate T through the lens of reasonability.

Open Cross Ex - Yeah

Just make sure that you're involved somewhat or I'll hammer your speaks.

Disclosure theory

Stop it. People choose to disclose as a courtesy. It is not and should not be a requirement. I tell all my teams to disclose. I think you should disclose. If you choose not to, so be it.

If you make a disclosure theory argument, I will ignore you until you move on to something else. I will never vote on a disclosure theory argument, even if it is not answered.

I always find it sadly hilarious when big, brand-name programs tell me that disclosure is good for small schools. It most definitely is not. The more pre-round prep becomes possible, the more that coaching resources can be leveraged to influence debates. That's why the most well-resourced programs tend to be the most aggressive about disclosure theory.

New Affs

New affs are fine. I will not consider arguments which object to them, even if the aff team never answers such arguments.

John Hines
DOD at Head Royce
20+ Years Judging/Coaching

UPDATE--1/2/24

Commencing old man ranting at clouds:

So, it appears my addendum from 6 years ago was just marking the beginning of the end of line-by-line debate.

After returning from a four-year hiatus, I discovered last year that flowing and line-by-line debating are essentially a thing of the past that current debaters don't even really realize they aren't actually doing.

I blame the judges who started flowing directly from the speech docs and decided they no longer needed to hold debaters accountable for what actually came out of their mouths.

So, we now have a community of JUDGES who never actually learned how to flow or debate line by line, either.

This creates a fundamental problem for me. I have no idea how to evaluate debates when everyone else in the room is just reading and responding to the speech docs without knowing whether the judge who actually listens and flows is getting things down on the flow where they belong.

I honestly have no idea how judges today decide debates fairly and objectively based on what was actually said in the debate.

So, I'll summarize everything else below very simply here:

If you don't flow, I probably won't vote for you.

If you don't debate line-by-line, I probably won't vote for you.

If you don't care whether I'm trying to flow the words coming out of your mouth, I probably won't vote for you.

If neither you nor your opponent flows or debates line by line, I will be forced to vote for somebody, but I will have ZERO TOLERANCE for someone who didn't flow or debate off the flow, post-rounding me for why I didn't vote theway they wanted me to vote.

Addendum--10/15/17

Line-by-line debate is actually a thing. It's a skill not a referendum on you as a person or what I think about your arguments. It's a method of clash that allows judges to decide rounds with minimum intervention on their part. If your approach to debating line-by-line includes extensive overviews, "cloud clash," and requests for me to pull out new sheets of paper I am probably not a very good judge for you. I will do my best to evaluate the round in front of me, but if you chose to abandon the line by line please know that you have asked me to insert my subjective views of debate into the round and you are not likely to be happy with the outcome.


Standard philosophy begins here:
Rather than list off a series of personal beliefs about arguments, an explanation of how I decide debates seems more productive. Three keys to debating well in front of me:

1. Make Arguments. I tend to decide debates within 20 minutes of the end of the round. I will call for VERY few cards after the debate as I prefer to make my decision based upon what you argued in the last rebuttals rather than what I think about the quality of your cards. I will not re-read every card read in the debate. I will not read portions of evidence not read in the round by debaters. I will not read cards handed to me that were not extended in the last two rebuttals. I will resolve arguments consisting of disputes over interpretation of warrants in evidence by reading those cards. I will make sure arguments extended in the last two rebuttals can be traced back across the flow to the point they originated. I will make sure cards handed to me were extended properly during the debate before reading them. I will keep a careful flow of the debate and will do my best to vote based upon warranted arguments extended throughout the debate. Your job is to speak clearly and coherently and to dispute the warrants within your opponents’ arguments with analysis and evidence.

2. Make Choices. Most debates come down to a couple of key issues which need to be resolved by me; awareness of these nexus issues and the ability to clarify how they should be resolved is the key to your success. Does the perm on the CP avoid the links to the net-benefits? Does the solvency deficit to the counter-plan outweigh the net-benefits? Who controls the question of uniqueness (both at the link and impact level)? Can the alternative to the criticism function simultaneously with the plan? I prefer to intervene as little as humanly possible. Your ability to accurately frame the nexus issues of the debate for me will reduce the need for me to resolve these questions for you and make me a much happier judge.

3. Don’t be a Jerk. As Ed Lee of Emory says in his most recent Judge Philosophy--"Respect is non-negotiable for me". I work VERY HARD as a judge. I flow on paper, I generally keep my computer closed the entire debate and I try to pay very close attention to everything you say. I spend time constructing my post-round discussion to be clear, concise, and educational. I do not take kindly to debaters or coaches who wish to interrupt and argue with me before I've reached the conclusion of my RFD. I promise to give you plenty of time to ask productive follow-up questions. Lately, I've become even more concerned with in-round comity. Rudeness and snide remarks during cross-ex, insulting the intelligence and goodwill of the other team, and other derisive and insulting behavior towards opponents will not be tolerated. To once again quote Ed - "If you are engaging your opponent in a way that you would not if you were in front of one of your professors [teachers] or the president of your university [principal/head of school] then you should not do it in front of me." I love seeing passionate engagement with argument, but quickly become physically uncomfortable when passion turns into hostility. If you are confused as to where this line resides watch my non-verbals...it will be very obvious.

Finally, on the question of "What kinds of arguments do you prefer" I'll answer by agreeing with Jarrod Atchison on the importance of FLEXIBILITY as a debater. To quote his ballot from a recent NDT final round "Debater flex is the past, present, and the future":

Jarrod ATCHISON, Director of Debate and Assistant Professor of Speech and Drama at Trinity University (Incoming DOF at Wake Forrest), 2008
[Judge Ballot from the Final Round of the 2008 National Debate Tournament, Available Online at http://groups.wfu.edu/NDT/Results/JudgesBallots2008final.htm, Accessed 03-16-2010]

7. Debater Flex is the wave of the future: I would have loved to have been a part of the Dartmouth coaching staff and squad when they were brainstorming a negative strategy for this debate. Although they had an extremely limited amount of time, they had two fantastic debaters in Josh and Kade that could execute a wide range of arguments leaving no option unavailable. In this debate, they had two case specific counterplans, a well developed kritik, two topicality arguments, etc…This debate reminded me that debaters who self identify as “policy” or “kritik” are missing out on a wide range of ways to win. Forget the labels, just think of everything as an argument. Some arguments require more understanding than others, but they are just arguments. If you want to be able to take on a new high tech aff with less than 45 minutes of prep before the final round of the NDT, the last thing that you want to tell your coach/partner is “I can’t argue __.” Debater flex is the past, present, and the future and I hope that students will see Josh and Kade’s 1NC as an example of how important it is to be versatile.

Email for email chains: pablojacobo8899@gmail.com

Background: I did 3 years of High School Policy Debate for the Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League (LAMDL). I did some coaching here and there for the first 2 years of my undergraduate studies, mostly focusing on Kritiks and K-Affs.

I graduated from UCLA with a degree in History in 2020, have been judging sporadically ever since. I have judged a few LD debates but most of my knowledge lies in Policy Debate.

I tend to favor k debates when done correctly since they are more engaging for me but I’m not afraid to vote on framework or T - really just depends on how the arguments are structured throughout the debate.

Feel free to run whatever you want in front of me, I have no reservations or biases against any style or manner of debate - I won’t do the work for you however, so please be direct and specific when going over your arguments.

For technical stuff: Tag team cross-x is fine, I won’t take your time if you have technical difficulties (within reasonable limits, if your computer literally melted and won’t function for longer than 15 minutes then it’s an issue). I won’t take time for flashing files via usb or emailing.

Basically, just have fun so we can all enjoy a great debate.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Lopez%2C+Luz 

Lindsey Mahomes

Greenhill School '14

Pomona College '18

I debated in high school (policy); I do not debate in college. I am not familiar with the current high school topic, so keep this in mind if you're into using a lot of obscure acronyms or other specific language.

TL;DR: A straight up aff and CPs/DAs are probably your safest bet, but other stuff is okay, too. Clarity is the key to good speaks. Ask me if you have specific questions. 

Long Version: 

CPs - Good stuff. I think creative (and sometimes slightly cheating) CPs are fun, especially when they're specific to an aff mechanism or advantage. However, this doesn't mean I won't vote aff on theory or an equally creative permutation.

DAs - Good stuff. Borrowed (with permission) from Jules (Julia Goldman): "Aff-specific links and external impacts are key here. Impact framing is key and I think a strong DA paired with an advantage CP and some case defense is a great strategy."

Topicality - I tend to be pretty persuaded by reasonability arguments (given my background in debate, this should kinda make sense). I also tend to believe topicality is a check on the topic, to get rid of completely unrelated affs, rather than a strategy in and of itself (e.g. I feel an aff should lose if there are legitimate reasons they're untopical, not just because the neg found some obscure definition or loophole). If you decide to make it your 2NR, a good abuse story will go a long way, as will a clear explanation of what your vision of the topic looks like.

K's - I did not/do not read critical literature, but am fine to listen to these arguments (although I'm clearly not the ideal judge for these). I'd prefer a CP/DA debate, especially if your strategy is to read a really generic K and pretend it's relevant to the aff; the opposite is mostly true (specific K > random consult Texas CP with sketchy/nonexistent net benefit about secession or something). I've always felt like kritik solvency is at best questionable, so you'll need to explain to me why I should vote for you in the face of the aff impacts (explain why you outweigh, turn, or can account for their impacts). Avoid grouping arguments at random (you do this more often than you think) when answering and try to be as specific as possible (e.g. take the time to answer the perms individually; this will make me less sympathetic to 1ARs who try to wiggle their way out of your offense). Note that I will be flowing on paper for the foreseeable future; it will only benefit you if my flow is as organized as possible.

K Aff's - willing to listen to these and find them interesting, but generally very persuaded by arguments about why defending hypothetical plan implementation is good/necessary. (Again, consider my debate background).

Theory - No super strong/ingrained views here, but unless you've got reasons for why they're doing something especially unreasonable, I'm unlikely to pull the trigger on, say, one conditional counterplan. Otherwise, convince me that what you did was legitimate (or that what the other team was illegitimate). Try to mold your arguments to the context of the debate (e.g. even if international fiat is generally bad, explain why your specific CP makes sense or is predictable).

Speaking - speed is fine, just be clear. If I need to say "slower" or "clearer," I will. Don't be rude, racist, sexist, etc. Ways to get good speaks: clarity (primarily in speech, but also in argumentation), humor, making smart and/or nuanced arguments, not being useless in the debate, etc.

Random things:

Whatever you decide to argue, be persuasive about it.

Specificity is always good, but use what you've got. If your evidence is generic, smart (analytical) arguments about why it could/does apply to your opponent's arguments are valid and can/will beat better evidence.

I'd like to not read evidence after a debate, if at all possible.

I generally think SPEC arguments and other arguments of that variety are silly and a waste of your time and mine.

I tend to be more reactionary than not. If I think an argument is silly or doesn't make sense, I'll probably give you a weird look to let you know I'm not with you. Having said that, it's also possible you just reminded me of something funny.

Bonus: As a reward for reading all the way through this mediocre/silly philosophy (or wisely skipping to the bottom), I offer you the following: mention a (good/clever/creative) pun somewhere in the debate (during speech or CX time) for an extra .1 speaks.

It's inevitable I left something you think is important out of this philosophy, but, hey, I tried my best; ask me if you have questions/additional concerns. 

tl;dr yeah, you can go fast

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain: jrmartin707@gmail.com

--

Debated in college for UC Berkeley, have coached high school and college teams at local and TOC levels, etc. Doing a bit of occasional coaching and judging now but I'm not plugged into the circuit hardcore; you should assume I'm familiar with everything argumentatively/stylistically and very little on the topic. Generally, same stuff everyone says: debate like you want to debate, explain things and impact them, tell me why you winning or losing an argument does or does not influence my decision, and have fun. Otherwise, here’s some things you probably want to know:

- My own argumentative evolution has been from a pretty exclusively K debater early on to almost all policy work by the end, though I've coached all kinds. For what it’s worth, if you need an easy way to rank me, I lean more and more towards enjoying straight-up policy debates the more I judge. It's tough to disentangle "what are you a good judge for" and "what are you gonna have more fun watching" sometimes, even though they're definitely different, so I'm just gonna be honest and say that if you have no good reason to pick the K or the DA or which of your affs you're gonna read, might as well read the policy one. My favorite debates to judge are: huge in-depth case throwdowns, techy aff-specific counterplan debates, K on K clashes that are grounded in true disputes in the literature, impact turn debates (on the case or against a DA/K), and well-executed topicality debates.

- I do fundamentally believe that framework is true and debate would be better if people read plans, not that that means I exclusively vote negative in those debates. Predictability and debatability sound like pretty important things to me, and I think most aff framework counter-interps do not develop a feasible role for the negative and what neg prep should look like in their version of debate, but that doesn't mean any given neg team executes properly. I think like most everyone I’d rather here some clever unique strategy, but I dislike the dichotomy that framework isn’t a “substantive” argument and that the negative “didn’t engage the aff” by reading it. It's a good argument. The best aff answers lay out really clear alternatives for what debate should look like and impact turn all the skills that policy-focused debate generates.

- I’m generally unpersuaded by arguments along the lines of “the permutation/framework/etc. is violence/stealing our advocacy/etc.”, arguments that the negative doesn’t have to disprove the affirmative, purely nihilistic alternatives, and K speeches that consist entirely of buzzwords where you expect me to fill in what I already know about your concepts. I’m not afraid to give decisions which consist mostly of “I have no idea what you were talking about most of the time” if you just repeated the words “rhizome” or “foundational antagonism” at me, even if I know what you were trying to mean. Additionally, I'm super not down with arguments that are about things outside of the debate, like "show us your prefs" style stuff. I think the other team needs like a ten second defense of "you can only critique stuff we actually said" and I'm checked out.

- I have relatively few strong predispositions about common theory arguments; conditionality is probably fine but not necessarily, etc. I'll be extremely flow-centric here: I have absolutely voted for really bad theory args that got dropped, and also refused to vote for dropped ones when they were never a full argument with an impact in the first place.

- Evidence comparison, and calling out your opponent’s terrible, terrible evidence for what it is, is both extremely important and probably the best way to rack up your speaker points, alongside detailed impact calculus. The best ways to hurt your speaker points are to be a jerk to your partner, to get angry for no reason in cross-ex, and to spend your whole speech behind your laptop not paying any attention to the judge's reactions. Try to be a kind person who knows their stuff and the rest will follow.

- Because so many debates start with the question, "Can we do open CX?", the answer is always the same: you can, technically, there's no rule against it. But I would really recommend you don't - it's always better to get practice handling your CXs alone, going to your partner only as a last resort. It's important that they have the time to prep their next speech (that's three full minutes of free prep time!) and it's also much better for both of your speaker points if you each look organized and have mastery of your material.

Debated at Glenbrook North a long time ago (Military, Space, Transportation, Latin America topics). PhD student at Harvard.

I wrote the following the last time I judged (many years ago) and most of it is still true. Most important changes now:

- Slow down just a bit and explain yourself. It's been a while...

- Don't know details of the topic, what sorts of arguments have been perceived as "core of the topic" or "mainstream", etc.

- Explain yourself. I don't want to substitute my understanding for yours.

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

Debate is a technical, competitive game. You debate; I judge and choose one team who did the better debating. I will vote on any argument that I have flowed and will evaluate the debate through whatever lens you tell me to in a manner which requires the least intervention.

I believe that I judge very differently than how I debated. Take that however you want to.

Most arguments are dumb, so I don’t really care what you say whether it’s disad and case, aspec, or D and G. It’s your job to make arguments and my job to evaluate them.

Evidence supports arguments; it doesn’t make them for you. You also don’t need evidence to win an argument.

Be clear. Hearing the text of cards would be nice too…

My preference on arguments: Disads—I’ve yet to meet someone who didn’t like them. Counterplans are good, unless you the negative shouldn’t get fiat. Topicality might be good or biopolitical. Same goes for framework. Politics is stupid in more ways than one, but if that’s your thing, go ahead because it always seems to work. Kritiks are interesting, but remember that they should be reasons to vote for you, not rants on philosophy. Theory? No counterplans or 20 conditional consult counterplans is totally up to you.

Speaker points are obviously arbitrary. They will be based on your respect for others, speaking style, argumentative talent, overall demeanor, demonstration of knowledge, evidence quality, creativity, argumentative choice, and various other arbitrary factors (in no particular order). While the way I vote is entirely dependent on what you say, I have a bit more control of speaker points. You’ll be rewarded if you go for an interesting or uncommon argument.

Cheating: don’t.

Toni Nielson

Co-Director of Debate, Fullerton College (2017 - forever I suspect)

Executive Director - Bay Area Urban Debate League (2013-2017)
Co-Director of Debate at CSU, Fullerton for 7 years (2005-2012)
Debated in College for 5 years
Debated in High School for 3 years
Rounds on the Topic: less than 5

Email Chain: commftownnielson@gmail.com

I just want to see you do what you are good at. I like any debater who convinces me the know what they are talking about.

Here’s what I think helps make a debater successful –

1. Details: evidence and analytics, aff and neg – the threshold for being as specific as humanly possible about your arg and opponent's arg remains the same; details demonstrate knowledge
2. Direct organized refutation: Answer the other team and don’t make me guess about it – I hate guessing because it feels like intervention. I'm trying to let the debaters have the debate.
3. Debating at a reasonable pace: I ain’t the quickest flow in the west, even when I was at my best which was a while ago. I intend on voting for arguments which draw considerable debates and not on voting for arguments that were a 15 seconds of a speech. If one team concedes an argument, it still has to be an important and relevant argument to be a round winner.
4. Framing: tell me how you want me to see the round and why I shouldn’t see it your opponents way
5. Comparison: you aren’t debating in a vacuum – see your weakness & strengths in the debate and compare those to your opponent. I love when debaters know what they are losing and deal with it in a sophisticated way.

Some style notes - I like to hear the internals of evidence so either slow down a little or be clear. I flow CX, but I do this for my own edification so if you want an arg you still have to make it in a speech. I often don't get the authors name the first time you read the ev. I figure if the card is an important extension you will say the name again (in the block or rebuttals) so I know what ev you are talking about. I rarely read a bunch of cards at the end of the debate.

Now you are asking,
Can I read an aff without a plan? I lean rather in the direction of a topical plan, instrumentally implemented these days. This is a big change in my previous thoughts and the result of years of working with young, beginning debate. I appreciate policy discussion and believe the ground it provides is a preferable locus for debate. So I am somewhat prone to vote neg on framework must implement a plan.

Can I go for politics/CP or is this a K judge? Yes to both; I don't care for this distinction ideologically anymore. As far as literature, I lean slightly more in the K direction. My history of politics and CP debate are more basic than my history of K debate.

Theory - lean negative in most instances. Topicality - lean affirmative (if they have a plan) in most instances. I lean neg on K framework which strikes me as fair negative ground of a topical plan of action.

Truth v Tech - lean in the direction of tech. Debate, the skill, requires refuting arguments. So my lean in the direction of the tech is not a declaration to abandon reality. I will and do vote on unanswered arguments, particularly ones that are at the core of the debate. Gigantic caveat, I will struggle to vote on an argument just because it is dropped. The concession must be relevant and compelling to the debate. I will also be hesitant to vote on arguments that fly in the face of reality.

Here's what I like: I like what you know things about. And if you don't know anything, but get through rounds cause you say a bunch and then the other team drops stuff - then I don't think you have a great strategy. Upside for you, I truly believe you do know something after working and prepping the debate on the topic. Do us both a favor: If what you know applies in this round, then debate that.

Good luck!.

I have had 3 years of policy debate experience at Bravo Medical Magnet High School and 1 year of collegiate debate experience at California State University Northridge.

I believe that debate is a safe space for any argument, performance, narrative, etc; It's your round, not mine. My job is to evaluate the arguments down the flow and give the ballot to the team who best persuades me and demonstrates a better analysis of their arguments. Articulate your arguments well and thoroughly explain them, and you will have my vote.

Paperless Debate

Prep time ends when the flash drive leaves the computer of the debater about to speak. 

Topicality

I personally wouldn't vote on it, however, if it is argued well enough, extended throughout the round, and explained why the voters are crucial, I will evaluate it. If you do go for topicality, please outweight the impacts. 

Offcases: CP's, DisAds, etc.

I will evaluate a CP based off of the solvency and the terminal impact debate. Focus on how your disad serves as a net-benefit and how you solve better than the affirmative. Show me what the world will look like if the plan is passed and how that is bad. Disads, stress the impacts. 

Kritiks

I personally love Kritiks, but I don't care if you decide to run it or not. Contextualize the link and impacts (emphasis on link debate) and make sure to have a strong alternative that is specific to your K. Remember, the person who wins the K debate is the person who explains more in depth their arguments. If you are running the K, stress that it is a priority and that it outweighs anything else in the debate. 

Cross Ex

If you get a link for an argument, I will flow it down and consider it as another argument to rebut. Tag team is okay.

Performance

Debate is a safe space for any argument to be heard. I'd be excited to hear it.

Theory

I dont enjoy debates that focus on theory, it's hard to persuade me into believing theoretical objections are a voting issue. 

Speed is fine, just slow down on the tags and be clear. If you drop an argument and extend it in another speech, I will flow it down, however if the other team points this out, I will void that argument unless you come up with a good theory argument. Also, extending doesn't mean reading the card over again (pet peeve) 

Thesis: I WANT SOMEONE TO EXPLAIN TO ME WHY POLICY DEBATE IS WORTH SAVING

Experience: I was a debater for five years (4 years hs, 1 year open college policy) a long time ago. The last time I made a speech or cut a card was in 2009. I judge lots of debates a year. For the past two years I have mainly judged LD, Parli, and PuFo. I do not listen to a ton of fast rounds anymore. I flow on paper.

I like critical/performative debates*. I am a "big picture"-style judge. I don't like the "heg good" debate. I don't like procedural debates.

I don't dig "heg good," "cap good," or full-blast circuit speed very much but I will do my best to place myself in whatever framework you give me (read: Give me one). I have a reputation as a K hack even though I vote on topicality all the time. See below for more detailed thoughts on critical debates.

You won't win the round on defense, but you can beat the offense. One contextual, well-explained perm is better than 2 dropped blippy perms. Perms are a test of competition, but that still means I weigh the opportunity cost of world of the perm vs. world of only the counter-advocacy. "Judge-kick" is not a thing unless you tell me it is, by default I evaluate every world present in the 2NR as best I can.

I think a multiplicity of debates is good. I am usually not persuaded by most arguments in favor of excluding "non-traditional" debate, and generally hesitant to drop a team on T or theory if I can avoid it (unless it's dropped, you prove blatant in-round abuse, or you crush it technically). I don't like playing the debate police. If you're going to go for T or theory in front of me, you need to really go for it. You should have some sort of big-picture abuse story that demonstrates the kinds of debate you wanted to have that they have prevented you from having, and reasons why those debates are important enough to reject the team. To be persuasive, the procedural needs to be the centerpiece (preferably your entire) 2A/NR--I think presence of another decently-developed generic argument in the 2NR could sometimes be enough to solve the offense on T, and case-specific turns or link stories pretty much prove no in-round abuse. Condo can be a voter if there are multiple mutually-exclusive worlds in the 2NR. I am often persuaded by reasonability, and I often reject the argument but not the team. Despite these preferences, don't hesitate to go for these arguments in front of me if you really think they are the best strategic decision, lots of my neg ballots are for topicality.

I tend to be very laid-back in terms of decorum: I really don't care if you tag-team CX or speak from your seat as long as your delivery doesn't suffer. I don't time evidence flashing unless it begins to take an inordinate amount of time. Oral prompting is fine, but I only flow what comes out of the designated speaker's mouth. I listen to CX but usually don't flow it. I don't call for speech docs and will try not to call for evidence unless the quality of specific cards or warrants are explicitly brought up in the round.

There is no 3rd rebuttal: your job as a debater is to clearly communicate your arguments to convince me to sign the ballot your way and adapt a little if I don't happen to be your ideal judge. If you have not done this than no amount of post-debate hassling will change the decision. This is in fact a great way to get a 25 from me.

Notes for surveillance topic: I haven't done research on it, and haven't coached any kids on it. I have judged policy at one bid tournament (La Costa) and two regionals this year. I don't know the commonly used cards by name. You need to be specific and explain stuff to me like I am a small child.

*So here's the deal: I only did critical debate for a couple years and I'm not a philosophy or rhetoric major or anything, but I am into a lot of these authors in an amateur capacity. Don't assume I already understand your k, or know what it is based solely on the author's name. You will need to explain which Žižek you happen to have brought to our debate round, and tell a good clear story about what your k means for the debate. In k debates I tend to prefer the style of delivery to somewhat gel with the content of the argument, so I'd really rather not watch you say you create a critical pedagogy of the oppressed at 300 wpm as one of 3 possible 2NRs. Extending tags and saying "they cause genocide" is not persuasive. I don't like hyper-generic "you use the USFG"-style link arguments and can usually be persuaded by a well-explained perm in those cases. I think that sometimes specific legal reforms can create specific material gains for specific oppressed people that impact their daily lives, but I also think that real radical change probably would require a revolution. I believe no debate is outside the world: this round has a social/historical/spacial location and does not happen in a magical non-place. This applies to both sides of a clash of civilizations debate: your arguments are advocacies in an educational space--external impacts are only valuable as far as they inform debate practices/discussions which may or may not produce good education. This means they do not on-face outweigh arguments which indict the kind of education your methodology produces. This is honestly the only model of debate that makes sense to me, and I'm often at a loss when teams ask me to weigh nuclear war scenarios against the K because they are "more real world." As you may have guessed my natural bias is definitely toward the left but I try my best to vote within a framework laid out by the debaters--that means comparing competing frameworks and explaining what my ballot does and how I should evaluate impacts. I am fine with critical affs, non-topical affs, performance affs, whatever, but like anything else you need to justify what you do in the round. Though I encourage teams to make the debate round whatever they want it to be, I don't feel comfortable when teams ask me to actively participate/intervene in the discussion; this puts me in a weird position in terms of choosing a winner and I don't really feel it's possible for me to participate without in some way telling the debaters what to say. All this means is that in such a situation it is impossible for me to be an impartial adjudicator; I am open to arguments that I shouldn't be--but this is definitely something that needs to be addressed.

If you are running anti-blackness, you should read this article first: http://fivefouraff.com/2015/08/21/on-white-afro-pessimism/

I don't have a personal preference for debate style, I'm interested in your content and interactions. I will flow as you all clarify, otherwise I will default to standard practices. I want you to practice the freedom to think critically, don't like an argument? Tell me why and impact it out. Don't like frameworks of debate? Tell me why, impact it out, also love alternatives but don't need them to win. Think I should toss the ballot? Same deal. Please practice respect for one another, this does factor into speaker points for me.

Hello there!

I look forward to hearing new ideas, perspectives and topics. Signposting is always appreciated, but not absolutely necessary. Just be sure to make it clear that you are answering an opponent's argument or reaffirming your own advocacy.

I expect that everyone will be able to foster and maintain respect for oneself and each other within the debate space. Your verbal and nonverbal communication do make a difference.

Let's enjoy the debate!

☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭

All Debate

Tech > truth

Please learn2framework (presumption is filter not layer unless specified)

as tab as I can possibly be

cool with: speed, k, t (boring), theory, performance, bribes

not cool with: you wasting my time to pre flow, in round abuse, equity violations, the USA

I don’t care what’s real outside the round, I’ll only vote on things said in round. Something is true until you tell me it isn’t true. Don’t be boring and also don’t be bad thank you

Public Forum

☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭

Do all of your weighing for me. I will not weigh anything on my own.

If its not in summary I wont evaluate it in final focus.

2nd rebuttal does not need to frontline/case defense, definitely still can though

Presumption is neg in any instance that demands intervention, risk of solvency arguments fair game for the aff.

signposting saves lives

Picky about extensions:

An extension is NOT reading an authors last name. An extension is NOT telling me your opponents drop something. Telling my hand what to do on a piece of paper does not equal you winning an argument- much less analyzing, crystallizing, or in any way convincing me to vote for you.

An extension is:

Extend Author 97 who our opponents fail to respond to

->What author 97 tells you is warrant/analysis

->What this means is we access Impact 1, which wins us the round because of X.

☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭

Revolutionary Vanguard

Only god, in her infinite wisdom, can forgive me now.

In memory of those radicalized:

B. SHAHAR

G. TARPERING

J. NAHAS

tech > truth

tech tech tech tech tech tech tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

***Updated Berkeley Day 2*****

Y'all have really pushed me to my limits ): and now I'm not even feeling entirely tab as a paradigm because no weighing is being done for me. I WILL GO NEG ON PRESUMPTION IF PRO DOESN'T DO ANY WORK. IM TIRED OF HAVING TO DO YOUR WEIGHING FOR YOU.

An extension is NOT reading an authors last name. An extension is NOT telling me your opponents drop something. Telling my hand what to do on a piece of paper does not equal you winning an argument- much less analyzing, crystallizing, or in any way convincing me to vote for you.

An extension is:

Extend Author 97 who our opponents fail to respond to

->What author 97 tells you is warrant/analysis

->What this means is we access Impact 1, which wins us the round because of X.

If you don't really get this by now you're probably gonna lose the round.

Like many judges I try my best to be tabula rasa, like all of them, however, I fail. I'm comfortable with just about any argument at any speed. I like good K debates and long walks on the beach. Tech comes before truth for me until I'm told otherwise.

Thats like 2 or 3 years old^

In reality nowadays I'll probably beg you to spread or read something kritikal or perform or do anything (fun).

^Thats old too now

Tech > truth

Tech tech tech tech tech tech tech

THANKS TO ALLEN ABBOTT I WONT EVEN CALL FOR CARDS TO AVOID ANY INTERVENTION

I ONLY INTERVENE IN ONE WAY: IF I DONT SEE IT IN MY FLOW FOR THE SUMMARY I WONT VOTE ON THE EXTENSION IN FINAL FOCUS REGARDLESS OF WHO TELLS ME TO DO IT OR WHY I SHOULD DO IT

UNLESS YOU HAVE SOME WILD THEORY ARGUMENT ABOUT WHY I SHOULD ALLOW IT OR NOT INTERVENE ON IT IN WHICH CASE PLEASE HMU WITH THAT ID LOVE TO HEAR IT.

I debated for Francisco Bravo Medical Magnet High School for two years for the Los Angeles Metro Debate League and will soon be debating for California State University, Northridge, as an upcoming freshmen. 

I'm usually open to anything. Just make sure to explain, extend, and impact calc.

Topicality - I'm not extremely fond of it because it seems like a last attempt type of argument to me but if you could link well and explain the abuse and why I should vote on it based on how it affected the round. As far as the aff, topicality can be answered in many different ways, whether it's we meet, counter-interpretation, non-voter, or reverse voting issue.

DA - I love DA's that have specific links and warrants that pertain to the plan. Please thoroughly explain the link, extend it throughout the debate, and make sure to include impact calculus.

CP - I love CPs! This is one of my favorites, next to Ks. As far as CPs go, usually anything goes. They're usually run really well with DA's that can be used as a net benefit. Remember to explain how your CP solves. Aff: ask for the status, perm away, and remember that "perm: do both" is not the only perm option. When you do perm, make sure to explain it in detail about how the perm would work. Also, go ahead and throw in some solvency deficit arguments. 

Theory - Theory is so much fun. Conditionality is pretty cool but there are a lot of other theory arguments out there. Remember to extend, and explain it.

K - They make debates very interesting. I love the ideologies presented through ks and I feel this is one of the most educational parts of debate. Anything goes but I'm very picky with the alt so it must be explained very thoroughly. Tell me how life would be if we used your alt, show me the alternative world, and how the alt solves. I will vote down if the K isn't explained well by the end of the debate. Give a detailed roll of the ballot, and a specific framework. Aff: Perm, perm, perm.

Any more specific questions, just go ahead and ask before the round. Or after, whichever you prefer.

Policy Debater at CSU Fullerton 2 years (2009-11)

High Debate Coach for 3 years (2010-2013)

Debate Judge for 10 years (2010-present)

High School Math and Physics Teacher ( 2018- present)

Email chain: 1680super@gmail.com

Short version: I want to see and hear what you are good at doing. You pick your style and convince me that you know what they are talking about.

Brief recap of what general debater think of me;
A lot of people have pegged me as a certain kind of judge—crazy, in other words. While I may be crazy in the head, I don’t think that I judge rounds in a particularly different way than other judges. I, like other judges, VOTE for which team did the better DEBATING. How I come to this conclusion is much the same as other critics: I allow myself to be PERSUADED by the rhetorical force of one or another team’s ARGUMENT. You need to win an argument and a reason why that argument means that I should vote for you. Feel free to choose whatever type of argument you prefer. Virtually everything in the round is up for debate in front of me. But I will also be hesitant to vote on arguments that fly in the face of reality.

Some fine details;

(1) Kritik: Don’t assume that I have read and/or understood your author. If the argument isn’t in the text of the card, then you need to make sure that it is comprehensible in your analysis or explanation of the card. Also, remember that the evidence is not the argument by itself.

(2)How I flow: I believe in the debate. That is, I flow it, and I believe it occurs. However, I don’t even try to line everything up in the debate—I just flow from the top down on each sheet of paper (Excel spreadsheet). Know your argument and give detail on it, your analysis, spin, and articulation are all important and I follow that as much.

(3)Policy debate is like chess. Debate at a reasonable pace for yourself so that you don’t forget or drop arguments. Clash with the other team, debate is not in a vacuum. Debate with a lack of clash makes it harder to judge because I feel like have to intervention and connect the dot myself. Lastly, like in chess, you can’t win with all your pieces. You will have to lose some pieces, know what you are losing and wining in a sophisticated way.

(4) Value and meaning isn’t implied. You need to frame “Framework” how I view arguments and what I value. Tell me how you want me to see the round and why that is important over the way your opponent views.

Frequently Asked Question (FAQ):

Question: Can I read an aff without a plan?

Answer: Sure but do you really want to have a framework debate over policy implementation?

Question: I hear you’re a K guy and like K, I normally run DisAd and CP so do I need to pull out my K?

Answer. PLEASE DON’T. The worst thing you can do is run an argument that doesn’t fit your style and strengths. If you are a straight up, line by line, politic disad kind of debater then go for it. I don’t vote for the K anymore than I do the DisAd. A good argument with articulation and explanation will do you more than running something that you can’t explain.

Question: Is it true that you never vote on Theory or Topically?

Answer: I did the math, I have voted for theory or topically maybe 2.5% of the time since I started judging, that is like 4 out of 170 rounds. While it’s a hard sell because I lend toward looking at real in round abuse.

glhf

Experience: 4 years of College Parli and College LD. Currently Assistant Director of Debate at Concordia University Irvine where I coach Parliamentary Debate in addition to Assistant Director of Forensics at Oxford Academy where I coach Public Forum debate.  I participated in National Circuit NPDA debate in College where speeds can get pretty high without cards, CX, or prep. I can flow, however there are some things that you may want to adapt when doing policy debate in front of me.

1.    Please be really clear with your taglines, the more accurately I have your tags, the better things will fare out for you.

2.    I would prefer to be able to hear you actually articulate the internal warrants of your evidence instead of just hearing buzzzzzzzzzzzz…that’s Porter 13. I honestly do not understand the pedagogical value of Policy Debate if the reading of cards is completely incomprehensible because of the expectation and norm that judges can just ‘call cards’.  At this point, why not just have both teams email their cards to the critics and let them render a decision on who has the better cards given the way the collapse happens?

3.    Your cards/evidence do not make arguments-you make arguments using your cards/evidence. I would like to see you applying specific pieces of evidence to others and explaining how the internal warrants interact. This is called warrant comparison. Often times this skill is lost underneath the guise of ‘implicit clash’ which I think can be done well, but more often than not results in lack of substantive clash.

DA/CP:  As always, be very precise with your tags. Also, I appreciate when you contextualize your link evidence to the Affirmative.  Explain how your more general Biz Con link actually applies to what the Affirmative plan text does.  Your Disads should outweigh/turn the case. Making analytical connections between your evidence and the Affirmative is very very good. Delay, Veto Cheato, Study CP’s are terrible. Not the biggest fan of Politics but will listen to it providing you can articulate a sound link argument. Big fan of tight topic disads that turn the case with CP’s that solve the Aff. Advantage CP’s are great as are PICs that are grounded in solid literature.

Case Debate: I’m not exactly sure why I don’t see more case debates in an event with disclosure and publicly accessible evidence resources.  I thoroughly enjoy Negative strategies which include spending a substantial portion of time reading both offensive and defensive arguments against the case solvency/advantages.  Also really reward 2A’s who are able to efficiently respond to this strategy as well. Too many teams just concede that the Aff solves and that their Advantages happen-all it takes is one solid solvency takeout to destroy the entire foundation of the Affirmative.

Criticisms: I love criticisms and quite frequently read them throughout most of my time as a debater. I think that they are an essential part of the toolbox for any well-rounded debater.  I think that Kritiks should be centered in some sort of Affirmation-how that manifest is up to the debaters of course. To give some context, my senior year my partner and I read a Baudrillard criticism with an alternative which was precisely the lack of an alternative.  On a separate occasion, we ate a piece of paper with the topic (ag subsidies) written on it as performative interrogation into our consumptive ethics and talked about consumerism. I think that performative, rhetorical or discursive critical arguments should also have a central point of locus for the Negative to leverage offense against. While I am most familiar with Rhetorical criticism, Postmodernism and Race, I am generally familiar with most K literature-however this does not mean I intend on filling in gaps for you-these are your arguments to make or break. Critical Affs are fantastic and very strategic.  Negatives would do good to find leverage points to counter-kritik and/or PIC out of critical affirmative teams more. I am fine hearing FW against the K, but this should probably be part of a larger strategy, which hopefully also engages the K as well.  Negative teams reading the K against policy Affs should be prepared to defend their K against Framework as well as impact turns.

Theory: Not the biggest fan of theory on the larger totem pole of arguments to hear.  I will need you to say your interpretation clearly at least twice so that I get it down.  Especially if there are multiple interpretations/definitions. I think that generally Topicality generally comes down to who controls the internal links to Limits, Precision and Grammar.  You should be impacting out your standards and explaining why they are important. Theory should be reserved for instances of protecting yourself from abuse, i.e. Topicality, Framework, Condo/PICS Bad, etc. Spec arguments are a waste of time.  I will listen to Framework against the K, however you really need to explain to me how this justifies me automatically dropping them.  I think that Framework is a lens for the round, however if you win that I should use your lens, then it’s likely your opponent cannot filter their offense through that lens.  While I do think that Conditionality is generally abusive in Parli, I have no predisposition on its use in Policy. However, I am compelled by arguments about multiple contradictory conditional advocacies being bad.

Rebuttals: Rebuttals are about doing a few central things: impact calculus, warrant comparison, collapsing and crystallizing. High speaker points and favor awarded to those who are able to explicitly identify the arguments that still matter in the debate by the Rebuttals and the arguments that don’t.

Presentation: I don't care whether you sit or stand. My only preferences are that you be comfortable, look good and speak well. Don’t mind tag team CX.  I don’t like having to time flashing evidence but if you are lolly-gagging, I will make you time it to keep the tournament on schedule. Higher speaker points awarded to those who speak passionately, clearly, organizationally, and humorously. Also, if you have no more to say, PLEASE sit down. It's really annoying to watch people repeat themselves just to fill time.  Your speech time allocation is a ceiling, not a floor-only speak for as long as you can/need to. Overviews and signposting should be your best friends. Feel free to ask specifics before the round.

Happy Hunting!

Judge Philosophy for Orion Steele

Experience - I debated for Millard West High School for 3 years, then I debated for the University of Redlands for 4 years. Finished in Quarters at the NDT in 2004 and 2005. Since graduating from Redlands in 2005, I have coached at the University of Redlands, San Francisco State University and Cal State Fullerton. I have also taught at various high school camps around the country. I hold a law degree and a masters degree in Human Communication Studies. After coaching at St. Vincent De Paul High School, I worked for several years as a coach for the Bay Area Urban Debate League. After that, I began teaching full time at San Francisco State University. i currently teach debate at SFSU, City College of San Francisco and USF. I am also currently the director of forensics at University of San Francisco.

General Thoughts - I love all kinds of debate, from traditional debate to wacky crazy debate and everything in between. In general, you may make any argument you want when I am your judge, but I think you should have a warrant (a “because” statement) for any argument you make. If you can explain why an argument is good and/or important, then I will evaluate it. I promise you that I will listen to everything you say in the debate and try as hard as I can to evaluate all of the arguments fairly. Education, Fairness and FUN are three important values that I care about deeply. Debaters that make the round more fun, more fair, and more educational will be rewarded.

I’m sure you probably want specifics, so here we go:

Topicality - Go ahead. I will pull the trigger on T, but it is easier for the Neg if they can demonstrate in round abuse. I will obviously vote on T if you win the debate on T, but it will make me feel better about what I’m doing if you can show in round abuse.

Disads - Love em. Try to explain how they turn the case.

Counter plans - Love em. Beat the Perm/Theory.

Theory - Will vote on theory, but will rarely vote on cheap shots. If you think you have a good theory argument, defend it seriously.

Kritiks - Love em. The more specific the K, the better for you. In other words, explain your concepts.

Performance - Go ahead. I have been profoundly inspired by some performance debates, and encourage you to think about creative ways to speak. If your style of argumentation combines form and content in unique ways, I will evaluate the debate with that in mind.

Framework - An important debate tool that should be included in our activity. I will admit I have some proclivities about specific framework arguments (Aff choice in particular is a vacuous argument that I won’t vote for), but if you win on Framework then I will vote for you.

Bias - Of all the arguments that I am exposed to on a regular basis, I probably have the biggest bias against conditionality. I do not feel good about multiple conditional contradictory advocacies and I do not believe there is such thing as a conditional representations kritik. If you have a conditional advocacy, and the other team adequately explains why that is unfair or bad for debate, I will vote against you on condo.

Overall, one of the coolest parts of debate is seeing how radically different approaches compete with each other. In other words, I like to see all kinds of debate and I like to see what happens when different kinds of debate crash into each other in a round. If I am your judge, you should do what you like to do best, and assume that I am going to try as hard as possible to think about your arguments and evaluate them fairly.

FINAL NOTE
I would just like to use this space to say that I am VERY disappointed in the judge philosophies of some other people in this community. I have been in college debate land for a while, but I am taken back by the number of high school debate judges that say “do not pref me if you make x argument” or “I think debate should be about policy education and I will not consider anything else”. Your job as a judge is to listen to other people speak about what they want in the manner they want and make a fair decision. You are doing a disservice to debaters and hurting the educational value of our activity by removing yourself from debates where you may feel uncomfortable. You are never going to learn how to deal with inevitable shifts in the direction of our activity if you never open your mind to different arguments and methods.

In high school I debated for two years at Stern Math and Science School. In college I debated for three years at California State University, Fullerton. 

My Evaluation

I find debate is an educational activity. What that looks like is up to the competitors, I will try and insert myself as best I can. My role as a judge is to be an educator and mediate between competing interests.

Judging 

I may have not heard of your Kritik/Affirmative/Disadvantage/Counterplan/ etc. Don’t be offended. Don’t assume. In general it is best to err on the safe side and explain the plan function, the thesis of the disadvantage, and how counterplans avoid net benefits. 

Framing debates- An easy way to ensure higher speaks and tell me how and what to evaluate in 2nr/2ar is to have an ethos moment. An ethos moment tells me how to filter/view the debate.  

Explanations over cards. I usually award my ballot to debaters who create a story and have good analysis of their arguments. Like a lot of judges, smart arguments can beat carded evidence. 

I perhaps am considered a "K hack". This by no means suggests I do not/prefer not to judge policy rounds. I find that there are good things from the policy side as well as the critical side. 

Things I like to see in a round

Courtesy. Be nice to your partner and opponents.

Be prepared to defend everything you say, do, or justify.

Time your own prep and your opponents.

Prep ends when flash is handed to opponents, otherwise I will deduct speaker points at my discretion.

Ethics

Cheaters! You will lose. No clipping. No power tagging. No plagiarizing. No exceptions.

*The opposing team must prove without a doubt that such instances occurred. Video recordings resolve this for me. Punishment for stopping a debate and failing to prove dishonesty will result in an automatic loss or some consequence at the discretion of tournament officials. 

Argument prefs

Counterplans- Read the plan text slowly, also extending the plan mechanism in later speeches is not a bad idea. Explain how the counterplan solves the net benefit.

Kritiks- Good plan and advantage links are very appreciated, as is alternative explanations. Avoid lengthy overviews as much as possible. Because of the complexity of Kritik debates, I suggest you read the Miscellaenous section and the Framing section of my philosophy. 

Disadvantages- Explain the story. I want to know very specifically what the affirmative does to uniquely trigger the link. The neg fares better chance at winning a disadvantage in front of me if I am clear on what the aff is or does.

Topicality- Slow down. I want to hear the interpretation and standards. Explicit extension of the interpretation(s) is most crucial here. 

*On issues of Kritik affirmatives, I do evaluate impact turns to arguments such as Topicality.

Theory- Mostly a nonstarter. I do not like this trend of two second voting issue theories. I consider theory to be a legitimate argument to ensure fairness, and when applied in situations that merit theory I can vote on it. Ridiculous or excessive theories will result in lower speaker points. That being said, I will vote for conceded theory arguments.

Permutation- Make it clear in 2ac when they are made. Also please explicitly extend the perm you go for in later speeches. I don't like guessing which perm you go for.

Independent Voters- I do not like the idea of evaluating issues independent of arguments that you go for. If you really want me to vote on one specific argument, I expect the whole 2nr/2ar to be just that. 

Miscellaneous

I've noticed that when evaluating kritik debates, a clear articulation of links/link turns has been lacking:

1) I am not usually persuaded by links of ommission/deliberate exclusions of ....

2) Links that indict knowledge/logic and/or representations must show exactly how those representations manifest into something bad. (Historical analysis helps do this). 

Ask me any questions before the round starts. 

About me:

- I debated policy 4 years at James Logan High School, mostly on the circuit

- I now coach and judge intermittently

My feelings towards certain positions:

T and Theory

Outline an abuse story. Defend a world interpretation.

Disad/Case

Weigh worlds. Explain link stories. I will vote on terminal non uniqueness.

Counterplans

Textual competition counts as competition. Win a net benefit.

The K

Explain the alt. Be extremely clear with framework. Explain the role of the ballot. Embed clash and make comparisons in your overviews.

Pofo

Be respectful. Arguments in the final focus need to be in the summary, warranted. Weighing should start in the summary. Don't be unreasonably omitting defense in the first summary.

Speaks

If you're good at debate, you'll get good speaks. If you're good for debate, you'll get better speaks (s/o Phoebe Kuo).

Miscellaneous

You can try to earn +.1 speak for making @four_pins -esque jokes.

GENERAL

1. Clarity > Loudness > Speed.

2. Framing > Impact > Solvency. Framing is a prior question. Don’t let me interpret the debate, interpret the debate for me.

3. Truth IS Tech. Warranting, comparative analysis, and clash structure the debate.

4. Offense vs Defense: Defense supports offense, though it's possible to win on pure defense.

5. Try or Die vs Neg on Presumption: I vote on case turns & solvency takeouts. AFF needs sufficient offense and defense for me to vote on Try or Die.

6. Theory: Inround abuse > potential abuse.

7. Debate is a simulation inside a bigger simulation.

NEGATIVE

TOPICALITY: As far as I am concerned, there is no resolution until the negative teams reads Topicality. The negative must win that their interpretation resolves their voters, while also proving abuse. The affirmative either has to win a no link we meet, a counterinterp followed up with a we meet, or just straight offense against the negative interpretation. I am more likely to vote on inround abuse over potential abuse. If you go for inround abuse, list out the lost potential for neg ground and why that resolves the voters. If you go for potential abuse, explain what precedents they set.

FRAMEWORK: When the negative runs framework, specify how you orient Fairness & Education. If your FW is about education, then explain why the affirmative is unable to access their own pedagogy, and why your framework resolves their pedagogy better and/or presents a better alternative pedagogy. If your FW is about fairness, explain why the affirmative method is unable to solve their own impacts absent a fair debate, and why your framework precedes Aff impacts and/or is an external impact.

DISADVANTAGES: Start with impact calculation by either outweighing and/or turning the case. Uniqueness sets up the timeframe, links set up probability, and the impact sets up the magnitude.

COUNTERPLANS: Specify how the CP solves the case, a DA, an independent net benefit, or just plain theory. Any net benefit to the CP can constitute as offense against the Permutation.

CASE: Case debate works best when there is comparative analysis of the evidence and a thorough dissection of the aff evidence. Sign post whether you are making terminal defense arguments or case turns.

KRITIKS: Framing is key since a Kritik is basically a Linear Disad with an Alt. When creating links, specify whether they are links to the Aff form and/or content. Links to the form should argue why inround discourse matters more than fiat education, and how the alternative provides a competing pedagogy. Links to the content should argue how the alternative provides the necessary material solutions to resolving the neg and aff impacts. If you’re a nihilist and Neg on Presumption is your game, then like, sure.

AFFIRMATIVES

TRADITIONAL AFFIRMATIVES

PLANS WITH EXTINCTION IMPACTS: If you successfully win your internal link story for your impact, then prioritize solvency so that you can weigh your impacts against any external impacts. Against other extinction level impacts, make sure to either win your probability and timeframe, or win sufficient amount of defense against the negs extinction level offense. Against structural violence impacts, explain why proximate cause is preferable over root cause, why extinction comes before value to life, and defend the epistemological, pedagogical, and ethical foundations of your affirmative. i might be an "extinction good" hack.

PLANS WITH STRUCTURAL IMPACTS: If you are facing extinction level disadvantages, then it is key that you win your value to life framing, probability/timeframe, and no link & impact defense to help substantiate why you outweigh. If you are facing a kritik, this will likely turn into a method debate about the ethics of engaging with dominant institutions, and why your method best pedagogically and materially effectuates social change.

KRITIKAL AFFIRMATIVES

As a 2A that ran K Affs, the main focus of my research was answering T/FW, and cutting answers to Ks. I have run Intersectionality, Postmodernism, Decolonization, & Afropessimism. Having fallen down that rabbit hole, I have become generally versed in (policy debate's version of) philosophy.

K AFF WITH A PLAN TEXT: Make sure to explain why the rhetoric of the plan is necessary to solve the impacts of the aff. Either the plan is fiated, leading a consequence that is philosophically consistent with the advantage, or the plan is only rhetorical, leading to an effective use of inround discourse (such as satire). The key question is, why was saying “United States Federal Government,” necessary, because it is likely that most kritikal teams will hone their energy into getting state links.

K BEING AFFS: Everything is bad. These affs incorporate structural analysis to diagnosis how oppression manifests metaphysically, materially, ideologically, and/or discursively, "We know the problem, and we have a solution." This includes Marxism, Settler Colonialism, & Afropessimism affs. Frame how the aff impact is a root cause to the negative impacts, generate offense against the alternative, and show how the perm necessitates the aff as a prior question.

K BECOMING AFFS: Truth is bad. These affs point to complex differences that destabilize the underlying metanarratives of truth and power, "We problematize the way we think about problems." This includes Postmodern, Intersectionality, & Performance affs. Adapt to turning the negative links into offense for the aff. Short story being, if you're just here to say truth is bad, then you're relying on your opponent to make truth claims before you can start generating offense.

    My basic preference is for well explained and impacted arguments over techie line-by-line tricks. Basically, if you want me to vote on an argument, then the argument should be a substantial chunk of your speech and not a one liner on the flow. Slow it down and explain your arg. I'm not saying I won't listen to speed; I am saying in most debates fast doesn't equal better. Debate isn't Costco - More Cards/Arguments are Not Necessarily Desirable.

The Specifics: Topicality & Theory - I am ok with some T debate. Make sure the violation is clear and the substance of the debate is worthy of the time you are putting into it. Other theory is mostly a non-starter for me. I don't vote on the specs. If you are going for theory (not topicality), then you probably aren't winning this round.

Disads - The key to a good DA debate is impact calculus.

Counter-plans - Sure, why not? I'm a policy maker at heart.I err neg on all counter-plan theory. Basically, Counter-plan theory, for the most part, is a non-starter with me.

Kritiks - I'm not a fan of generic kritiks and rarely vote for a kritik without a plan specific link. If your idea of a good argument is Zizek, Nietzsche, or any generic K, then I'm not your judge. In terms of framework, I err negative. The K is part of debate - accept this and debate it. Use your aff against it.

Performance Aff's - I believe the aff should defend a clear USFG should policy. I am a policy maker.

I am Head Coach at Loyola High School in Los Angeles. I have judged hundreds if not thousands of debate rounds. [updated: February 20, 2018].

So long as your arguments are not philosophically repugnant, I expect arguments, interpretations, frameworks and other positions that intentionally exclude your opponent's offense. Simple Ballot Strategy: Tell me 1) what argument you won; 2) why you won it; and 3) why that means you win the round. Repeat.

Parsimony, relevance and path of least resistance: I am a critic of argument. I am very liberal about what you do in a debate round, but conservative in how you do it. Assertions without warrants mean very little to me and invites me to supply meaning to positions if you do not articulate what you mean. I look at the flow and ask, "to vote aff, what does the aff have to win?" ... and ... "to vote neg, what does neg have to win?" from there, I look at each of the arguments, evidence, and how well each side has put the issues together in a bigger picture. Most times, the simpler explanation (that takes into account and explains away the opposition) is likely to carry the day. The longer the argument chain, the more effort it takes to evaluate it, the easier it is to vote against you.

Full Case Disclosure Should Be Mandatory: Hiding your case is an excuse for bad debating and if you can't win without a trick, maybe you should rethink your strategy. I may have (some, slight) sympathy for not disclosing before you break new, but very little.

RVIs and Reverse Voter Standards: Fewer better explained standards are better than 20 blips.

Theory, rightly, checks abuses. Articulate the violation, standard and remedy. Actual demonstrated inround abuse is far more persuasive than hypothetical abuse.

Cross-Ex: I flow CX. I don't mind additional questioning during prep. I see little to no benefit to arguing in CX. Please refer to CX responses in your speeches.

Rebuttals: Let's admit that all debaters make new responses in rebuttals. Let's admit that new arguments are permissible when they are extensions of prior positions or answer to args by the opposition.

Win/loss/Points Disclosures: If I don't volunteer the information, please ask me. All good judges disclose.

Judges should be accountable for their decisions. Ask questions. How else do you learn what I was thinking in the round? How can can you improve in front of me? That said, I will follow the tournament's rules regarding disclosure. Also know, that I will be arguing behind the scenes in favor of disclosure. I will do my level best to answer your questions in a clear and concise manner; I may not see the round you did and maybe we can both learn from an after-round discussion.

That's the best I can promise.

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

Debated 4 years of HS (Winfield, Kansas), 2 years in College (Los Angeles City College, CSUFullerton)

Coach for SUDL

General Thoughts (whatever "thinking" is)

I am open to anything. I am also incredibly judgmental. I would rather hear a unique, new argument with perhaps less precise execution than the tightest strategy executed in the most boring way possible. That being said, what I would rather hear and what will win a substantive debate may not be the same. Use your own discretion; you are the debater, right? Don’t be mean and overbearing. Don’t be too timid.

Policy arguments (whatever "policy" is)

Implementation and the allowed viability of current affairs are important if you're going this route. The more precise the better. I'd like to feel how far the effects of my ballot travel, gloriously stamping the world with my verdict; as a god would upon mortal puppets.

Critical Arguments (whatever "ontology" is)

These are the arguments with which I have the most familiarity. Please don't buzzword me to death here.

I am inclined to believe that permutations to “critical arguments” make little to no sense unless the aff is already winning substantive arguments on the link and impact level. Impact comparison and/or link turns will be necessary if you want me to vote for these so-called "permutations".

Topicality/Theory (whatever “is” is)

If you know what you’re talking about or have a crafty violation, I’m certainly willing to vote on topicality. That being said, I have a higher threshold on topicality than most. However, your "fairness" "education" "ground" abuses aren't worth my time. Tell me the direct violation and I'll decide how you were afflicted in the round (by watching the round). If you prove no affiliation with the resolution, or a direct connection through the resolution, I will vote on topicality first and then weigh the impacts. If the abuse warrants my ballot, then you will win my ballot.
Aff should at least discuss its pertinence to the resolution and/or debate or have a cogent defense of the presentation of your argument or a criticism of the necessity of such discussions. If someone tells me that these affs don't matter, I will listen to their arguments and remain open to persuasion on the issue. Not unexpectedly, I find that the smart cheaters are often very far ahead on these debates. Take that for what it is.

Additional Note On Topicality/Theory: I have seen T violations that had real world impacts (as opposed to in-round impacts) that link the definition of the word to impacts for a disad. This is genius, and if you can do it you should try. My favorite 2AC analysis happened when a debater showed the performative contradictions of conditional neg arguments as framing for impact calc beyond the life-or-death story run by the neg. I think there is an interconnected approach to the debate that involves holistic unity (literally, not like "you should try some lavender that burn" holistic).

“My” background (whoever “I” am)

Raised in KS, living in CA. I used to be a Nietzsche debater, then transferred to UCD and read everything he wrote, and Plato/Aristotle, most of the Modern types, did graduate work on Plato and Weber, suffered a short obsession with DuBois and Hegel, then panicked when none of it helped me study int'l econ. I am confident that most people don't debate Nietzsche right, and it doesn't matters that they can't. Something happens in there. I am a hard nerd for bureaucratic politics and regime cooption. I'm the type to get really excited about information systems or comparing organization structures. While debating I took most organization cooption examples from the fall of the USSR. I have a life outside of that stuff though, as I hope you do as well. If you can make me laugh during a debate, that will bode well for you. But don't try too hard. Trying too hard is like caring too much about not being a fascist: it only makes you a fascist.

Lastly, I plagiarized a lot of this from an old friend who's now an IP lawyer, and I think that's so funny. FYI all

I am a parent judge.   I've been judging policy debate for 6 years so I understand the rules and I strive to select the winner based on the arguments presented in the debate.

I am comfortable with speed so long as you are clear.  However, I'm not an ex-debater, so if you get too far away from traditional debate I may not understand how to handle your arguments.  To be clear, if you try a K you need to ensure there is clear linkage so I have a basis for determining the winner.

Very experienced judge and coach for Saint Francis high school. I will consider pretty much any arguments that are not blatantly sexist, racist or crudely discriminatory (blatant is the key word here, much of this stuff is debatable and I will try not to punish you for my general feelings about your arguments).

It is important to me that debaters be respectful and polite to each other, this puts the spotlight on the arguments themselves and I am not a fan of extra drama.

I try hard to be fair and the following things help me do that:

- I rarely call cards. I like to focus the debate on the analysis given by the debaters (of course I will usually give more weight to analysis that is taken from qualified sources). I do not like to decide debates on random parts of a card that neither debater really focused on. I will call cards if I forget what they said, if there is a conflict about what they say and I can not remember, or if I am personally interested in the card.

- I try to judge on the flow in the sense that I evaluate the debate on the arguments presented, explained and extended into the rebuttals. I will occasionally do the work to weigh impacts or decide framing if the debaters are not doing that for me.

- I will not yell "clear", so mumble and slur at your own risk (I don't yell clear because I don't want a team to find that sweet spot where I can understand them but their opponents can not). I will also not evaluate arguments that I can not hear. I do not read speech documents during the debate rounds, sometimes I will look at them after the round (see calling cards stuff above).

Argument preferences:

I am cool with critiques on the aff and neg.

I am cool with framework (I like the debaters to work this out and I am pretty neutral on this question).

I like clarity (both in speech and arguments). I am not impressed by things that are "too complex" for me to understand but I will do my best to try to make sense of it. I am confident enough to not pretend I know your position and I will not fill in the blanks for you.

I am cool with policy arguments.

I have a wide breadth of knowledge but little depth on certain positions, don't assume I know your literature.

Speaks:

I give high speaks for clarity, efficiency, a pace that I can flow, respectfulness and occasionally speaking style.

I feel like the speaker point range I give is pretty close to average (I am not a reliable source of high speaks for everyone, but I will reward excellent debate with high speaks).

Contact info

mail all speech documents to: headofthewood@gmail.com

anything else (if you want me to read the e-mail or respond): thomaswoodhead@sfhs.com

I did Policy in HS and College. I coached Middle/HS LD for six years, and am now coaching Policy for UWyo.

I am collecting anonymous feedback and data about my judging. If I've judged you and you'd like to contribute, please fill out the form!

Above any ideological loyalty or stylistic preference is my appreciation and need for clean, organized, structured debates.

natalieforensics@gmail.com

Mechanics of Evaluation

I try my hardest to be tabula rasa, but I'm also a person. I vote on dropped arguments more than most people.

Major things that make me different from other judges:

I'm somewhat hard of hearing - try to talk way louder than you would. This is usually only a problem during physical (not online) tournaments and in rooms with much echo. If you are unclear, I'll yell clear twice before I stop flowing. Don't slur your words together. Use complete sentences while avoiding filler words. If you've never recorded yourself giving a speech and tried to flow yourself, chances are you think you are far clearer than you really are.

Tech and Truth - it's not hard for me to see the connections between arguments. I vote on many conceded args with impacts, and heavily undercovered args. I guess that makes me more of a tech judge, but I also will be very grumpy about arguments that don't make sense, so I'll vote on them but I'll complain about having voted on them.

1ar/2nr/2ar dynamics - I like to protect the 2nr. If the arg wasn't in the 1ar or the 2ar pivot is outlandish, it can be a problem for me. That being said if the 2nr spin on the block strat is heavy, 2ars should be pointing that out as a reason to justify new 2ar args.

Speech docs- I hate having to follow along on the doc. I think debaters' flowing skills have rapidly deteriorated since judges were added to speech docs. But now, with mixed modalities, it's very much necessary. That being said, I'm not gonna base much of my decisions on your evidence unless there's a disagreement about what it says - the parts that are most relevant should be paraphrased and cited by author name and the speech they were introduced in the rebuttals.

It's also silly how often people spread through their analytics (especially on theory) as though they're highlighting within a card and expect the judge to follow along on the speech doc.

Try to be pleasant - It's not gonna swing my ballot unless it's turned into an argument, which usually has to do with critiques of how people talk.

Events that happened out of round -This is a gray area for me. I guess on some level I think you should be held accountable for things that happened that can be proven to have happened. On the other hand, how many times does someone have to lose on something for them to be free of their past? I guess that's for y'all to debate about and me to find out.

-

Ideologies and their Juxtapositions

K v K Debate

This is the format that the algorithm has determined I'm destined to judge the most...

Be organized. Distinguish between claim warrant and implications. Writing the story of the ballot can be crucial. Detailed perm theory about what the aff does or does not get to permute is essential for me.

Framework/T-Usfg

When I vote on Framework, there's usually an offensive answer to "you don't address the aff impacts" via a conversation about how affs that have no tie to the topic or completely foreclose upon state engagement to trade off with opportunities to learn about the values of state engagement or ways in which the topic hurts the people the aff is talking about. I do think that soft framework with interps such as "aff must defend a tangible strategy," "aff must have a connection to the resolution," "aff must be in the direction of the resolution," etc. with most of the same justifications as regular framework can be solid round winners in front of me. My neg ballots on this usually start with "the topical version of the affirmative resolves most of the aff's offense and has better inroads into dialogue/clash and advocacy/policymaking skills for the following reasons:" or because the aff undercovered switch-side debate.

Plan v K Debate

Aff: Don't over-rely on framework, perms and theory. Read these arguments when they really make sense, not out of fear of engaging the substance of the K. Make sure that the K actually violates the rules you want to set up before spending time setting up those rules.

Neg: Don't be lazy! Read specific, offensive links with well-explained alts that are both paradigmatic and can be translated into action that helps people. You can advocate for specific solutions (that may or may not be state policies) as examples of a broader and more general alternative. Find a good balance between examples, explanations, and warrants/proof.

Discourse/rhetoric links: this is my jam. Neg teams answering these - perm and framework go a long way, but honestly people should sometimes just defend their rhetoric. You're not gonna have a defense of every word you use so offensive args about why the 1ac performance is net good even if it's messy or not ideologically pure. The defense of the performance of the 1ac is the key here, and what impacts it addresses. Labeling it as "the value of the performance of the 1ac outweighs the negative harms of their links" really goes a long way with me because it's a clearer contextualization of what "policymaking good" and "research on this topic is good" are actually doing for you besides getting you out of "roleplaying bad" debates. This isn't a theory arg either - you're just weighing the costs vs benefits of the 1ac speech act, in addition to a robust strategy about why my ballot should prioritize the outcomes of the plan over the performance of the speech.

Critiques based on consequences: winning the impact/root cause debate is key? Idk what else to say here.

Traditional

I did this style in High School, and while I coach a team that predominantly does traditional debate, I don't spend much time thinking about this side of the topic. My favorite traditional debates have been more technical than most. Since I'm more unfamiliar I tend to be a lot more tech over truth, given as I'm not exactly doing regular work on your politics disad or specific uniqueness claims. I am also not very knowledgeable about what many acronyms on the topic mean.