Khushi Afre

(she/her) - Northview (AI, AY) '21 - khushiafre25@gmail.com

Background: I had 6 TOC bids in policy debate my senior year and 11 career bid rounds.

General: Do whatever you want but if it helps, I really like the K (mostly familiar with afropessimism, axiology, psychoanalysis, any iteration of academy, coercive mimeticism, cybernetics, settler colonialism, biopolitics, and capitalism) and I think clash debates are the most fun and interesting to watch and participate in. That being said, I think it's important judges stay tabula rasa and I try to honor that to the best of my abilities.

I'll pretty much vote on anything so long as it's ethical and debated well.

Last edited for ’23-24. This paradigm tries to be expansive as possible a) to avoid a slew of questions pre-round (it’ll happen anyway bc people have stopped reading these) and b) because most judges really aren’t transparent at all and I do have real preferences.

For Districts (GA): it's nat-quals, big stuff, do whatever you need to do to earn a win with high marks. Won't penalize certain strategies, will penalize execution of certain strategies (i.e., if you feel the need to read truth-testing, please see my thoughts on related strategies before I miss a NIB). I consider myself a reasonably good flow, but if it's not on my flow, it does not exist.

About: Did 4 years of LD at a high school you’ve never heard of, ended up learning circuit debate independently, currently a senior* at UGA (studying what is basically just K lit) and not doing college CX but still actively judging and coaching LD—this means I'm familiar with the rez.

- Pronouns: they/she (basically anything that isn’t masculine)

- I don’t shake hands, pls don’t try and shake my hand after the round (thanks for your understanding) - like pls don't

Speaks (Numbers n Stuff):

- Go as fast as you want, just be clear, and slow down on interp texts, advocacy texts, and standards plz

- I won’t listen to arguments asking for extra speaks, I also tend to not disclose speaks

- I want to be on the chain, no need to ask: chansey.agler@uga.edu

- I typically try to average ~28.5 relative to the pool, they’re always based off efficiency/strategy rather than the ableist method of evaluating “speaking ability” - though I tend to be on the higher side of speaks...

Prefs Cheat Sheet:

K, Policy: 1

Philosophy*: 2

Theory and Tricks: 4

Trad: Your call (I would place myself around a 2 for these kinds of rounds)

*I prefer genuine ACs/NCs to tricks—a “Korsgaard AC” is best read as Korsgaard and not 3 min of goobledygook

TL;DR: engage, clash, and read substantive arguments that are well-thought out and you should be fine

Here are the most common things people look for, people have stopped reading paradigms:

- Paradigms are largely unhelpful bc they're all iterations of "fine with anything" and "do what you do best" - point blank, I do best with Ks and policy, understand philosophy which means I have a higher threshold for it (debate is so far removed from real philosophical deliberation that it hurts sometimes), and do not prefer tricks/friv theory - in general, I'm fine for arguments that are pedagogically responsible (warranted and have real value), bad for arguments that are frivolous

- A lot of my RFDs involve in-round explanation of some degree (in both directions)—well-warranted and explained arguments tend to fare better than meaningless walls of buzzwords and claims, and since debate is a communicative activity, I need to be able to understand and articulate your arguments (would love it if my RFD echoes the 2NR/2AR)—this also means I now will factor CX into my decision-making if you completely fumble on key issues

- I won't flow arguments if I can tell that they're generated by ChatGPT - debate is about making arguments and thinking for yourself, not letting AI do work for you - very low threshold for theory against chatGPT arguments, btw

- Method and framing evidence has been atrocious as of late—it's underhighlighted and doesn't warrant what's in the tag—if I can't piece together what you're trying to say with the highlighted portion alone, I'm not going to fill in the rest for you—blitz through this at your own risk

- I disclose the decision + other stuff post-round but: I don't disclose speaks (goofy), it either takes me like two seconds or 45 min to figure out the round, I try my damndest to give the "right" decision (quality decisionmaking + feedback = really really important), but I am not receptive to aggressive postrounding…

- Misgendering, general misconduct (like being racist or sexist) is a reason for me to damage your speaks at best, if you continue to do it, try to impact turn it, and/or willfully ignore it, neither one of us will like the end result; I am probably more willing than other judges to consider independent voters (especially misgendering, racism, and other arguments that, intentional or not, result in exclusion in debate)

- Discourse violations are better read as kritiks than theory but I will vote on both (I tend to be slightly annoyed by the team/debater that used harmful discourse to begin with, so no need to worry about how you go about this)

- To add to the above: pls let me know if you have any accommodations that need to be met before the round (slower spreading than normal, preferred pronouns, etc.) to make the round as safe and inclusive as possible, debate is for everyone—I care a lot about student well-being and any accessibility concerns should be relayed in a manner you feel comfortable with (getting my attention or emailing me, whatever you need to do)

- Weighing is good. please do it. thx in advance <3

Lincoln Douglas

Kritiks

- Good K debates are the best types of rounds, but bad K debates are frustratingly difficult to resolve (i.e., pre-scripted 2NRs loaded with buzz terms that don’t frame anything for my ballot)—know your lit base (theory of power, topic links…the whole shebang), make it meaningful

- Fav lit bases are queer and feminist lit but if you don’t know these lit bases, they can also make me v sad

- I find material explanations of the alt and ToP more persuasive, but I understand abstract interpretations of power or identity to often be necessary, just explain it and we're good

- Do impact analysis/weighing bc these debates can otherwise become messy, also do lots of link and alt work and don’t just talk past the Aff—lack of engagement and poor alt work are two ways to a good old-fashioned L

- Non-T Affs are always great but be ready for generic responses (and just make sure the Aff does ‘something’…I don’t really care what that ‘something’ is though)

- T-FW should engage with the Aff and explain what it means to affirm (“must defend only a policy” is a terrible argument and does not explain what it means to affirm), DAs to models of debate are underrated—tailor it to the Aff (ngl, I don't really take a definitive stance on what T-FW should look like, just make it good), similarly, I think the Aff should at least define what debates should look like as a departure from the squo

- Aff FW v. K: a) just bc you win that you weigh case, doesn’t mean you’ll win the round, b) state engagement good needs to be contextualized to the specific criticism, otherwise you should just debate at the link level—also, most state engagement good cards are really underhighlighted/underwarranted c) extinction outweighs is often a link but I’ll go either way on this one, d) only makes sense in policy v. K rounds tbh

- K v. K – always welcome but can be very difficult to evaluate without effort on your behalf, K aff v. cap K is usually pretty easy to resolve imo but other debates (especially identity debates) need weighing, ToP analysis, and probably a lot of perm work

- I don't like the perm double bind - saying "either the alt is strong enough to..." is basically telling me to my face "I know perfectly well the Aff links but nonetheless I'll pretend it doesn't" - good framing wins debates, but bad framing hurts my heart

- I do think that debaters should be held accountable for their discourse in-round—I prefer only going for discourse links when the link is egregious (like calling an immigrant an 'illegal alien'), and also think that word PIKs can be policing (basically: tread carefully, do this when it's necessary)

- Performances: can really matter in terms of how the Aff frames its engagement w/ debate + the world, but if it’s a 5-10 second “land acknowledgment” that takes place in your constructive and never gets brought up again, then idrc—performances have as much meaning as you articulate them to have, and can be as simple as playing background music to as complex as layering personal anecdotes/poetry in the round—you do you, I’m here for it

Policy/Util

- Sure, did this for a while and it’s probably the most common type of round I judge, fine with however you carry out policy rounds though I much prefer topic-specific ptx positions and impact turns to generics like “x is the actor, extinction”

- Weighing = necessity (and beyond just “magnitude” if there are two competing extinction scenarios), I really like “even if”/relativistic claims to be made in these rounds (it’s never absolute…trust me) and doing evidence comparison/weighing is super helpful

- Case debate is great debate - contest the scenarios, solvency, and other details too beyond just impact D, especially on the JF24 topic I find that solvency is highly contestable and makes for very rewarding rounds

- I do not default to judge kick, 2NR needs to tell me to do it, low threshold for "it's a lose-lose for the Aff so don't do that"

- If you can read CP texts and plan texts at conversational speed, that’d be fantastic

- The 1AC probably needs to at least mention Util/SV (even if it’s just a one-liner), the 1NC should exploit Affs that don’t

- Extinction is overused in debate (won’t hack against it but like…do we need to be mentioning extinction on “standardized tests?”)

- I like tests of competition more than theory debates (plan v. CP perm debates are underrated), but if you go with theory, pls weigh against 1NC procedurals

- Less a fan of limits/fairness for the sake of limits—overlimiting is a thing, I prefer topic lit implications and warrants (and similarly this constrains semantics impacts), especially on the JF '24 topic, I think one-country plans make a lot of sense semantically, but random country ACs could be abusive - doing a lot of work on "there's enough lit about Israel to make it a debate but the US doesn't even have presence in Cyprus, how am I supposed to make args here" is a good strat

Phil/FW

- Losing influence in the meta, I did study philosophy for some of college and still actively keep up with philosophy,I prefer real-world style philosophical argumentation to shenanigans based on my experiences in actual philosophical inquiry

- I prefer sensical ACs/NCs to nonsense, not a fan of tricks disguised as philosophy, generally quick to understand what you're reading but many debaters do a very poor job of in-round explanation (just keep that in mind)

- FW justifications need real warrants - a lot of them like "performativity" are like really circular and never explain why the FW is actually true

- A lot of phil contentions don't actually align with their framing - Kantian philosophy, for example, would not conclude "taxation is impermissible under the criterion"

- Don’t quote things like source Kant (Korsgaard is cooler anyway)

- TJFs—mixed feelings, most of them aren’t fantastic arguments but I’m fine voting on them

- I heavily dislike AFC/ACC (debate is about clash lol), not fond of Truth Testing ROBs in place of FW debates

Traditional LD (Trad)

- I would consider myself a reasonably competent judge; I can evaluate whatever you’re doing just fine—traditional rounds are easier to evaluate if you weigh, give clash, and give voters at the end, but are more difficult to resolve in the absence of crystallization in latter speeches

- Trad v. circuit rounds are a dilemma because every judge has different feelings here, but I tend to err on the side of circuit debater should slow a bit (70-80% speed), read an educational position like 2-3 policy off or a good but common K (setcol, security, fem, etc.), and the trad debater should be willing to adapt to tough situations - if we're in a bubble or elim round, do whatever it takes to win

- Please don't read arguments like "we must follow what is in the constitution and only what is in the constitution" as "this is ethical" - consider that you're reading an argument weaponized against queer people in front of an openly queer judge

- Counterplans are a good thing for debate, but many counterplans read in lay debates do not make sense

- Please say the name of the card BEFORE you start reading off the actual card—this makes it so much easier for me to flow (i.e., “Jones 20: blah blah”)

- I’m not a parent judge who cares about “speaking well” or “the values debate” – you should debate impacts instead of framework if the two don’t clash with each other

- "spreading bad" is a bad arg if you have the doc and even worse if you use it to clap back after you misgendered your opponent (I cannot believe I had to put this in my paradigm)

- Words in the rez =/= abstract principles of good

- The Aff must provide solvency to some extent (implied solvency doesn’t exist)

- “Where’s the statistic for x” is only a legitimate argument when dealing with utilitarian impacts

- I view the rez as a fluid idea—I don’t hack against any given arguments (except obv problematic ones), which includes “circuit arguments” (also, as a heads up: if your opponent is reading a kritik, you should probably not call it “[a] theory” or say “they didn’t have a value/VC” – these two things will tank your speaks)

Theory

- Full disclosure here - my ability to eval these rounds is entirely dependent on execution - if you actually do weighing (between standards, paradigm issue warrants, etc.), we're fine, if the opponent concedes something, make that the center of attention, if these things don't happen, brace for impact (aka presumption)

- Overall: good for policy-type theory (condo, warranted spec theory like aspec, CP theory, etc.), bad for friv theory, won’t vote on out-of-round violations (beyond disclosure, which similarly needs a clear violation or I won’t vote on it) or theory where there is no in-round abuse

- Won’t evaluate arguments about your opponent’s appearance or other ad hom-type theory (please don’t), similarly have a very high threshold when theory is deployed to shut out hard convos, it’s bad for debate

- People need to SLOWWW DOWN when reading the interp text (conversational speed would be amazing)

- Reading more than 2 shells in-round (on either side) will usually lead me to question your strategic decisions

- I don’t apply defaults in theory rounds—read paradigm issues pls and thx

- Reasonability is always an option (please?) – similarly, I think it’s actually quite strategic to read reasonability as a paradigm issue for accessibility-type theory (must not misgender opponent, accessibility formatting, etc.)

- I've voted on RVIs in the past, just not my favorite thing to evaluate bc everyone and their dog has different conceptions of "when do you get one" and "how does an RVI interact with layers" and aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa just go back to substance and push presumption :)

- I have judged several debates in which there is a “misdisclosure” violation and it devolves to “they said-they said” – please: a) collapse to something else most of the time, b) explain at like 60-70% speed “I asked for x before the debate, they said they would provide it, and then y happened” – basically, make the violation super clear to me, and c) take screenshots that are definitive evidence - this isn't to say "never go for it," it's more so to say "go for it if you think an outsider (me) will get it"

Disclosure

- Disclosure has made debate better, but reading disclosure theory is an attempt to mandate equality when we should be focusing on issues of equity—I lowkey really dislike disclosure theory debates so would prefer to adjudicate this only if necessary

- You don’t have to disclose performances

- Stop chronically reading disclosure against Black debaters—I don’t get why that is y’all’s go-to strat of all things

- Learning about disclosure norms is a topic for out-of-round discussion but not one I ever feel comfortable adjudicating (i.e., rounds where disclosure theory is deployed when one team doesn’t know how to use the wiki)

Tricks

- Genuine philosophical paradoxes (like stuff out of Socratic dialogues), innovative arguments, and creativity are okay—anything else is probably a non-starter for me, especially if it’s an argument that can be dismantled via any coherent thought (the key distinction is how much explanation is put into the argument…much like other styles in debate)

- I've realized as of late that I find it very difficult to flow a slew of analytics made in short spans of time (which is part of why I prefer Ks and policy since cards in these debates are usually longer so I don't have to delineate as much), if you're gonna read a bunch of analytics, give me time to get em down

- I understand ethical paradoxes within the time constraints of a debate round much better than logical formulae/dense logic equations—blitzing through a paragraph of “if p then q” will leave my head spinning and a mess on my flow

- I seriously dislike the way Truth Testing gets deployed in debate, especially if you use it against Ks or K Affs (it’s violent) – I do think that identity tricks are a valid response to violent practices, although you can (and should?) also go for it as a link

Misc/Defaults for LD

- FW Defaults: Comparative Worlds, Epistemic Confidence, I have no defaults on theory (make args lol)

- Permissibility and presumption both negate at face value, unlikely to vote on permissibility affirming (given ‘ought’ in the rez), presumption flips Aff if the Neg reads an advocacy, but I seldom vote on either one

- Don’t care if you sit or stand, just make it so I can hear and understand you

- If I am on a panel with two lay/parent judges, the fog is upon us

CONFLICTS:

Sequoyah HS, Perry HS, Ivy Bridge Academy, Dean Rusk MS

I competed in Lincoln-Douglas for three years in high school, and Public Forum for one. I've been coaching and judging LD and PF since then.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Disclosure

I don't want to be on the email chain/speech drop/whatever. Debate is a speaking activity, not an essay writing contest. I will judge what you say, not what's written in your case. The only exception is if there is an in-round dispute over what was actually said in a case/card.

Timing

You are welcome to time yourself but I will be timing you as well. Once my timer starts, it will not stop until the time for a given speech has elapsed. You may do whatever you like with that time, but I will not pause the round for tech issues. Tech issues happen and you need to be prepared for them.

Speed

I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Flex Prep

No. There is designated CX time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep, but not clarification.

LARP - Please don't. Discussion of policy implications is necessary for some topics, but if your case is 15 seconds of "util is truetil" and 5:45 of a hyperspecific plan with a chain of 5 vague links ending in two different extinction impacts, I'm not going to be a fan. Realistically speaking, your links are speculative, your impacts won't happen, and despite debaters telling me that extinction is inevitable for 15+ years, it still hasn't happened. Please debate the topic rather than making up your own (unless you warrant why you can do that, in which case, see pre-fiat kritiks). If there is no action in the resolution, you can't run a plan. If there is no actor, don't a-spec. If you want to debate policy, do policy debate.

Evidence Ethics

I will intervene on evidence ethics if I determine that a card is cut in such a way as to contradict or blatantly misrepresent what an author says, even if not argument is made about this in the round. I have no patience for debaters who lie about evidence. Good evidence is not hard to find, there's no need to make it up and doing so simply makes debate worse for everyone.

Arguments

Role of the Ballot: A role of the ballot argument will only influence how I vote on pre-fiat, not post-fiat argumentation. It is not, therefore, a replacement for a framework, unless your entire case is pre-fiat, in which case see "pre-fiat kritiks". A role of the ballot must have a warrant. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression" is a statement not an argument. You will need to explain why that is the role of the ballot and why it is preferable to "better debater". Please make the warrant specific to debate. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression because oppression is bad" doesn't tell me why it is specifically the role of this ballot to fight oppression. I have a low threshold for voting against roles of the ballot with no warrants. I will default to a "better debater" role of the ballot.

Theory: Please reserve theory for genuinely abusive arguments or positions which leave one side no ground. I am willing to vote on RVIs if they are made, but I will not vote on theory unless it is specifically impacted to "Vote against my opponent for this violation". I will always use a reasonability standard. Running theory is asking me as the judge in intervene in the round, and I will only do so if I deem it appropriate.

Pre-fiat Kritiks: I am very slow to pull the trigger on most pre-fiat Ks. I generally consider them attempts to exclude the aff from the round or else shut down discourse by focusing the debate on issues of identity or discourse rather than ideas, especially because most pre-fiat Ks are performative but not performed. Ensure you have a role of the ballot which warrants why my vote will have any impact on the world. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the affirmative", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Post-fiat Kritiks: Run anything you want. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the resolution", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Topicality: Fine. Just make sure you specify what the impact of topicality on the round is.

Politics Disadvantages: Please don't. If you absolutely must, you need to prove A: The resolution will occur now. B: The affirmative must defend a specific implementation of the topic. C:The affirmative must defend a specific actor for the topic. Without those three interps, I will not vote on a politics DA.

Narratives: Fine, as long as you preface with a framework which explains why and how narratives impact the round and tell me how to evaluate it.

Conditionality: I'm permissive but skeptical of conditional argumentation. A conditional argument cannot be kicked if there are turns on it, and I will not vote on contradictory arguments, even if they are conditional. So don't run a cap K and an econ disad. You can't kick out of discourse impacts. Performance is important here.

Word PICs: I don't like word PICs. I'll vote on them if they aren't effectively responded to, but I don't like them. I believe that they drastically decrease clash and cut affirmative ground by taking away unique affirmative offense.

Presumption - I do not presume neg. I'm willing to vote on presumption if the aff or neg gives me arguments for why aff or neg should be presumed, but neither side has presumption inherently. Both aff and neg need offense - in the absence of offense, I revert to possibility of offense.

Pessimistic Ks - Generally not a fan. I find it difficult to understand why they should motivate me to vote for one side over another, even if the argument is true. I have a fairly low threshold to vote on "psychoanalysis is unscientific nonsense" arguments because....well, they're kinda true.

Ideal Theory - If you want to run an argument about "ideal theory" (eg Curry 14) please understand what ideal theory is in the context of philosophy. It has nothing to do with theory in debate terms, nor is it just a philosophy which is idealistic. If you do not specify I will assume that you mean that ideal theory is full-compliance theory.

Disclosure - I will not vote on disclosure arguments.

Framework - Please have an actual warrant for your framework. If your case reads "My standard is util, contention 1" I will evaluate it, but have a very low threshold to vote against it, like any claim without a warrant. I will not evaluate pre-fiat framework warrants; eg, "Util is preferable because it gives equal ground to both sides". Read the philosophy and make an actual argument. See the section on theory - there are no theory-based framework warrants I consider reasonable.

Speaker Points

Since I've gotten some questions about this..

I judge on a 5 point scale, from 25-30.

25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said or other glaring rhetorical issues.

26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.

27.5 is average. Speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but nevertheless had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity or other areas of rhetoric.

28.5 is above average. Speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. Speaker was compelling, used rhetorical devices well.

30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.

Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally unresponded to, but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.

While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.

Please please please cut cards with complete, grammatically correct sentences. If I have to try to assemble a bunch of disconnected sentence fragments into a coherent idea, your speaker points will not be good.

Judging style

If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be framework and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.

Public Forum Paradigm

Frameworks

I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.

Topicality

I will evaluate topicality arguments, though only with the impact "ignore the argument", never "drop the team".

Theory

Yes, I understand theory. No, I don't want to hear theory in a PF round. No, I will not vote on a theory argument.

Counterplans

No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.

Kritiks

No. Kritiks only function under a truth-testing interpretation of the con burden, I only use comparative worlds in Public Forum.

Burden Interpretations

The pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof. Because of limited time and largely non-technical nature of Public Forum, I consider myself more empowered to intervene against arguments I perceive as unfair or contrary to the rules or spirit of Public Forum debate than I might be while judging LD or Policy.

First Time

I am a lay judge and this is my first time judging public forum
Please add me to your email chain! naveen_42@yahoo.com

Looking for confidence and composure. I value clarity, enthusiasm, and delivery.

Please talk slowly and no spreading

Don't include any complex strategies. Please signpost. This is my first time as a judge so please be patient and helpful!

Do not rely on me for timing!

Please tell me your school, your name, and who is first and second speaker when you first see me!

Good luck :)

I am new to judging - have patience!!

Appreciate slow and clear delivery.

I encourage to use your own timers.

I am a lay judge. Please keep your own time, I will vote off of good weighing and good accessibility. Please do not depend on me for timing.

Please do not read theory or K's; if you are reading a counter plan please explain in detail.

email: leomokriski@gmail.com

background: did LD for 4 years in highschool, qualified for nats my junior year, qualified for TOC my senior year, did policy at Emory University. I'm majoring in math and philosophy.

aff should set up email chain asap

speaks: go as fast as u want if speech docs are sent, points for being clear and slowing down on tag lines and passionate speaking

disclosure is good

TLDR: tech > truth, i am a flow judge

1 - Cap K, Phil

2 - all other ks

3 - policy, stock, theory, t, fw,

4/strike - trix

Noncircuit: generally noncircuit ld the debate will either come down to competing frameworks or weighing impacts. When you're operating under utilitarianism, make sure to do explicit weighing of your impacts through the some combination of magnitude, timeframe, probability, reversibility, and cyclicality. The key is to compare your impacts with your opponents, and articulate why yours matter more. For competing frameworks, it is important to combine your arguments about why your framework is good with equally potent arguments about why their's is bad. It is important to leverage your framework to frame the opponents impacts out by saying 'this impact doesn't matter under X ethical theory.' It is also important to win offense under an opponents framework, so that even if you're losing the framework debate, you still have offense under their's. The most important thing is to address every argument your opponent makes, and to leave no ambiguity as to why I should vote for you. Remember to speak clearly and to signpost throughout your speeches.

K: if you're gonna read a k u hv a good understanding of it. i am comfortable judging most ks including pomo and high phil, when i was in highschool i mainly ran cap k, baudrillard k, and sometimes i ran sec ks, foucault ks, setcol k, and some others im probably forgetting. if u can't explain ur k or its theory of power then i will not believe it. performance is dope if its interesting! k-affs need to do lots of work to beat t-fw. For k-affs, i generally prefer advocating for different forms of education/fairness/debate rather than saying that education/fairness/debate don't matter and/or are bad. u can say squo debate/fairness or education is bad, but should try to offer a better version that the aff solves.

Cap K: saying "their authors are capitalist" is not an argument, u need to justify why their evidence is flawed. most "cap good" arguments can be debunked w/o cards just w/ marxist analysis imo, but they still require response. vague alts are cringey, and explain why cap causes extinction. also ROTB/J is p important

Policy: any stock things is cool, cps is cool, more than one conditional advocacy in ld is probably unfair, do ur thing.

T: one or two t shells in the 1nc is fine, i will evaluate it based on the flow. no rvi on T.

Theory: friv theory is kindy cringe, and so is spamming lots of theory shells in the 1n. theory in the 1ar is good strat, if u think there is abuse in the round running theory is a good idea. aff can win RVI if it is dropped or undercovered.

FW: running fw against k-affs is usually necessary, and i will evaluate it fairly, but it is not enough on its own. neg has to disprove the affs theory of power and prove stuff like "debate is good" and "fairness matters" or "education matters" which i will be pretty charitable towards.

Phil: love phil debate and really miss doing it, i am a phil (and math) major so i should hv a decent understanding of most phil args, which means if ur defending util u should prolly allocate a good amount of time to the fw debate. in highschool i regularly ran Kant/korsgaard, contracts args, hobbes, etc. i am also comfy with p much any other philosophers, i.e. sartre, camus, foucault, Derrida etc. just display a good understanding of their theories and be able to explain them well. author indicts; lots of philosophers (especially french ones) are very problematic ppl, but nevertheless i dont think its enough to just say X philosopher is racist/sexist/transphobic, u should also try to tie their x-phobia to their theory so that i find the arg more convincing, but if other team drops it i will still vote on it.

trix r4 kids, wont be evaluating these until halloween

Experience/Background: I debated in Varsity LD for four years (2012-2016) at Starr's Mill High School on the local GA circuit. In high school, I was a pretty traditional debater in that I wrote relatively standard cases (no CPs, theory shells, DisAds, Ks etc), but I am receptive to policy-esque cases if they are explained well. Please note, I've judged a limited amount of rounds in the past year. However, I still have a good understanding of LD debate and my preferences below still apply. Bolded text is TLDR

General Preferences/Notes:

-Please add me on the email chain: anoorali1503@gmail.com

-Speaks: If you want good speaker points, just be clear and sound engaged. I would also love it if you would slow down for taglines and card citations, especially if you spread.

-Disclosure/RFD: I will try my best to give you guys a decision at the end of the round, but if I'm not able to disclose immediately after the round for some reason, don't hesitate to come and find me.

Argument Preferences:

-Cross-Ex: I'm cool with clarification questions during cross-ex, but you should use it to weaken your opponent's arguments. Also, please let your opponent answer your questions before prematurely cutting them off.I don't flow CX because nothing counts in my book unless it is brought up in the following speeches.

-Framework: Even if you have a theory or policy-esque case that doesn't require framework, I would prefer you use a value and a value criterion. LD is (traditionally) a value and framework debate so I need to know how I can evaluate the round. I believe that framework needs a clear link with contentions. I also find it hard to vote on framework without any arguments supporting it.

-Offense vs Defense: Typically, I will vote for the debater who has the most amount of offense on my flow.

-Framework vs Contentions: I typically weigh contentions over framework when the two conflict just because I believe framework is useless without any contentions to support it.

-Impacts: I'm not going to weigh your impacts for you. You need to tell me why your evidence matters and why it's important.

-Clash: Attack your opponent's case!! It makes it significantly easier for me as the judge to decide the round if one debater doesn't attack their opponent's case. In the absence of clash, I will generally default to NEG (status quo) since the AFF is typically advocating for a new plan/idea.

-Theory:I'm okay with you running Kritiks, CPs, Disads, etc.However, I'm not well versed with the structure of theory, so it's imperative that you explain these arguments very well. If I don't understand your argument, it is going to be hard for me to vote for it.

-Voters: It's really important to me to know how you won the round. You should tell me how to weigh the round and why your opponent can't win and give me voters(ideally in your last speech.)

-Roadmaps/Signposting: Please make sure to tell me the order of your speeches and try to stay in that order. If you jump from case to case and don't give me a roadmap, I'm likely going to miss of your arguments and points which could cost you the round.

-Evidence: If you have an important piece of empirical evidence that is a case study or meta-analysis, make sure you give the year the study was done or published. It will be very difficult for me to weigh any empirical evidence without a time frame.Depending on the topic, I don't think you always need to have empirical evidence to win an LD round, just so long as you can adequately disprove your opponent's case and tell me why your case is relevant in the context of the round.

Things that annoy me:

-Stealing prep time. I'll let you know when time is up and I expect you to prepare to give your speech.

-Debaters who refuse to give their opponents their case. If you refuse to do this, I'm assuming you are making up evidence or your sources aren't legitimate. There should be no reason why your opponent can't see your case and evidence.

-Rude debaters. If you're blatantly rude to your opponents and consistently talk down to them, you probably don't want me as your judge.

I tried to include everything I could think of. Please don't hesitate to email me at anoorali1503@gmail.com if you have any more questions! Good luck!

LD:

Framework: The framework should consist of a Value and a Value Criterion. No exceptions. LD is a debate form that requires those two key aspects of the debate and it is not fair for your opponent to deal with you not having one or the other (I only have this here because I've had previous situations). In the framework, I must be able to understand what your case is about. Observations are ok if they are necessary for clarity which they normally are if you have one in the first place.

Body of the Case: Please don’t run K’s or Counter-plans, that's just my preference I prefer traditional for the most part. However, if you are running either of those, just try to be clear so I know what your argument is. I want to be able to judge you fairly on your arguments.

Voting: Fairly standard, make sure you address your opponent’s case and framework. Give yourself time to defend your arguments. Noting special here.

Lastly, I only put this here because I’ve had it happen.DO NOT ATTACK THE PERSON OF YOUR OPPONENT you can attack the case, the air we breathe, the space we stand in, the 4 walls around us but if you feel the need to attack your opponent’s character don’t. I expect you to respect your opponent this is not the place for “debate me bro” nonsense.

TLDR; I'm a traditional judge

Speech events:

My main thing is just to make sure you speak clearly no matter the event. Given an online format if audio quality dips at any point I'll take that into consideration and if it had any information I'll ask about it at the end as it was out of your control and I don't want to miss a point of your speech.

RAP Paradigm:

Clash. Most importantly, I value clash rather than distracters or debate "theory." For all forms of debate, clash is essential; beyond initial presentation of cases, "canned" or pre-prepared speeches are unhelpful.

Evidence. I prioritize proof. Therefore, I value evidence over unsubstantiated opinion or theory, and I especially value evidence from quality sources. Be sure that (i) your evidence is from a quality source, (ii) your evidence actually says what you claim it does, and (iii) you are not omitting conditions, limitations, or contrary conclusions within your evidence.

Delivery. I debated back in the day when delivery mattered. Persuasion is still key, so if you are monotone, turn your back, or never bother with eye contact, your speaker points will likely suffer accordingly. You may speak quickly, but you must be clear, particularly with contentions. Eye contact and a well-organized, well-documented case are much appreciated. Always bear in mind that you’re trying to persuade the judge(s), not your opponent(s) or your computer, and focus accordingly.

Weighing arguments. I don’t weigh all arguments equally. You can spread if you want, but the decision will go to the team that carries the majority of the most-substantive issues with greater impacts. I appreciate policy arguments (vs. theory), especially if they relate to law (e.g., the Constitution), economics, international trade (e.g., the WTO), international relations (e.g., the UN or international law), or government policy.

Organization. This is essential. Off-time roadmaps are okay. I try to flow carefully. Please structure your case with numbered/lettered points and sub-points. When refuting arguments, please cross-refer to your opponent(s) case structure (preferably by number/letter) and be very organized for me to keep track.

Resolutions. Please debate the resolutions. Thought has gone into these and their specific wording. Regardless of the form of debate, I prefer that students debate the resolution, and I am not a fan of “Kritiks,” “Alts,” or the like. Whatever the rubric or euphemism, if they relate specifically to the topic, okay, but if they are generic or primarily distractive, I may disregard them. In any event, they are no excuse for failing to deal with the current resolution, for failing to clash with the other side’s specific arguments, or for failing to organize your own points with a clear structure.

Ridiculous rulemaking. Please spare me any “observation” or “framework” that attempts to narrow the resolution or to impose all of the burden on your opponent(s) (e.g., “Unless the other side carries every issue, I win the debate”).

Other pet peeves. These include: not standing during speeches, answering for your partner, claiming that you proved something without reading evidence, claiming evidence says something it doesn’t, rudeness, speaking faster than you can organize thoughts, failing to clash, forgetting that debate is ultimately about persuasion, debating during prep time, etc. Avoid hyperbole: not every issue leads to “global thermonuclear war”.

Feedback. Some students find my feedback very helpful. Even if you don’t, it’s not a time for arguing against the decision or for being disrespectful, which is counterproductive with me.

My background. I was a Policy debater who also competed in Congress, Extemp, and OO. I’ve coached PF. I am an international business attorney and former law school professor, with a background in Economics and experience working on Capitol Hill. I also teach and tutor ELA, History, and SAT (Reading/Writing); words matter.

The above thoughts apply to all forms of debate. I judge a fair amount, primarily PF and L-D. Below are some thoughts specific to those types of debate:

PF—

--I prefer line-by-line refutation. I am not a fan of dropping or conceding arguments. I do not appreciate attempts to reduce the debate to “voters,” ignoring other arguments. This is particularly inappropriate when done during your side’s first two-minute speech.

--No “scripted” speeches after the initial presentations of cases. Clash is key.

--Framework is optional, not essential. It may not be used to narrow the resolution.

--Even though you are not required to present a plan, that can’t be used as a knee-jerk response to all arguments or questions concerning Solvency or Topicality.

--Remember that “There is no presumption or burden of proof in Public Forum Debate”.

L-D—

--I am not a fan of abstract philosophy. Any philosophical presentation must be tied specifically to the resolution and not presented in a generic vacuum.

--I don’t necessarily weigh framework over contentions.

--Your value and criterion should work with your contentions. Ideally, in discussing the relative merits of each side’s framework, explain specifically why your choice is more relevant rather than relying on a circular “chicken and egg” analysis (e.g., “My value comes before her value”).

Current Coach -- Marist School (2020-present)

Former PF Debater -- Marist School (2016-2020)

I just graduated from the University of Georgia and I will be attending law school next year!

Please add maristpublicforum@gmail.com to the email chain

Debate is first and foremost a safe, fun, and educational activity so we should do our best to keep it that way

TL;DR: I am a tech judge and I will vote off my flow. Please do whatever you do best and enjoy the round.

General important stuff:

1) Extend every part of the argument... uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. A claim without a warrant is not an argument. If you do not extend your argument then I can not vote on it. I really do listen and pay close attention to this so please do. I will vote with no shame against teams that probably would have won if they had just extended their argument fully.

2) I cannot stress enough that fewer well developed arguments will always be better than blips with no argument development or good warrants. I've noticed teams that collapse and more thoroughly explain their arguments tend to win my ballot more often than not against a team that goes for too much.

3) Please weigh your arguments. Explain why your argument is more important than the other teams.

4) My only real pet peeve is wasting time during or before a debate. Please be ready to start the debate on time and don't cause unnecessary delays during it. Preflowing should be done before the debate. When prep time ends you should be ready to start your speech right away. "Pulling up a doc" or something like that for 30 seconds is stealing prep and should be done before you end your prep time.

5) Second rebuttal must answer first rebuttal, defense is not sticky

Other specific stuff:

Argument types:

I don’t care what type of argument you read as long as it is well explained, has warrants, and is weighed (case, k’s, theory... whatever are all fine). You do what you're best at!

Speed:

You can go as fast or slow as you want. I will be good flowing any speed you decide to go. My only caveat if you go fast is to slow a bit down on taglines and still signpost well

Theory:

Any theory arguments need to be real violations that have real impacts. Frivolous theory is unpleasant to judge and will be almost impossible to win in front of me. I believe paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good. At this point in the activity reading cuts cards and disclosing has become a norm that most teams adhere to which I think makes my threshold for responses to the shell even higher than it has been in the past.

Any theory argument should be read in the speech directly after the violation. For example disclosure theory should be read in constructive, but if a team reads cut cards in case and then paraphrases rebuttal then you read paraphrasing in rebuttal/summary whichever is next.

Speaks:

If you flow on paper and give second half speeches off of that flow a small boost in speaks. I give speaks primarily based on quality of the debating in round. Making good strategic decisions, collapsing, and weighing are all things that can help your speaks. Being nice and not wasting time also help. I do not really care how "good" you sound if you are not making good arguments at the same time. To put this into perspective, when I debated I always felt that winning rounds was more important than sounding good, but with winning generally comes better speaks.

4x debater @Georgia, 2x NDT Attendee

Please send your hate mail to --> jhweintraub@gmail.com

I was a 2a for my entire 8 yr debate career, so i'm also willing to do the work to protect the aff from what I see as abusive strategies.

I think I get a reputation for being a hack judge because I end up resolving debates by doing work for either team to try and untangle messy parts at the end, usually by reading a lot of evidence. My biggest issue is in these complex and messy debates when neither side is really making an attempt to clarify the story of what's going on and just speed through the line by line, so the debate ends and I have to make arbitrary decisions on evidence and internal link chains because neither side has told me what the ballot ought to be for. If you can do that I'm significantly more likely to vote for a scenario that is illucidated well and untangled for me.

Ex: Willing to vote on theory against arbitrary and contrived CPs that don't have a solvency advocate or try to skirt clash on the core issue. Willing to vote for the Aff on framework against the K because even though fiat isn't real the game of debate itself is useful.

I like good mechanism debates. Process CP's not my favorite cup of tea but if you've got a CP that you think does actually solve better than the aff i'd be pretty interested in hearing it.

Framework makes the game work and fairness is an impact. If the game isn't fair and both sides don't stand an equal chance of winning what's even the point of playing. At that point we're basically playing blackjack but one side gets to be the house and the other the player, and Idk about you, but I don't wanna play that game.

Coaching is not my full time job so I'm not as tuned in to everything going on on this topic as I would like to be, which means that if you wanna go for T It might be useful to do a little extra work to explain why the aff is far outside the bounds of what we know the topic is. That being said though, i'm definitely willing to pull the trigger on it if I think the aff is overly contrived in an attempt to skirt the core neg ground.

The aff almost always gets to weigh its implementation against the K. The neg gets to link representations but you also need to justify why that matters against the aff or some tangible impact of that.

My background and day job is in cybersecurity (blockchain and encryption engineering) so if you're gonna read arguments about technology i'm gonna expect you to have at least some understanding of how tech works and will almost certainly not be persuaded by tech > truth. Most cyber arguments are stupid and completely miss the nuance of the tools. If you want more explanation i am happy to explain why.

For Novice Only: To promote flowing, you can show me your flows at the end of a round and earn up to 1.0 speaker points if they are good. To discourage everyone bombarding me with flows, you can also lose up to a full speaker point if your flows suck.

Judge Philosophy

Name: Lisa Willoughby

Current Affiliation: Midtown High School formerly Henry W. Grady High School

Conflicts: AUDL teams

Debate Experience: 1 year debating High School 1978-79, Coaching High School 1984-present

How many rounds have you judged in 2012-13: 50, 2013-2014: 45, 2015-2016: 25, 2016-17 15, 2017-2018: 30, 2018-19: 30, 2019-20:10, 2020-21: 40, 2021-2022: 35, 2022-2023:6

send evidence e-mail chain to quaintt@aol.com

I still view my self as a policy maker unless the debaters specify a different role for my ballot. I love impact comparison between disadvantages and advantages, what Rich Edwards used to call Desirability. I don’t mind the politics disad, but I am open to Kritiks of Politics.

I like Counterplans, especially case specific counterplans. I certainly think that some counterplans are arguably illegitimate; for example, I think that some international counterplans are utopian, and arguably claim advantages beyond the reciprocal scope of the affirmative, and are, therefore, unfair. I think that negatives should offer a solvency advocate for all aspects of their counterplan, and that multi-plank cps are problematic. I think that there are several reasons why consultation counterplans, and the States CP could be unfair. I will not vote unilaterally on any of these theoretical objections; the debaters need to demonstrate for me why a particular counterplan would be unfair.

I have a minor in Philosophy, and love good Kritik debate. Sadly, I have seen a lot of bad Kritik debate. I think that K debaters need to have a strong understanding of the K authors that they embrace. I really want to understand the alternative or the role of my ballot. I have no problem with a K Aff, but am certainly willing to vote on Framework/T against a case that does not have at least a clear advocacy statement that I can understand. I am persuadable on "AFF must be USFG."

I like Topicality, Theory and Framework arguments when they are merited. I want to see fair division of ground or discourse that allows both teams a chance to prepare and be ready to engage the arguments.

I prefer substance to theory; go for the theoretical objections when the abuse is real.

As for style, I love good line-by-line debate. I adore evidence comparison, and argument comparison. I am fairly comfortable with speed, but I like clarity. I have discovered that as I get older, I am very comfortable asking the students to "clear." I enjoy humor; I prefer entertaining cross-examinations to belligerent CX. Warrant your claims with evidence or reasoning.

Ultimately, I demand civility: any rhetoric, language, performance or interactions that demean, dehumanize or trivialize fellow debaters, their arguments or judges would be problematic, and I believe, a voting issue.

An occasional interruption of a partner’s speech or deferring to a more expert partner to answer a CX question is not a problem in my view. Generally only one debater at a time should be speaking. Interruptions of partner speeches or CX that makes one partner merely a ventriloquist for the other are extremely problematic.

Clipping cards is cheating. Quoting authors or evidence out of context, or distorting the original meaning of a text or narrative is both intellectually bankrupt and unfair.

There is no such thing as one ideal form or type of debate. I love the clash of ideas and argumentation. That said, I prefer discourse that is educational, and substantive. I want to walk away from a round, as I often do, feeling reassured that the policy makers, educators, and citizens of the future will seek to do a reasonable and ethical job of running the world.

For Lincoln Douglas debates:

I am "old school" and feel most comfortable in a Value/Criterion Framework, but it is your debate to frame. Because I judge policy frequently, I am comfortable with speed but generally find it is needless. Clarity is paramount. Because of the limited time, I find that I typically err AFF on theoretical objections much more than I would in a policy round.

I believe that any argument that an AFF wants to weigh in the 2AR needs to be in the 1AR. I will vote against new 2AR arguments.

I believe that NEG has an obligation to clash with the AFF. For this reason, a counterplan would only be justified in a round when the AFF argues for a plan; otherwise a counterplan is an argument for the AFF. The NEG must force a decision, and for that reason, I am not fond of what used to be called a 'balance neg.'