Tabroom.com

The Meadows School Tournament

2023 — Las Vegas, NV/US

LD Judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Joey Antonelli Peninsula High School 6 rounds

Nikki Aqui Immaculate Heart High School 6 rounds

Joseph Barquin Marlborough School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 4:53 PM PDT

Affiliations:

I am currently coaching 3 teams at lamdl (POLAHS, BRAVO, LAKE BALBOA) and have picked up an ld student or 2. I am pretty familiar with the fiscal redistribution and WANA topics.

I do have a hearing problem in my right ear. If I've never heard you b4 or it's the first round of the day. PLEASE go about 80% of your normal spread for about 20 seconds so I can get acclimated to your voice. If you don't, I'm going to miss a good chunk of your first minute or so. I know people pref partly through speaker points. My default starts at 28.5 and goes up from there. If i think you get to an elim round, you'll prob get 29.0+

Evid sharing: use speechdrop or something of that nature. If you prefer to use the email chain and need my email, please ask me before the round.

What will I vote for? I'm mostly down for whatever you all wanna run. That being said no person is perfect and we all have our inherent biases. What are mine?

I think teams should be centered around the resolution. While I'll vote on completely non T aff's it's a much easier time for a neg to go for a middle of the road T/framework argument to get my ballot. I lean slightly neg on t/fw debates and that's it's mostly due to having to judge LD recently and the annoying 1ar time skew that makes it difficult to beat out a good t/fw shell. The more I judge debates the less I am convinced that procedural fairness is anything but people whining about why the way they play the game is okay even if there are effects on the people involved within said activity. I'm more inclined to vote for affs and negs that tell me things that debate fairness and education (including access) does for people in the long term and why it's important. Yes, debate is a game. But who, why, and how said game is played is also an important thing to consider.

As for K's you do you. the main one I have difficulty conceptualizing in round are pomo k vs pomo k. No one unpacks these rounds for me so all I usually have at the end of the round is word gibberish from both sides and me totally and utterly confused. If I can't give a team an rfd centered around a literature base I can process, I will likely not vote for it. update: I'm noticing a lack of plan action centric links to critiques. I'm going to be honest, if I can't find a link to the plan and the link is to the general idea of the resolution, I'm probably going to err on the side of the perm especially if the aff has specific method arguments why doing the aff would be able to challenge notions of whatever it is they want to spill over into.

I lean neg on condo. Counterplans are fun. Disads are fun. Perms are fun. clear net benefit story is great.

If you're in LD, don't worry about 1ar theory and no rvis in your 1ac. That is a given for me. If it's in your 1ac, that tops your speaks at 29.2 because it means you didn't read my paradigm.

Now are there any arguments I won't vote for? Sure. I think saying ethically questionable statements that make the debate space unsafe is grounds for me to end a round. I don't see many of these but it has happened and I want students and their coaches to know that the safety of the individuals in my rounds will always be paramount to anything else that goes on. I also won't vote for spark, trix, wipeout, nebel t, and death good stuff. ^_^ good luck and have fun debating

Michael Bietz Harvard-Westlake School 1 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 6:43 AM PDT

Head Coach: Harvard-Westlake School, Los Angeles CA | mbietz AT hw.com

I am diagnosed (and am on medication) with severe ADD. This means my ability to listen carefully and pick up everything you say will wane during the round. I would strongly suggest you have vocal variety and slow down, especially for what you want to make sure I get.

Jonah Feldman, friend and former coach at UC Berkeley, summed up a lot of what I have to say about how I evaluate arguments

I do not believe that a dropped argument is necessarily a true argument.

I am primarily interested in voting on high-quality arguments that are well explained, persuasively advanced, and supported with qualified evidence and insightful examples. I am not interested in voting on low-quality arguments that are insufficiently explained, poorly evidenced, and don't make sense. Whether or not the argument was dropped is a secondary concern...

How should this affect the way I debate?

1) Choose more, especially in rebuttals. Instead of extending many different answers to an advantage or off-case argument, pick your spots and lock in.

2) If the other team has dropped an argument, don't take it for granted that it's a done deal. Make sure it's a complete argument and that you've fully explained the important components and implications of winning that argument.

His full paradigm: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=6366

More stuff:

I never thought I'd have to say this, but you have to read aloud what you want me to consider in the round. Paraphrasing doesn't count as "evidence."

The affirmative probably should be topical.

I think that I'm one of the few circuit LD judges who votes affirmative more than I vote negative. I prefer an affirmative that provides a problem and then a solution/alternative to the problem. Negatives must engage. Being independently right isn't enough.

I consider myself a policy-maker with an extremely left bent. Answering oppression with extinction usually doesn't add up for me. I'll take immediate, known harms over the long-term, speculative, multi-link impacts 90 out of 100 times. This isn't paradigmatic, so it is NEGS failing to engage the Affirmative Case.

Given my propensity to vote affirmative and give the affirmative a lot of leeway in defining the scope of the problem/solution, and requiring the negative to engage, I'd suggest you take out the 3 minutes of theory pre-empts and add more substance.

Topicality is probably not an RVI, ever. Same with Ks. Today I saw someone contend that if he puts defense on a Kritik to make debate a safe space, the judge should vote for him because he'll feel attacked.

Cut your presumption spikes. It's bad for debate to instruct judges not to look for winning arguments. It also encourages debaters to make rounds unclear or irreconcilable if they need to catch up on actual issues.

Where an argument can be made "substantively" or without theory, just make it without theory. For example, your opponent not having solvency isn't a theory violation. it just means their risk of solvency is very low. Running theory flips the coin again. So it's both annoying and bad strategy. Other examples might include: Plan flaws, no solvency advocate, and so on. Theory IS the great equalizer in that it gives someone who is otherwise losing an argument a chance to win.

Cross-x cannot be transferred to prep time.

Some annoyances:

- Not letting your opponents answer a question. More specifically, male debaters who have been socialized to think it is ok to interrupt females who have been socialized not to put up a fight. If you ask the question, give them a chance to answer.

- Ignoring or belittling the oppression or marginalization of people in favor of smug libertarian arguments will likely not end up well for you.

- People who don't disclose or they password protect or require their opponents to delete speech documents. I'm not sure why what you read is private or a secret if you've read it out loud. The whole system of "connected" kids and coaches who know each other using backchannel methods to obtain intelligence is one of the most exclusionary aspects of debate. This *is* what happens when people don't disclose. I'll assume if you don't disclose you prefer the exclusionary system.

Some considerations for you:

- if you’re reading such old white male cards that you have to edit for gendered language, maybe consider finding someone who doesn’t use gendered language... and if you notice that ONLY white men are defending it, maybe consider changing your argument.

- if you find yourself having to pre-empt race or gender arguments in your case, maybe you shouldn't run the arguments.

Dillon William Brouwer Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 4, 2024 at 4:29 AM PDT

For cases we use speechdrop. - I don't shake hands. - I am a speaks fairy

TLDR: Ive been involved in debate for over eight years. Explain your arguments well, esp. your links to your impacts. I prefer logical lines of thinking over card after card, Im big on framework and impacts, but i'll vote on majority of things (read list under augmentation for more).

Qualifications I am a theater major, President of the UNLV Debate Team. LD and DI college national qualifier and a graduate student for a M.A. in Communications.

Overarching Idea for debate etiquette

Being mean = terrible speaks.

Try and keep me entertained. Try and be energetic and do something every so often to get my attention. Bonus speaks if you can make me laugh

Argumentation (1-10 scale on how much I enjoy it.

Impact/Weighing (10/10)

T/Procedural : (9/10) (I need a in round abuse story)

Framework: (8/10)

Theory: (Be careful, 6/10) (will NOT vote for disclosure theory)

Performance: (7/10) I would love to see a good fun performance :p

K: (4.5/10) I need a real good explanation, will vote on them - after you read your cards, take a beat and explain it to me in simpler terms, i get the K and how it functions but sometimes the cards make it muddy. Explain your alt and why it matters.

Narratives : (4/10) It's unfair for a opponent to defend against your own personal story. Use it as an impact not a voting issue and ill value it more.

Triggers: (X/10) Depends on violation - be realistic.

For LD I believe that fundamentally

1) Good FW is an ultimate truth and is the most important thing of the round.

2) it is the debaters job to prove a general principal. I am generous with AFF fiat but not unrealistic

3) the proof is in the logic, plans cant be proven and so use your skills to explain it to me with logical lines of thinking. Go over the line by line, give me good overviews and explain where your winning and why.

Safety

If you feel as though you cannot continue the round for any reason and have the ability to knock on the table 3 times please do so and the round will end immediately and a discussion can occur about where to go from there. (I get it, my anxiety attacks freeze me up entirely)

Joseph Carver Hire 1 rounds None

Noah Christiansen Sage Hill School 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 17, 2024 at 5:46 AM PDT

Here's my email - I don't use my personal one for debate anymore - please put me on the chain: noah@modernbrain.com

ModernBrain Coach '19-Present

Valley International Prep Coach '21-'22

Polytechnic Coach '22-'23

Chadwick and Sierra Vista Coach '23-Present

I debated for four years in policy debate at McQueen high school, two years at CSU Long Beach (where I qualified to the NDT twice), and was on the Trojan Debate Squad for two years at USC. Currently, I am a speech and debate coach for ModernBrain which means that at times I have to judge public forum, ld, congress, etc. (although I judge policy most). For all of the non-policy people that I judge - please don't change your debate style just because I did policy debate. I'd much rather see you do what you do best instead of try to spread and read arguments that you aren't familiar with.

Debate is simply whatever you want it to be. Are there specific rules that should be desired over others? Is debate just a game or is it a revolutionary game with potential for change? I think there are a litany of questions that occur in debates that should be left open for the debaters to answer. With that being said, I appreciate all types of debate whether you're policy or kritikal and am open to vote on anything.

Disclaimer: Question to all of the judges that auto-vote FW: If I auto-voted on the K or a K aff would I be a bad judge? I will never ever ever understand how some judges will auto vote framework. I see a lot of these judges and it's ridiculous. Even the judges that say they will never vote on framework. Like, what? We are better than this. We are judging people who are taking time to craft out strategies and you have such an ideological bias for a side that you will vote kids down because you disagree? I coach some K debaters and our pref sheet is at such a disadvantage - this is sad. So, for the debaters, be yourself and read the arguments you want in a debate with me as your judge because that's what I'm here for.

Some specific stuff:

T - I enjoy T debates a lot, ESPECIALLY when the topic allows for great T arguments. The China QPQ T and the Education Curriculum T allowed for some great conversations that were in-depth and allowed both sides to have good reasons for their model of debate. I find it difficult to adjudicate topicality debates when it's incredibly minute (not that I wouldn't vote on it, but the model of debate and potential abuse needs to be EXTRA clear). When judging high school, I see a lot of debaters either a) only spending time on the interp debate, or b) only spending time on the impact level. Clearly, both of these things matter, but if the aff appears to be topical on face then you need to be really clear on this question. Fair warning - I haven't judged a lot on the policy topic, so make sure T is clear...

DA - DA's are always great debates if it's unique and coupled with a great CP. Usually in policy debates, both the aff and neg like to throw around a lot of buzz words and spend a lot of time on the impact level, but I really like to see specific link stories that have a tie to the aff rather than a super generic one (unless the aff itself isn't super unique, then obvi, fair game). If you have a CP that solves the DA, great! Explain why it solves the DA and avoids the net-benefit, but if you don't have a CP or don't go for a CP, then make sure there is some turns case analysis/DA outweighs.

CP - I don't go into debates thinking "I think X CP is a cheating CP" - It should be left up to the debaters what types of arguments should/shouldn't be allowed in debate. With that being said, any CP in front of me should be fine, but please have the CP solve something... I've seen/judged a lot of debates where the CP sounds good but doesn't actually do anything. I won't kick the CP if you don't tell me to. This doesn't mean you have to take forever explaining to me why I should kick it, but there should be some justification. One important thing to note: I want to do the least amount of intervention as possible. With that being said, I don't auto judge kick if you're winning the DA and losing the CP. All you need to say is: "If you don't buy the CP kick it for us." Preferably, you should have a warrant because if the aff gets up and says, "no judge kick for fairness/education" and you don't have a warrant for judge kick, I'll have to default to no judge kick.

K - I mainly went for the kritik, but that doesn't mean I'm a "k hack" by any means. I do a lot of reading now (much more than I did in previous years) and I'm starting to see the nuances in a lot of critical theory. I understand that these theories can be super complex (especially for high schoolers), so I am understanding to the fact that warrants might be not incredibly in-depth. HOWEVER, please try your best to explain k as well as possible. Just because I read the literature doesn't mean you should assume that I know what you're talking about. The judge kick stuff from the CP above applies here as well if you kick the alternative.

FW - I think that engaging the aff is something the negative should do, but I do not think FW should be taken away completely because FW is saying that the neg wants to engage with the aff, but they are unable to. The aff should defend why their content and model of debate is good, so FW is a viable strategy. In college, I went for FW against K affs, but when I was a 2N in high school, I would usually go for a k against a k aff. So, for the FW teams, just because I like the K doesn't mean you shouldn't go T. Good TVA's are always great. A lot of affs that I see don't necessarily need to be untopical, so I feel that the neg can point that out with a TVA. In general, I personally like indicts on case coupled with FW (especially policy-making good, presumption, etc.)

K affs - I love a good k aff that is engaging. The aff definitely needs to defend: Why the ballot solves, what their method does, and why their model of debate is good (applicable in a FW debate). I enjoy k affs with a good topic link if possible. The FW debate is an important debate to be had due to the divisiveness in the debate community. The big problem I've noticed with people running k affs is that debaters don't do enough ballot key analysis. I'm open to any theory and can follow along with whatever you're talking about. I prefer an advocacy statement in these debates because if there isn't one, I don't know why my ballot matters to you. Again, I'll vote on anything, but I'll be especially sympathetic to FW if I'm not told what the endorsing of my ballot does/indicates. I know this is specific to FW (because that's all most people read), but method v. method debates are also fantastic.

Policy affs - Not too much to say here. If the aff is a good idea then the aff wins.

Be yourself. Debate can be pretty exhausting and frustrating at times, but a lot of us forget that it's an activity that should be enjoyed. It's amazing to be in debate because a lot of people don't even have access to the activity. Debate has opened up so many opportunities, allowed me to make some amazing friends, taught me how to be a better person, made me smarter, and made me an advocate to stand up for what's right. I remember being incredibly upset and angry after losses because I felt that it invalidated who I was when, in reality, a judge didn't perceive my argument to be the winning one. Debate is so much more than winning and the TOC. It's a place where you can activate your agency. #AbolishTheCoachesPoll

Lastly, be nice to each other! Make some friends, have fun researching, and don't forget to start your timers.

Brett Cryan BASIS Independent Silicon Valley 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 22, 2024 at 7:19 PM MDT

add to chain/speech drop:

backslash309@gmail.com

top level:

TLDR: I will vote on anything. except arguments about things that didn't happen inside the round, although disclosure is fine.

Policy and K debates are my favorite, but reading what you want and giving a good speech is much more likely to get higher speaks than trying to tailor what you read to what you think my ideological preferences are.

Tech > truth, but truth determines the extent tech matters. A blatantly false claim like "the sky is red" requires more warranting than a commonly accepted claim ie "the sky is blue". Unwarranted arguments in the constructive that receive warrants later on justify "new" responses to those warrants. This doesn't mean I won't vote on tricks or theory, but the ability to say "X is conceded" relies on "X" having a full Claim/Warrant/Impact - the absence of crucial elements of an argument such as warrants will mean that adding them in later speeches will justify new responses. If an argument is introduced in a speech where no such response is valid, it carries little weight, for example: I am not going to think fairness categorically outweighs education if fairness outweighs is introduced in the 2AR.

Not voting on call outs. Not my business.

random thoughts:

--- Qualified authors & solid warrants in your ev are important. Evidence comparison and weighing are also important. In the absence of evidence comparison and weighing, I may make a decision that upsets you. That is fundamentally your fault.

--- In the absence of paradigm issues on my flow, I'm going to evaluate theory contextually. This means I will only grant you the logical implication of the words you say, and will not automatically grant you assumptions like drop the debater. For example, if a 1AR tells me "PICs are a voter cuz they steal the aff", this logically means that PICs are a bad argument, but doesn't explain why the neg should lose for reading it. Functionally, this means I'd default drop the argument absent any explanation. This headache can be easily avoided through warranted, extended arguments.

--- Most Ks that people get away with in LD have horrible warranting in the 1NC. Blowing up blippy Ks with elaborate turns case analysis, framework arguments, thesis explanations, etc that is not present in the 1NC obviously merits 2AR responses that I will give full credence to.

--- K affs being vague and shifty hurts you more than it helps. I'm very unsympathetic to 2AR pivots that change the way the aff has been explained. Take care to have a coherent story/explanation of your K aff that starts in the 1AC and remains consistent throughout the debate.

--- I default to judgekick.

--- I have heard a concerning amount of people saying "you cannot win a perm without a deficit" lately. This is absurd. The neg has the burden of competition. In the circumstances in a counterplan debate where neither the aff nor the neg has offense due to a perm, I vote aff. For example, if the neg goes for a consult NATO counterplan and the 2AR goes for "do the plan + consult NATO on other issues", the aff wins even without a deficit insofar as the 2NR does not clearly delineate offense vs the perm. There is no risk of offense for either side, but that means the plan is the logically safest option, as it is less of a deviation from the status quo than the counterplan.

Norma Delgado Marlborough School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 7:02 AM PDT

2017-2019 LAMDL/ Bravo

2019- Present CSU Fullerton

Please add me to the email chain, normadelgado1441@gmail.com

General thoughts

-Disclose as soon as possible :)

- Don't be rude. Don't make the round deliberately confusing or inaccessible. Take time to articulate and explain your best arguments. If I can't make sense of the debate because of messy/ incomplete arguments, that's on you.

-Speed is fine but be loud AND clear. If I can’t understand you, I won’t flow your arguments. Don’t let speed trade-off with the quality of your argumentation. Above all, be persuasive.

-Sending evidence isn't prep, but don't take too long or I’ll resume the timer. (I’ll let you know before I do so).

Things to keep in mind

-Avoid using acronyms or topic-specific terminology without elaborating first.

-The quality of your arguments is more important than quantity of arguments. If your strategy relies on shallow, dropped arguments, I’ll be mildly annoyed.

-Extend your arguments, not authors. I will flow authors sometimes, but if you are referencing a specific card by name, I probably don’t remember what they said. Unless this specific author is being referenced a lot, you’re better off briefly reminding me than relying on me to guess what card you’re talking about.

-I don’t vote for dropped arguments because they’re dropped. I vote on dropped arguments when you make the effort to explain why the concession matters.

- I don’t really care what you read as long as you have good reasoning for reading it. (ie, you’re not spewing nonsense, your logic makes sense, and you’re not crossing ethical boundaries).

Specific stuff

[AFFs] Win the likelihood of solvency + framing. You don't have to convince me you solve the entirety of your impact, but explain why the aff matters, how the aff is necessary to resolve an issue, and what impacts I should prioritize.

[Ks/K-affs] I like listening to kritiks. Not because I’ll instantly understand what you’re talking about, but I do like hearing things that are out of the box.

k on the neg: I love seeing teams go 1-off kritiks and go heavy on the substance for the link and framing arguments. I love seeing offense on case. Please impact your links and generate offense throughout the debate.

k on the aff: I like strategic k affs that make creative solvency arguments. Give me reasons to prefer your framing to evaluate your aff's impacts and solvency mechanism. The 2ar needs to be precise on why voting aff is good and overcomes any of the neg's offense.

[FW] Choose the right framework for the right aff. I am more persuaded by education & skills-based impacts. Justify the model of debate your interpretation advocates for and resolve major points of contestation. I really appreciate when teams introduce and go for the TVA. Talk about the external impacts of the model of debate you propose (impacts that happen outside of round).

[T/Theory] I have a higher threshold for voting on minor T/Theory violations when impacts are not contextualized. I could be persuaded to vote on a rebuttal FULLY committed to T/theory.

I am more persuaded by education and skills-based impacts as opposed to claims to procedural fairness. It’s not that I will never vote for procedural fairness, but I want you to contextualize what procedural fairness in debate would look like and why that’s a preferable world.

[CPs] CPs are cool as long as you have good mutual exclusivity evidence; otherwise, I am likely to be persuaded by a perm + net benefit arg. PICS are also cool if you have good answers to theory.

[DAs] I really like DAs. Opt for specific links. Do evidence comparison for me. Weigh your impacts and challenge the internal link story. Give your framing a net benefit.

I am more persuaded by impacts with good internal link evidence vs a long stretch big stick impact. Numbers are particularly persuasive here. Make me skeptical of your opponent’s impacts.

David Dosch Immaculate Heart High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 17, 2024 at 8:48 AM PDT

I am the Director of Debate at Immaculate Heart High School. I am a conflict for any competitors on this list.

General:

1. I will vote on nearly any argument that is well explained and compared to the arguments your opponent has made.

2. Accusing your opponent of an evidence ethics or clipping violation requires you to stake the debate on said allegation. If such an allegation is made, I will stop the debate, determine who I think is in the wrong, and vote against that person and give them the lowest speaker points allowed by the tournament.

3. I won’t vote on arguments that I don’t understand or that I don’t have flowed. I have been involved in circuit LD for almost ten years now and consider myself very good at flowing, so if I missed an argument it is likely because you were incomprehensible.

4. I am a strong proponent of disclosure, and I consider failing to disclose/incorrect disclosure a voting issue, though I am growing weary of nit-picky disclosure arguments that I don’t think are being read in good faith.

5. For online debate, please keep a local recording of your speech so that you can continue your speech and share it with your opponent and me in the event of a disconnect.

6. Weighing arguments are not new even if introduced in the final rebuttal speech. The Affirmative should not be expected to weigh their advantage against five DAs before the Negative has collapsed.

7. You need to use CX to ask which cards were read and which were skipped.

Some thoughts of mine:

1. I dislike arguments about individual debaters' personal identities. Though I have voted for these arguments plenty of times, I think I would vote against them the majority of the time in an evenly matched debate.

2. I am increasingly disinterested in voting for topicality arguments about bare plurals or theory arguments suggesting that either debater should take a stance on some random thing. No topic is infinitely large and voting for these arguments discourages topic research. I do however enjoy substantive topicality debates about meaningful interpretive disagreements regarding terms of art used in the resolution.

3. “Jurisdiction” and “resolvability” standards for theory arguments make little sense to me. Unless you can point out a debate from 2013 that is still in progress because somebody read a case that lacked an explicit weighing mechanism, I will have a very low threshold for responses to these arguments.

4. I dislike critiques that rely exclusively on framework arguments to make the Aff irrelevant. The critique alternative is one of the debate arguments I'm most skeptical of. I think it is best understood as a “counter-idea” that avoids the problematic assumptions identified by the link arguments, but this also means that “alt solves” the case arguments are misguided because the alternative is not something that the Negative typically claims is fiated. If the Negative does claim that the alternative is fiated, then I think they should lose to perm do both shields the link. With that said, I still vote on critiques plenty and will evaluate these debates as per your instructions.

5. Despite what you may have heard, I enjoy philosophy arguments quite a bit and have grown nostalgic for them as LD increasingly becomes indistinct from policy. What I dislike is when debaters try to fashion non-normative philosophy arguments about epistemology, metaphysics, or aesthetics into NCs that purport to justify a prescriptive standard. I find philosophy heavy strategies that concede the entirety of the opposing side’s contention or advantage to be unpersuasive.

6. “Negate” is not a word that has been used in any resolution to date so frameworks that rely on a definition of this word will have close to no impact on my assessment of the debate.

Peter Eitel Bishop Gorman High School 2 rounds None

Patrick Fox Sage Oak Charter 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon July 15, 2024 at 7:44 PM CDT

0. tl;dr - read this before rounds

"takes his job seriously, but not himself." i judge an extremely large volume of debates every year. these days, it's mostly an even mix of very dense disad, case, and counterplan debates and the more technical side of K debates, but in years past i would likely have best been described as a professional clash judge. i get substantially fewer performance debates and LD "phil" rounds, so i lack comparative experience in those areas, but i am still probably better for them than an average judge, and i enjoy them when executed well. i read policy strategies in high school and the K in college, so i enjoy judging both and am loyal to voting for neither. i evaluate debates as offense/defense, but risk calculus still matters a lot to me and i am (semi-)willing to pull the trigger on zero risk. i try to be very flow-centric and value "technical" execution and direct refutation above "truth", but i don't think that means bad arguments aren't still bad. i don't flow off the doc, so you can go as fast as you want but i will be unforgiving of low clarity. while i did most of our aff writing in college, i am, at my core, a die-hard 2N. that probably tells you more useful info about my debate views than anything else in this paradigm, but you can scroll down to the specifics section regarding arguments in the round you're expecting to have - most of the meat of this paradigm is here for doing prefs. i'm very expressive, but probably overall a bit grumpy for reasons unrelated to you. Wheaton's law is axiomatic, so please be kind, and show me you're having fun. please don't call me "judge", "Mr.", or "sir" - patrick, pat, fox, or p.fox are fine. "act like you've been here."

I. operating procedure + non-negotiables

1. he/him/his - you should not misgender people.

2. pleaselearntoflow@gmail.com -

a. I strongly prefer email chains. Please have the doc sent before start time. If the round starts at 2:00, I expect the 1AC email at 1:58 so we can start at start time. Every minute the chain is late after start time is -0.1 speaks for the 1A – things are getting ridiculous. You should avoid any risk of any of this by just setting up the email chain when you do disclosure at the pairing. Format subject lines for email chains as "Tournament Round - Aff Entry vs Neg Entry" (e.g: "NDT 2019 Octos - Wake EF vs Bing AY").

b. Prep ends when the doc is sent. It is 2023, you should know how to compile and send a speech document efficiently, stop stealing prep. If you are having difficulty, I suggest Verbatim drills. No, that is not a joke.

3. I flow on my laptop. I have hearing damage in my left ear, so ideally I am positioned to the right of whoever is speaking. I sometimes get sensory overload issues, so I may close my eyes/put my head down/stare off into the distance during speeches - I promise I'm not sleeping or zoned out, and even if not looking at my screen, I will definitely still be flowing.

4. i will make minimal eye contact during any given debate, and will likely have a resting grumpy face, so don’t worry much about those specific things. That said, I'm comically expressive. It's not on purpose, and I've tried to stop it with no luck - I just have a truly terrible poker face. I shake my head and scowl at nonsense, I grin and nod when I think you're doing the right thing, I shrug when I am lukewarm on an argument, I cock my head and raise my eyebrows if I am confused, and I chuckle if you make reference to any of these reactions in the speech (which I am fine with).

5. the safety of students is my utmost concern above the content of any debate. crossing this line is the only way you can legitimately piss me off. Avoid it. Racism, transphobia, misogyny, etc. will not be tolerated under any circumstances, and I am more willing to act on this on my own accord than most judges you have had (i.e: I have submitted a ballot mid-1AR before due to egregious misconduct). You should not attempt to toe this line.

6. entirely uninterested in adjudicating the character of minors i don't know. there are channels for these issues and mechanisms to resolve them, but debates and ballots are not among them. if you have genuine concerns about safety regarding the person you are debating, i am happy to be an advocate for you and get you in touch with the appropriate tournament tab staff to resolve the issue. if you genuinely feel this way, please take me up on this offer - just let me know discreetly via email, messenger, etc. keep in mind, as an employee of a state institution, i am a mandatory reporter.

- people seem to think they're smart in saying that this means "you can't vote on disclosure" - this is false for two reasons: a. i can vote on anything i want, and b. round starts at the pairing, not just the 1AC.

II. core principles

1. debate is a competitive activity centered around research and persuasion, one winner and loser, no outside participation, nothing worse than PG13, the usual.

2. debated for Kealing, Jack C Hays, and University of Houston. if i were to describe my career with a word, it would be "unremarkable". if i get five words, i'd add "irrelevant to this paradigm". i coach HS policy at Dulles, HSLD at a few different places, and help out Houston. former coaches include J.D. Sanford, Richard Garner, Rob Glass, James Allan, and Michael Wimsatt. favorite judges included Alex McVey, DML, Devane Murphy, Scott Harris, and David Kilpatrick. colleagues (and former students) i likely align with include Eric Schwerdtfeger, David Bernstein, Ali Abdulla, Sean Wallace. of all these people, i align particularly closely with Garner, Bernstein, and Abdulla.

3. i think the ethos of judging is best distilled by Yao Yao: "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck". That means I will not be half-flowing speeches while texting friends, I will not be checking Twitter or spacing out during CX, I will not "rep out", and I will not rush my decision to get back to my own team faster. The most important factor in my own growth as a debater and the most helpful info as a coach has always been well-thought judge feedback, and I think – especially during and post-eDebate – the attention span and work ethic of the average judge has massively declined. I refuse to contribute to what I find to be an alarming trend in many people shirking their responsibility to the community to adjudicate even "boring" or "low-level" debates to the best of their ability. I fundamentally believe no debate is any less or more important than any other, so expect me to judge NCX R1 as if it was TOC finals. i judge a lot - in for ~100 debates a season - for three reasons: a. I think judging is a skill, and requires practice to maintain, b. judging makes me better at coaching and strategically benefits my students, and c. I love debate. some judges seem to have lost the zeal by now, but i still get excited about novel critical affs, interesting disads and turn case arguments, and dense competition debates. I am at a tournament almost every weekend, so I am reasonably aware of community norms and have decent experience with the techne of judging. Just focus on executing, and don't be afraid to take risks.

4. i get my core ideology for judging from Richard Garner: "I try to evaluate the round via the concepts the debaters in the round deploy (immanent construction) and I try to check my personal beliefs at the door (impersonality). These principles structure all other positions herein." "non-interventionist" is silly, because intervention is inevitable. everyone has a different threshold on "too new", "unpredictable cross-applications", "good evidence", because we all resolve implicit questions differently due to prior knowledge and personal affinities. if debaters instruct us to resolve those questions explicitly, it saves me the effort of doing my own evaluations, which means less work for me, which is indicative of better debating by you. I care much less about ideological alignment than a consistent threshold of quality at the level of form (clear claim, sufficient warrant, complete implication). overall, i try to be a good judge for any research-heavy strategy, and I think the best rounds are small, vertically dense debates over a stable controversy. i have voted on "killing all white people good", heg good, "Kant's humanist ethics solves all of racism", death good, the Tetlock counterplan, and even condo bad (twice, wholly dropped). each of these arguments is worse than the last, but i voted on all of them. take this as you will.

5. even with the above, probably not a true blank slate – I would consider myself a worse judge than average for theory arguments as reasons to drop the debater, "tricks", counterplans that fiat actors not used by the 1AC or lack germane net benefits, "clash" impacts, the "ballot PIK", the politics disad, condo bad, "RVIs", and “1% risk of extinction”, and much better for skills impacts and fairness, critical affirmatives that counterdefine words, “uniqueness controls the link”, counterplanning in/out of offense and general “negative terrorism”, presumption against critical affs, framework arguments that “delete the plan”, and extra-topical plans. I tend to have a high threshold for a warrant, a low threshold to punish bad-faith practices, and I value quality evidence highly. This is not exhaustive, and may indicate my inclinations to reward or penalize with speaker points. However, if any of these views kick in during my decision, the debating at play was either very lacking or absolutely perfect. Short of a few very baseline things (offense/defense, flowing, decision times, Toulmin model, etc), any of these predispositions can be reversed. if i were coaching someone to win in front of me, my principal advice would be to be as explicit about how I should piece the debate together as humanly possible, so as to minimize the risk of any of my predispositions coming into play.

III. topic thoughts

this section is under construction - you can check back after policy camp!

IV. specifics

1. disads + case

a. evidence: this applies to everything, but putting it in this section since it's first and i'm grumpy about it. generally agree with Dallas Perkins: “if you can’t find a single sentence from your author that states the thesis of your argument, you may have difficulty selling it to me.” how i conclude on the quality of evidence relates to its production (authors, methodologies), its context (specificity, recency), and it's presentation (spin, highlighting/cutting). lots of old heads are signaling concerns about the third lately, which i enthusiastically co-sign - i am unsure why debater getting faster than ever correlates to cards being highlighted to say less, not more, but i would like it to stop. also agree very much with David Bernstein: “Intuitive and well reasoned analytics are frequently better uses of your time than reading a low quality card. I would prefer to reward debaters that demonstrate full understanding of their positions and think through the logical implications of arguments rather than rewarding the team that happens to have a card on some random issue.” generally think that lots of advantages, disads, and counterplans lose to 10 seconds internal link and solvency takeouts, but teams are too scared to make arguments without cards. i think this is due to the assumption that all cards are of sufficient quality to meet the standard of "evidence" - i think many (possibly most, these days) do not. I try to restrain my natural ev hack tendencies, but will take any opportunity given to exercise them - this means that while i will reward good and punish bad evidence, the onus is on the debaters to tell me what lens i should read cards through to make that happen.

b. most of what i judge these days and read in high school lives here. “turns case/disad” usually path to victory. dense engagement with internal links and close readings of evidence usually path to “turns case/disad”. ideally, these args are carded, but maybe not necessary if straightforward. good debating is comparative here, i.e: impact calc isn't "yes/no impact" but "higher/lower risk bc..." - anything else is fundamentally inconsistent with the basis of offense/defense.

c. uq probably controls link, but care less about this in the abstract and more when debated relative to specific scenarios – large enough link might overwhelm small uq (econ disad), but maybe uq/link are just yes no (agenda politics).

d. straight turning the case likely all-time favorite thing to judge. uniqueness good, might not be necessary with sufficiently comparative evidence.

e. politics disad legitimacy negatively correlates to stupidness of arg. agenda or court capital kinda dumb but probably allowed, but rider disad = total non-starter. can conceivably vote aff on intrinsicness/theory vs agenda politics, but unsure theory is worth effort vs just beating them, they're bad args. teams should include args in 2ACs to elections about the fact that American voters are often dumber than rocks.

f. inserting rehighlighting fine for “concludes neg”, “concedes thumpers”, etc, but offensive/new arguments should probably be read aloud. debaters likely need to put ink on this for me to disregard insertions of the latter kind, but particularly egregious instances may warrant intervention on my part. i think a lot of old heads' gripes with this practice is that debaters tend to not actually debate rehighlightings as evidence and explain what they mean, they just use them as a "gotcha" and never implicate it, which encourages laziness. don't do this.

2. counterplans

a. comfortable. i think about these debates for fun the most. state of counterplan (and plan) texts + solvency advocates is an atrocity. this should implicate more debates than it does. my favorite debates to judge are likely old-school advantage counterplan debates, but i am not a priori bad for process/competition strategies.

b. most modern process counterplans have large disconnects between solvency and impact evidence for the net benefit and, if thought about for all of three seconds, are patently insane ideas that would likely collapse basic principles of government and be perceived as such by anyone watching (this is a subtweet of uncooperative federalism - all 50 states immediately ending all cooperation with the fed over a super niche issue would set the economy, our alliances, legal precedent, and basically everything else on fire). both of these issues should be the primary basis of 2AC deficits and defense.

c. competition is fully yes/no, because it's a procedural question. other than that, offense/defense - 2N/ARs should frame my ballot in terms of the impact to the risk of a deficit vs the risk of a net benefit. i care a lot about arguments like sufficiency framing, uniqueness, and try-or-die here.

d. more 2ARs should go for perm shields link/counterplan links to net benefit. most counterplans are kind of stupid and fiat more sweeping things than solvency advocates actually assume (i.e: states, concon). teams seem to be scared of having these debates absent evidence, but shouldn't be.

e. “do both” and “do counterplan” are not arguments, they are taglines. if said with no further analysis, they will be evaluated as such. permutations other than "do both" or "do counterplan" require precise texts (inserting it in the doc is fine, but function should be explained fully during the speech).

f. functional competition is good, important in real-world decisions, and i am comfortable with these debates. textual competition bad, largely irrelevant, and has never made sense to me. positional competition induces feelings in me too dark and evil to name here. "normal means" is just the most likely process by which the mandate of the plan brings about its effects. quality of evidence for both definitions and normal means determines ability to win counterplan competition/legitimacy.

g. unsure why debaters seem to think "certainty" or "immediacy" are key to neg ground/legitimate basis for competition, when zero neg literature ever assumes either because that's not how real world policy works. also unsure why the mandate of the plan being immediate/certain means the effects must also be. more aff teams should point both these things out in competition debates.

h. default no judge kick. can be compelled to do so, but have yet to judge a single debate in my many years where me kicking the counterplan has helped the negative. probably more worth it to just actually pick a 2NR and either go all in on the counterplan or case.

3. kritik

a. familiar (understatement). most of what i coach and read in college lives here. best advice for neg debaters is for the love of god, delete your overview. just start on the line by line, your speeches will be so much better. best advice for aff debaters is use the aff more, and probably read fewer cards. i care substantially less about a2 afropessimism card #9 compared to evidence or explanations about how 1AC internal links interact with/disprove the K. while i personally agree with the K's politics more of the time, in my heart and soul i think about debate like a policy 2N - the best versions of these debates play out as aggressive, detailed disagreements about the value of the aff backed by lots of cards. as such, i tend to vote neg when the K team precludes the 2AR on "case o/w" through some combination of framework, turning the case, detailed alternative debating, and having a real impact, and i vote aff when the policy team has robustly defended their aff and internal links as both a counterexample to and offense against the K through some combination of framework, impact or link turns, serious objections to the alternative, and impact comparison. the less that one side does this (i.e: the fiat K, brute forcing heg with the card dump and nothing else, etc) the more i start thinking about voting the other way.

b. framework debating often frustratingly shallow. often unsure what win conditions are under neg models of debate or how winning it actually changes how i evaluate the round. often unsure what terminal to aff offense is and how it interacts with neg args about scholarship. refuse to do the “middle ground” thing if nobody tells me to, though, and generally think you’re better off just saying “delete the plan” or “plan focus” anyways. compromise is cowardly in these debates.

c. K 2NRs tend to be too wide and not deep. extend fewer arguments, do more analysis and answer more aff args. link/impact turns case is good, but framework or alt solves case might make it unnecessary, so why do all three?

d. aff teams link turn and impact turn in the 2AC and pretend it’s coherent. Neg teams should punish this more. aff teams should defend what their aff is equipped to defend and not pretend it can or will do anything else. permutations are overrated. Case outweighs + deficit + framework usually easier and better. most perms are just do both wearing different silly hats and glasses. perm double bind stupid argument.

e. “extinction first” can be a great asset, but it’s not the end all be all, and most teams forget that even if extinction isn’t automatically first, their impact is still probably bad. similarly, care less about “extinction focus bad” than “the way the aff deploys extinction in their scenario is bad bc”. “alt can’t solve case” is usually true, but not relevant if they win turns case/K o/w. “alt can’t solve links/impacts” is much more interesting and persuasive. Root cause args are often stupid.

4. critical affirmatives/framework

ADDENDUM - February '24: i find myself voting affirmative in framework debates more often than i used to. i am not worse for framework - i still think debates are likely on-balance better when the aff is constrained by a plan (despite my reputation for thinking otherwise), so i suspect this is due to two reasons: a. neg teams are getting sloppier at actually line-by-lining or responding to aff arguments (bad), while aff teams are getting more technical and comparative (good), and b. neg teams are not answering case or extending an external impact, they're just rambling about "clash" and have no offense beyond a vague turns case arg without uniqueness. I suspect this is caused by teams being so terrified by the word "subjectivity" that they are unwilling to actually say "yes, debate changes you, and we think the way our model changes you is good and outweighs the aff's offense". this is both unstrategic and cowardly, and the 2AC is going to say that stuff anyways, even if you try to dodge the link.

So, I think there are two solutions to this problem:

Make neg teams read real impacts again. Big skills impacts with cards are valuable because they are always external to the case and usually much larger, and give you access to the same genre of turns case arguments as "clash", but also let you have something that outweighs the aff.
Debate case more. Neg teams need to directly answer 1AC thesis arguments about things like affect/desire/ontology/scholarship/etc to preclude the 2AR from (smartly) weaponizing conceded thesis args as uniqueness/solvency for their offense.

if you extended the econ disad against the econ aff, but forgot to extend a uniqueness argument or answer aff internal links, you would not be surprised when you lost. Unsure why people are surprised in this context when it's the exact same issue. tl;dr - "clash" is stupid, read a real skills impact, preferably with cards. rant end.

a. good for both sides of clash debates, but i have judged (too) many, so lots of things about them annoy me. on balance, i am inclined to think debate is a game, and like any game it's benefits and incentives are inevitably structured to reward playing for keeps, but it should probably be worth playing for more than it's own sake, and can be played in more than one way. i am not a priori bad for planless affs, but i think a model of debate that doesn't force some constraints on aff creativity and some degree of side-switching seems to lack both competitive viability and intellectual interest. full disclosure: i am likely to give lower speaks in framework debates than other debates of similar quality, due to constant déjà vu robbing any joy from the content. speaks go back up when debaters stay organized and do deep engagement instead of just dueling with blocks.

b. neg teams historically win my ballot in framework debates more because they tend to do more judge instruction and stay organized.aff pet peeves are 1ACs that say and do nothing, very amenable to presumption. aff teams also tend to grandstand too much in rebuttals and not give organized speeches - don't do that. neg pet peeves are taking begged questions as self-evident, usually makes link to aff offense better. neg teams tend to not contextualize arguments to 1AC theories and also forget to explain an impact - do that stuff. i think both 2N/ARs would be better served doing more work with the language of impact calculus, i.e: "turns case/turns framework", "outweighs", "uniqueness controls direction of offense", etc - teams are generally okay at warranting their impact but bad at implicating it.

c. debates are cleaner the earlier the neg picks one single impact and sits on it. "clash" is kind of fake and never amounts to more than a case turn, skills arguments are criminally underrated, and nobody seems to explain fairness particularly well. ssd and tva are often overprioritized over smarter defense to aff args, but also underutilized as offensive arguments in their own right - i actually think the most interesting part of debate is the way being aff or neg on a given topic force you to apply research and theories to the specifics of a topical advocacy or a link argument, and tend to think models that don't make debaters do these things end up robbing debate of most of it's intellectual rigor.

d. people forget K affs are affs. this means normal arguments about functional competition probably apply to silly PICs ("frame subtraction"), and also means solvency and impact debates are fair game. if evenly debated, i think turning the case is likely always harder to answer and more interesting to judge than framework, given that the aff has way more practice. seems weird we all agree topicality against every policy aff would be an insane neg prep regimen, even if it's occasionally strategic, but we do this for K affs. the 2N in me truly thinks there's always a best answer to every aff, and while sometimes that answer is indeed topicality, it's not nearly the answer as often as round reports would lead you to believe.

e. idk why the neg gets counterplans if the aff doesn’t read a plan. if the basis of neg fiat is that counterplans present an opportunity cost, the only non-arbitrary actor the negative gets to fiat is the aff one, which means if the aff doesn’t fiat government policy, seems weird we think the neg gets to just because. makes more sense to read “policy engagement good, k2 check populism/’cede the political’/etc” as a disad or alternative argument vs these affs.

f. i would very much like to judge more critical affs with plans. i think most neg teams are much worse at justifying utilitarianism and liberal policy-making than they should be, and would consider myself to be extremely good for teams that contest extinction first, consequentialism, and the like. a team that executed this well in front of me would get speaker points bordering on stupidly high.

g. K v K debates live and die by the quality of negative link args and net benefits for the permutation. i always went for the cap K in these debates in college because i found most 2ACs to it to be sloppy and easily answered by a robust knowledge of marxism and history, and think this also applies to most other Ks you can read in these debates, but lots of these debates suck because 2Ns explain links and alternatives badly, which lets the 2AR get away with murder. lots of these rounds collapse into who can shout "root cause" louder, but i usually care much more about impact calculus and the direction of turns case and solvency (and these args are usually much truer anyways). 2A/NC framework arguments are usually missing and missed in these debates. i definitely live on the more technical side of K debate, but i'm not anti-performance-y stuff at all, and enjoy those debates a lot when i get them.

5. topicality

a. better than average for it, most likely. evidence matters a lot – i would say inasmuch as i am an "ev hack", it's most likely to matter in these debates. in the absence of good evidence on either side (most debates these days), i will likely lean affirmative, but few things are of such beauty as sniping an aff on a well-carded T violation that has clearly been thought through. predictability and topic controversies matter much more to me than limits as an intrinsic good, which makes me worse but gettable for args about "its", "in", etc, and probably bad for args solely about grammar.

b. lots of negative evidence is abhorrent in terms of actually establishing a violation (i.e: intent to exclude), lots of aff evidence is trash at actually defining things how the aff claims (i.e: intent to include). reubttals should make this matter more, either to make we-meets/violations more compelling or magnify links to precision/limits.

c. PTIV is possibly not the greatest model, but alternatives are usually badly explained in ways that devolve into positional competition which is godless.

d. violations are yes/no, and so we meets do not require external offense or defense. other than that, offense/defense means i value impact calculus and comparative analysis (caselists, etc) highly. reasonability is a question of the aff interpretation, and not just the specific 1AC. it can be extremely powerful and very viable, but has to be framed offensively beyond just "you get politics, we promise".

6. theory

a. generally, very neg leaning, but neg teams need to answer warranted arguments. very good for “negative terrorism”. condo good most likely my strongest personal conviction, followed by RVIs being nonsense. fine for counterplanning out of straight turns, fine for lots of kickable planks, don’t care about “performative contradictions”, anything is a "PIC" or can "result in the aff", etc. “infinite prep time + only neg burden is rejoinder + arbitrary” is mostly unbeatable vs these flavor of objections.

b. counterpoint is that i'm also great for affirmative counter-terror. big fan of intrinsic perms and theory against suspect counterplans, etc. reasonability is powerful when framed offensively. if evenly debated, i will likely never conclude the states counterplan (or any counterplan that fiats a different actor) is legitimate (but also likely not a reason to reject the team). neg theory args usually amount to pure laziness and are solved by “make 2Ns work for it”.

c. restating for emphasis: condo good, RVIs bad. unless truly and wholly conceded when properly warranted at first introduction, consider these arguments unworkable with me. Most 2ACs are blips that lack warrants, which often makes it moot when conceded anyways.

d. would be very interested to see theory arguments impacted out beyond drop the arg/debater. if states counterplan fiats uniformity, might be reasonable to say aff should get to fiat out of circumvention args about sub-federal actors. if aff fiats through an enforcement question, neg might get to fiat out of related deficits, etc. nobody's done this yet, but seems very worth exploring.

7. LD things

a. better than you'd think for phil, but likely not your best pref. hand-holding is likely required for anything more complicated than kant, but i vote for these positions more often than you’d expect and am familiar with them in a non-debate context. the blippier and less cohesive the framework, the more likely you are to lose me. i am barely old enough to remember when phil and tricks debate weren't synonymous, and miss it. i actually think phil affs are insanely strategic against lots of Ks, so these interactions interest me the most.

b. lots of policy judges tend to cop out and use modesty or other things by default to avoid having to actually judge phil debates - i promise to not do this, as i think it encourages debaters to just be bad at answering phil. that being said, i'm bad for truth testing - it's never made sense to me, offense/defense is kind of just fundamental to how i was taught debate and these arguments contradict a few fundamental assumptions i have about how debate works. it is likely difficult to get me to vote solely on skep, permissibility, etc. as these just kind of seem like purely defensive arguments.

c. bad pref for tricks. consider this both a plea and a warning.

V. misc

- If I want a card doc, I'll ask, usually for the relevant cards by name. Otherwise, assume I'm good.

- COVID things: I am vaccinated and boosted, and I take COVID tests before traveling to any given tournament. Put on masks if asked. I will have extra. not negotiable conduct.

- CX is a speech, my favorite part of the debate when done well, and a lost art. i flow it (albeit not as closely), its probably binding, and it impacts evaluation of the debate and speaker points. one debater from each team should be the primary speaker in each CX - some interjections, elaborations, or clarifications are obviously fine, but while excessive tag teaming will not be disallowed, it may impact speaks and perception negatively.

- flowing is good, and "flow clarification" is not a timeslot in the debate - questions such as "did you read X card/arg in the doc" are for CX. If you ask this and you haven't started a timer for it yet, i will start one for you. if you ask "can you send a doc without all the cards you didn't read", the other team does not have to do that, because that is not what a marked doc is. if you answer arguments that were not read, but were in the doc, you are getting a 27.5.

- Ethics challenges/cheating – this one is longer because people seem to care more about this these days. I have a high bar for voting on it. I do not think power-tagging evidence, cutting an article that concludes the other way later on, etc. are voting issues - you should simply say "this card is bad/concludes neg" as an argument. If you are making the accusation that your opponent has fabricated, miscut, or improperly cited evidence, I will evaluate it with the presumption of good-faith error by the accused. I do not think skipping portions of tags or analytics counts as clipping. Those things are not evidence, so I do not know why they require being held to the standard of evidence ethics. If you are accusing the other team of clipping the highlighted text of evidence, you need a recording to prove it - I will never notice this myself because I will not have docs open during speeches, and I think that if the debate comes down to this debaters have a right to some proof. I will also apply the same standard of good-faith error. This means barring something particularly egregious as to reasonably suggest the criminal negligence if not malicious intent, I will probably err towards not punishing debaters, as I think anything else incentivizes cheap shot wins on dead links in citations, leaving out the last word of a paragraph that was OCR'd badly, or skipping two words in a card on accident. If you read any of these things as a theory argument, I will not flow it, and I will ask after the speech if you are staking the debate on it - if not, I will happily inform your opponent they do not need to answer it. I am open to being asked if I consider certain accusations to meet the threshold of ending the debate on it - my answers will not be negotiable, but they will be honest. I am also willing (I would actually encourage it) to entertain debaters negotiating proportional responses to violations outside of me ending the debate, as I think my role as educator ideally precedes my role as a referee - I'd much rather we all agree to scratch a card that can't be accessed online anymore or that was accidentally clipped than just not have a debate. Otherwise, the party found to be at fault (either the guilty or an incorrect accuser) will receive a loss and the lowest speaks allowed. The other party will get a win and a 28.5/6. All of this goes out the window if the tabroom tells me to do a different thing than what I've outlined above, as their authority obviously supersedes mine.

- speaks are largely arbitrary, but I try to start at 28.4 for a team I'd expect to go 3-3, and i try and keep it relative to the tournament pool. below 28 and I think you are in the wrong division, below 27.5 and you have likely done something bad in a moral sense. I tend to reward quality evidence and good argument choice, well-organized speeches, smart strategic choices, and debating with character. I tend to penalize unnecessary meanness, bad arguments and cowardice, and sloppy debating. i am, at my core, white trash, so i tend to enjoy some friendly trash talk more than the average judge - i stop enjoying it when it strays from the topic of debate and/or becomes overly mean spirited. Not a big believer in low-point wins - if the 2NR makes a dumb decision, but the 2AR doesn't capitalize on it, the 2AR is probably dumber for fumbling a bag. I will not "disclose speaks".

- i tend to give long RFDs because i think most decisions have a tendency to hand-wave details and i'd rather be thorough. that said, there's a point of diminishing returns and i usually overshoot it. will not be offended if you just pack up and dip while i'm yapping. i welcome post-round questions

Good luck, thanks for letting me judge, and see you in round!

- pat

Eric Haya Oak Ridge 4 rounds

Brit Johnston Peninsula High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 3, 2024 at 5:06 AM PDT

Do a speech drop, I beg of you.

However, if you have no idea what speech drop is, I still want to be on the email chain.
johnsb43@unlv.nevada.edu

I do debate, I do speech, I do it all. Don't lie please, I'll know.

My quals:

Six and a half years of competitive debate experience lol, 3x Nat Qualifier, 2x NIETOC Qualifier, and currently doing LD collegiate debate at UNLV.

I've competed at both the local and nat circuit so I'm familiar with a wide variety of debates.

Basic stuff,

1. If you're hateful or discriminatory in any way, I'm not scared to report it.

2. Keep the round fair and safe, if I notice anything out of the ordinary it won't look good on you.

3. I understand phones are a part of our livelihoods but only use them for time, nothing else. I will also be keeping time but I won't call you out if you go over, you should know and my speaker points will reflect that if you continuously go over.

Now specific thingies:

First, I'm okay with and can follow spreading as long as I'm in a speech WORD doc. I'm not going to try to flow your speeches if I have no feasible way to read your cards.

Second, I don't typically vote on theory but especially not disclosure theory. While your case should be on your Wiki, an entire debate that's not even about the topic at hand is not going to be beneficial for any party.

Congress-

Talk frequently, ask good questions, be courteous, and let me know that you're there. If I don't remember your name by the end of the round, you will not be anywhere near the top 9. Clash is a big thing and if you're able to use it effectively and appropriately, it will be huge bonus points for you. Decorum is a vital part of this event so please maintain it.

Policy-

like disads and I LOVE counterplans. If you present me a really good counterplan, I'm more inclined to vote for you. That being said if you're the aff you have the burden of truth, please prove to me why your plan is the only solution. I'm fine with T but theory and K's are not my favorite. At the end of the day though, weigh your impacts please. I'm a big fan of impact calc and I am often swayed to the competitors with the better weight. Cross gets heated in policy and I don't flow it but don't start yelling and insulting your competitor. I'm also fine with speed but a tip for novices, if you don't actually know how to spread, don't risk it. Give me a voter, by the end of the round if I don't know what I'm supposed to vote for, I won't be voting for you.

Public Forum-

Please make sure you impact weigh, I need to know your weighing mechanism by the end of the round. I know when args and cards have been dropped. Explain to me what the round comes down to, the summary and final focus are the most important speeches and it's where my vote usually lies. I go by what my flow says and I will vote for the more compelling arguments if both sides flow well. I like line-by-line since it's more organized and makes everyone's lives easier. Signpost please, makes everyone's lives easier. Cross is for clarification, use it to forward your case more effectively. I don't love speed in public forum but I can follow it. Ultimately, I leave the round very much in the competitors' hands, have fun, and convince me to give you my ballot.

LD-

I hate flex prep. Don’t do it in front of me please. Prep is not another cross x lol. While I’m not necessarily against traditional debate, I have a strong preference towards prog. Now on prog debate,I don't like tricks, anything that will make a round abusive is automatically a no from me. On the aff side, I need your link chains to function. Your advantages need to be cohesive enough that I can follow your line of reasoning and it doesn't seem like a stretch. You must also stick to your stock issues for the flow to favor you, your plan needs to solve for all of them and if it doesn't, you don't have a likely chance of winning. On the neg, I love turns, CPs and DAs are cool and if compelling, they're good offs for the neg. While I don’t think I’m a T hack, I have definitely been known to vote on T but if you go for it, you have to go all the way. Like I said previously I don't typically vote on theory unless it's a MAJOR rule violation so do with that what you will, and I don’t like K’s (this includes aff K’s), I would recommend avoiding Theory and K’s with me as your judge. Overall though, if you're able to prove that the aff doesn't solve for the stock issues, the round will likely flow in your favor.

SPEAKER POINTS (this is where cross is important ;)):

24- You violated one of my basic rules!!! (Going over time won't get you a 24 but using your phone illegally will D;)

25- You still violated one of my basic rules but it wasn't too bad

26- Your speeches were really over or under time and you weren't a strong debater in the round; attitude may also be a factor in a 26

27- Your speeches were poorly structured, your arguments weren't the most understandable, and your speaking style could be improved

28- You were a great debater and you showed strength in all areas but there's room for improvement

29- You were close to a perfect performance but you had a couple of errors that dropped you down

30- Perfect.

Alright y'all, that's really all that I have, remember that most importantly debate is supposed to be fun, so let's have a good round!

Gordon Krauss Peninsula High School 4 rounds

Dawson Levine The Meadows School 1 rounds

Lorenzo Lin The Meadows School 1 rounds

Jason Lindo Palo Verde High School 2 rounds

Sherry Meng Brophy College Prep 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 3:11 PM MST

Email for docs: sherry.meng91@gmail.com

tech>truth - but high threshold for stupid arguments. I'll vote for it if it's dropped, but if your opponent says no, that's all I need. Noting I will give you an earful in rfds if such an argument comes up!

-Topicality: I understand progressive arguments are the norm. However, I am a firm believer that we debate a topic for a reason. No one should walk in the round without looking at the topic and just win off an argument that is not directly related to the topic. The educational value is maximized when people actually research and debate the topic. All tools are at your disposal as long as it's on topic per the NSDA website for the tournament.

-Theory: I default fairness and education good. If you don't like fairness or education, then I will vote for your opponents just to be unfair per your value. I default to fairness first but I'm easily swayed. I default reasonability, I tend to gut check everything, consider me as a lay judge.

-K and Phil: not well versed in these, so don't assume I get your argument by saying a few phrases. Warrant your arguments, I don't know any jargon. Noting for phil, I default util unless you can persuade me otherwise.

-Tricks: Not a big fan of it. You are unlikely to get my vote if you don't argue very well with a trick. I don't think they're real arguments.

-Speed: I can handle speed up to 200 words per minute. Hopefully, that will improve over time. You can't sacrifice clarity for speed before you lose me.

-Argumentation: A clean link chain is highly appreciated. Solid warrants will also help a lot.

-Organization: Sign-post is very helpful.

If you want to talk science, make sure you get the facts right. I am an engineer by training and I am very quick to spot mistakes in scientific claims. Even though I would not use it against you unless your opponent catches it, you may get an earful from me about it in RFD.

I assign seats based on who is AFF and who is NEG, so flip before you unpack.

General things:

- I like to describe myself as a flay judge, but I try my best not to intervene. Sometimes I hear ridiculous arguments (usually "scientific" arguments), and I will tell you while I disclose why they are bad. That said, I will always evaluate the round based on what is said in the round, and my own opinions/knowledge won't make an impact on the decision.

- Be clear on your link chain; during the summary and final focus, you must explain your argument's logical reason.

- Speed threshold: if you go above 200 words per minute I'll start missing details on my flow

- Evidence: I only call evidence if asked; it's up to you to tell me when evidence is bad.

- Jargon: Public Forum is meant to be judged by anyone off the street, so don't use jargon.

- Progressive Argumentation: Don't read it. Topicality is essential. The side that deviates from topicality first loses.

- Weighing: if you don't weigh, I'll weigh for you and pick what I like.

If you have any questions, just ask me before the round.

Jonathan Meza Harvard-Westlake School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 8:52 AM PDT

Add me to the chain: speechdrop[at]gmail.com

tldr: My name is Jonathan Meza and I believe that at the end of the day the debate space is yours and you should debate however you want this paradigm is just for you to get an insight on how I view debate. One thing is I won't allow any defense of offensive -isms, if you have to ask yourself "is this okay to run in front of them ?" the answer is probably no. I reserve the right to end the debate where I see fit, also don't call me judge I feel weird about it, feel free to call me Meza or Jonathan.

debate style tier list:

S Tier - Policy v k, Policy v Policy, Debates about Debate
A tier - K aff v Policy, K aff v Framework, Performance debate (either side)
B tier - K v K, Theory,
C tier - Phil
D tier - Trix
F tier - Meme/troll

about me: Assistant debate coach for Harvard Westlake (2022-). Debated policy since 2018 that is my main background even tho I almost only judge/coach LD now. Always reppin LAMDL. I don't like calling myself a "K debater" but I stopped reading plan affs since 2019 I still coach them tho and low key (policy v k > K v K). went 7 off with Qi bin my senior year of high school but not gonna lie 1-5 quality off case positions better than 7+ random shells.

inspirations: DSRB, LaToya,Travis, CSUF debate, Jared, Vontrez, Curtis, Diego, lamdl homies, Scott Philips.

theory: Theory page is the highest layer unless explained otherwise. Aff probably gets 1ar theory. Rvis are "real" arguments I guess. Warrant out reasonability. I am a good judge for theory, I am a bad judge for silly theory. Explain norm setting how it happens, why your norms create a net better model of debate. explain impacts, don't just be like "they didn't do XYZ voter for fairness because not doing XYZ is unfair." Why is it unfair, why does fairness matter I view theory a lot like framework, each theory shell is a model of debate you are defending why is not orientating towards your model a bad thing. Oh and if you go for theory, actually go for it do not just be like "they dropped xyz gg lol" and go on substance extend warrants and the story of abuse.

Topicality: The vibes are the same as above in the theory section. I think T is a good strategy, especially if the aff is blatantly not topical. If the aff seems topical, I will probably err aff on reasonability. Both sides should explain and compare interpretations and standards. Standards should be impacted out, basically explain why it's important that they aren't topical. The Aff needs a counter interpretation, without one I vote neg on T (unless it's kicked).

Larp: I appreciate creative internal link chains but prefer solid ones. Default util, I usually don't buy zero risk. For plan affirmative some of you are not reading a different affs against K teams and I think you should, it puts you in a good place to beat the K. as per disads specific disads are better than generics ones but poltics disads are lowkey broken if you can provide a good analysis of the scenario within the context of the affirmative. Uniqueness controls the link but I also believe that uniqueness can overwhelm the link. straight turning disads are a vibe especially when they read multiple offs.

K affirmatives: I appreciate affirmatives that are in the direction of the topic but feel free to do what you want with your 1ac speech, This does mean that their should be defense and/or offense on why you chose to engage in debate the way that you did. I think that at a minimum affirmatives must do something, "move from the status quo" (unless warranted for otherwise). Affirmatives must be written with purpose if you have music, pictures, poem, etc. in your 1ac use them as offense, what do they get you ? why are they there ? if not you are just opening yourself to a bunch of random piks. If you do have an audio performance I would appreciate captions/subtitles/transcript but it is at your discretion (won't frame my ballot unless warranted for otherwise). In Kvk debates I need clear judge instruction and link explanation perm debate I lean aff.

Framework: I lean framework in K aff v framework debates. These debate become about debate and models defend your models accordingly. I think that the aff in these debates always needs to have a role of the negative, because a lot of you K affs out their solve all of these things and its written really well but you say something most times that is non-controversal and that gets you in trouble which means its tough for you to win a fw debate when there is no role for the negative. In terms of like counter interp vs impact turn style of 2AC vs fw I dont really have a preference but i think you at some point need to have a decent counter interp to solve your impact turns to fw. If you go for the like w/m kind of business i think you can def win this but i think fw teams are prepared for this debate more than the impact turn debate. I think fairness is not an impact but you can go for it as one. Fairness is an internal link to bigger impacts to debate.

Kritiks: I am a big fan of one off K especially in a format such as LD that does not give you much time to explain things already reading other off case positions with the kritik is a disservice to yourself. I like seeing reps kritiks but you need to go hard on framing and explain why reps come first or else the match up becomes borderline unwinnable when policy teams can go for extinction outweighs reps in the late game speeches. ~~Generic links are fin~~e ~~but~~ you need to contextualize in the NR/block. Lowkey in LD it is a waste of time to go for State links, the ontology debate is already making state bad claims and the affirmative is already ahead on a reason why their specific use of the state is good. Link contextualization is not just about explaining how the affirmatives use of the state is bad but how the underlining assumptions of the affirmative uniquely make the world worst this paired up with case take outs make for a real good NR Strategy.

speaker points: some judges have really weird standards of giving them out. if I you are clear enough for me to understand and show that you care you will get high speaks from me. I do reward strategic spins tho. I will do my best to be equitable with my speak distribution. at the end of the day im a speaker point fairy.

quotes from GOATs:
- " you miss 100% of the links you dont make" --- Wayne Gretzky -- Michael Scott - Barlos
- "debate is a game" - Vontrez
- "ew Debate" - Isaak
- "voted for heg good" - Jared

Adam Mimou Monta Vista High School 6 rounds

Zachary Nemec The Meadows School

Last changed on Tue February 6, 2024 at 1:47 PM PDT

Add me to the email chain: millardfigglebottom@gmail.com

Tim Alderete was my coach, I agree with him on most things. More complete stuff below:

General:

Truth > tech , but separating the two is silly. The more counter-intuitive an argument, the higher the bar for winning it, and the lower the threshold for responses. Saying "nuclear war bad" probably requires less warranting than "nuclear war good" cuz the second one has the burden of proof to overcome the intuitive logical barrier to its truth value.

I see debate as less of a game and more of an educational forum. I don't like arguments that I find "bad" or "stupid" (ex: Politics DA, Process CPs, Consult CPs). That being said, you should debate how you want, but just know the bar is higher for me than in front of a lot of other judges with some arguments.

Against local debaters/novices, pls be nice and accommodating.

Prefs:

Policy vs DAs/CPs -1

Policy vs K - 1

K affs vs T - 2

K aff vs K - 2

Theory - 3

Phil - 4 (explain warrants very clearly please)

Tricks - strike me

Topicality:

You need tangible impacts. You’re asking me to drop a team because they made debate too unfair for you. “limits good” is not an impact. “They unlimit the topic by justifying x types of affs that we cannot hope to prepare for” is an impact. There must be a very coherent connection between neg interpretation, violations, and standards in the 2nr.

Counterplans:

Running multi-plank CPs with conditional planks or spamming uncarded counterplan texts feels abusive to me, and I'm a lot more persuaded by conditionality when you explain how these supercharge abuse.

I think counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive. I am sometimes persuaded that purely functional competition (normal means/process counterplans) should probably not be evaluated. If you’re aff and theory-savvy, don’t be afraid to go for theoretical reasons the process cp goes away.

Floating Pics/Word PICs- I’m great for the aff on these. I believe that every position has theoretical reasons behind it related to education and competitive equity. The aff counterinterpretation of “you can run your K/word K as a K without the CP part” generally solves every pedagogical benefit of those positions-this means the aff just needs to win that competitively these positions are bad for the aff, and it outweighs any ‘educational benefit’ to word/floating pics. I'm persuaded by those arguments, making it an uphill battle for the neg if the aff can explain tangible impacts to the competitive disadvantage the PIC puts them in.

DAs:

I hate the politics DA

Ks:

All Ks have a gateway/framing issue that is much easier and more logical for the aff to attack. For example, if the neg reads an epistemology K you are much more likely to win reading a card that says “consequences outweigh epistemology” or “epistemology focus bad” than you are to win that the other team is cheating because of their K. Focus on answering the gateway issue so that you can leverage your aff against the K and get the decision calculus of the debate back in your favor. Subsequently for the neg the issue of ‘framing’ is also very important.

I don't see anything wrong with kicking out of the alt and winning on framework/treating it like a DA. It makes the path to the ballot more difficult, but I don't think it's a prereq for a successful K.

Explain your perms and why they overcome the link.

Ks are a great example of the “there are only 2-3 arguments” theory I subscribe to. If you’re debating a 1 off team, it’s much better for me if you don’t read 40 cards in the 2ac with as many different caveats as possible. Instead, read a good number of argument but take the time to explain them. What part of the K do they refute? How do these arguments change the calculus of the round? When you do this I put much more pressure on the neg block to get in depth with their explanations, which I find usually helps the aff.

K affs:

I'm not the best for non-topical affirmatives, probably spend a little more time warranting your ROTB than you normally would.

Cross Examination:

It’s a speech, I grade it like a speech. Be funny if you can. Base the cross x on core issues in the debate, and base it on quality of evidence and establishing risk/threshold for various arguments.

Elvis Pineda Marlborough School 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 8, 2024 at 4:09 AM PDT

Experience: Policy Debate (2 Years, But I still made it all the way to Urban Nationals Gurl)

Francisco Bravo Medical Magnet High School: 2016-18

Cal State Long Beach: 2018-19

Contact Info: elvispinedaten@gmail.com

In a nutshell: I'm a pretty open debater and I love hearing all types of arguments. Policy Arguments... love them, Critical Arguments... love them, just make sure to articulate your arguments because even something as simple as a Cap K are run differently from round to round. Uniqueness questions are good, Links need to be there, Impacts are vital (You don't know how many people forget to impact out their stuff... make sure you do because I NEED TO KNOW WHAT IM VOTING FOR, I will not feel bad voting you down if you have a great link story but no impacts) and I appreciate intellectual debate jargon. All in all I will vote on anything, it just has to make sense and you have to convince me why I should vote for you and not the opposing team (Cross-Analysis). I love debate; I believe its a form of academic expression and just remember to have fun and pour your hearts out on the battlefield. I'm not a point fairy but passion, effort and craft are highly rewarded as I highly value (as we all should) seeing students actively pushing themselves for both an academic and interpersonal growth!

K's: Know the literature, it'll make your clap-backs that much stronger and makes it easier to contextualize. Throughly explain the alt, I noticed that the alternative debate is always the least covered and if I don't throughly understand what I'm voting for... then the permutation becomes an easy option for me as long as I believe it is possible. LINK ANALYSIS WILL GO A LONG WAY... Just saying. I ran Queer, Ableism, Witchcraft and several CRT K's but I understand the post-modern ones as well (please don’t run baudrillard, I’ve already had to vote it up once --> Update: Twice).

K' Affs: I ran Critical affirmatives the majority of my debate career so I might already understand or be lenient towards some of the reasons why non-traditional affirmation might be good. HOWEVER!!! This doesn't mean that if you run a K Aff I'll automatically vote for you, I find myself voting on presumption arguments or framework a lot because sometimes the literature of the affirmative is so dense and either: A) I feel like there is an articulation issue (and thus disorder on the flow) because of the density of the material or B) The internal link chain which leads me to believe that the affirmative is a good idea might be fundamentally under developed.

Da's: Uniqueness... Link.... Internal Links.... Impacts. I like disads, make sure to be strategic, make them net-benefits to the Cp otherwise I do believe that the Squo is always a viable option.

Cp's: Remember that not all Cp's are plan-inclusive and to me at least all you have to prove is that your method solves better than the aff. Have Net-benefits and show me solvency deficits (It'll make your life easier trust). No I won't judge kick the CP for you unless you explicitly tell me, i feel like it gives judge intervention way to much power.

T: Topicality is more than "aff is not topical". Tell me why that is bad? What do you lose access to? Prove to me why the aff's interpretation of debate is bad or abusive. If I can make those connections and you persuade me to prefer your model of debate, then its looking good for you and I'm very inclined to vote on it.

Framework: A lot of T applies here too, make sure to win why we need procedural fairness, why is the aff's model of debate bad for the debate community in general, Internal and External impacts are convincing, and also make sure to make those common FW arguments that prove you don't limit the aff. Framework to me also doesn't necessarily mean that "USFG means the 3 Branches of Government", even though its common and I don't mind seeing it, I feel like you can tailor so many framework arguments to work around the rhetorical offense affirmatives get with that interpretation.

Aff's: PROVE TO ME WHY WE NEED THE AFF! I need to know that there is a reason why you have to affirm what you are affirming and thats why you're doing it in a nontraditional way. Also prove to me why your model of debate is preferable to the neg's arguments. Just persuade me (Make me feel like I HAVE TO DO IT). In addition, anything performative should always be used... and offensively too. Don't waste precious 1AC time without utilizing it to the best of your advantage.

Case: I LOVE CASE DEBATE <3!!! I appreciate a good neg team that directly challenges the aff's warrants and their claims. So that being said... good case debate is appreciated and will be rewarded with higher speaks. Flush out them case turns (I'll gasp if its good)

Advise for the aff: Don't forget your 1AC, YOU SPEND 8/9 Minutes on it, please utilize it and utilize it as offensively as you can!

HAVE FUN! I love debate and I'm always happy and excited to watch y'alls debates!

GOOD LUCK!

Trinity Ruiz Southwest CTA 2 rounds None

Zayan Sandhu The Meadows School 1 rounds

Victoria Sawicki Palo Verde High School 2 rounds

Nancy Singleton Coral Academy of Science Las Vegas 4 rounds

Andy Stubbs The Kinkaid School 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 5:25 PM EDT

Email chain: andrew.ryan.stubbs@gmail.com

Policy:

I did policy debate in high school and coach policy debate in the Houston Urban Debate League.

Debate how and what you want to debate. With that being said, you have to defend your type of debate if it ends up competing with a different model of debate. It's easier for me to resolve those types of debate if there's nuance or deeper warranting than just "policy debate is entirely bad and turns us into elitist bots" or "K debate is useless... just go to the library and read the philosophy section".

Explicit judge direction is very helpful. I do my best to use what's told to me in the round as the lens to resolve the end of the round.

The better the evidence, the better for everyone. Good evidence comparison will help me resolve disputes easier. Extensions, comparisons, and evidence interaction are only as good as what they're drawing from-- what is highlighted and read. Good cards for counterplans, specific links on disads, solvency advocates... love them.

I like K debates, but my lit base for them is probably not nearly as wide as y'all. Reading great evidence that's explanatory helps and also a deeper overview or more time explaining while extending are good bets.

For theory debates and the standards on topicality, really anything that's heavy on analytics, slow down a bit, warrant out the arguments, and flag what's interacting with what. For theory, I'll default to competing interps, but reasonability with a clear brightline/threshold is something I'm willing to vote on.

The less fully realized an argument hits the flow originally, the more leeway I'm willing to give the later speeches.

PF:

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Progressive arguments and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.

Worlds:

Worlds rounds are clash-centered debates on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.

Style: Clearly present your arguments in an easily understandable way; try not to read cases or arguments word for word from your paper

Content: The more fully realized the argument, the better. Things like giving analysis/incentives for why the actors in your argument behave like you say they do, providing lots of warranting explaining the "why" behind your claims, and providing a diverse, global set of examples will make it much easier for me to vote on your argument.

Strategy: Things that I look for in the strategy part of the round are: is the team consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round, did the team put forward a reasonable interpretation of the motion, did the team correctly identify where the most clash was happening in the round.

Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world.

Elizabeth Szirbik Clark HS 4 rounds

Ezzah Tariq The Meadows School 1 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 8, 2024 at 11:02 AM PDT

Ezzah Tariq (she/her)

Add me to the email chain: ezzah_tariq@themeadowsschool.org

I am a doc loyalist, I love the doc, make sure your doc is in order, put your analytics on the doc (if you don't, just indicate that it is not on the doc and slow down on anylitics)

About me: I am a varsity LD debater, so I am familiar with the topic, debate styles, and those shenanigans, trust. My coach is Tim Alderete, Iso if you wanna know more about me and how I debate: look there.

I am the judge for you to try new things. I will vote on almost anything as long as it is not racist, homophobic, etc. If you are going to run a trick (if you know what that is), Kritique, or Theory make sure to explain them really well, which means you need to know them really well. Please do not run an argument that you don't even know. If I don't understand it, then I can't vote on it. Tech>Truth but the distinction is small.

When going against local/novice debaters, please be nice and accomidating. A good debater is one that knows how to adapt.

Guide me throw the flow, be hyper organized. Trust me it will always help you.

Framework is my lense to the debate and I will never auto vote on util because life is most important. Don't be afraid to give me a new lense. Argue your lense. Make me see through your lense. Trust.

Case:

Case is great. Make sure your cards are warranted and not underhighlighted please. Make sure to impact weigh and extend all your arguments. The way I judge is that I go for unanswered arguments first, so make sure you don't accidentally miss anything.

K's:

All Ks have a gateway/framing issue that is much easier and more logical for the aff to attack. For example, if the neg reads an epistemology K you are much more likely to win reading a card that says “consequences outweigh epistemology” or “epistemology focus bad” than you are to win that the other team is cheating because of their K. Focus on answering the gateway issue so that you can leverage your aff against the K and get the decision calculus of the debate back in your favor. Subsequently for the neg the issue of ‘framing’ is also very important. You won't auto loose if you kick out of the K, but make it a last option.

Aff Ks: do spend some more time explaining affirmative cases. Tell me the story why you choose to do an Aff K especially if it is not topical. Try to have a link to the resolution tho, it helps prevent a strong topicality response.

Topicality:

Counterplans:

Theory:

I adore theory. I think debate is what we make it and we can make it better. BUT disclosure is only valid when there is nothing disclosed. Theory is great. Trust. Condo amazing. I loveeeeee Theory.

Speaks:

As long as you are organized and speak well, you will get good speaks. I do not give you better speaks for eye contact. I disclose via verbal rfd, so I will not type it. Follow the flow! The flow is the way to go.

Debate is meant to be a fun activity, so please enjoy yourself. If you have any questions about the round or debate in general, please ask after the round or email me. If there is something that needs an accomidation, let me know before the round.

Ellodee Paulette Timmer The Meadows School 1 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 4:47 PM PDT

Hello! My name is Ellodee Timmer.

I am a Varsity Debater at the Meadows School, and this is my first year judging novice. I have participated in 11+ novice tournaments in the last two years and have been present in the judging process of novice debates.

I have three tournament wins under my belt and have won many Top Speaker awards, so I will always appreciate passionate speakers during a round.

I am primarily a Lincoln Douglas debater and have experience in the I.E circuits alongside D.I's and O.O's.

Regarding the clarity or diction of your speech, I completely understand fumbling or getting flustered during your speech. Try to take a breath and collect yourself if this happens; if I am unable to understand you throughout the entirety of your speech, it will affect your speaker points and potentially the outcome of the round.

I will accept CP's and Disad's, as I have experience writing them myself as a varsity debater. However, I still abide by traditional LD cases and will welcome any potential argument presented to me. As long as you convince me that your argument is the better of the two, there should be no issues with the topic presented.

I do not tolerate debaters who make their opponents overwhelmed or threatened. If you start yelling or in any way insult your opponent but try to justify it as an Ad Hominem argument, then I will drop your ballot and vote automatically for the other team.

No discrimination or verbally attacking your opponent if they are on the negative and the resolution compels them to argue against a controversial topic.

Regarding spreading - I have always been a fast speaker in the debate, and I've debated against spreaders in the past. So, I have no qualms with spreading as long as your opponent is comfortable with it and the two of you disclose your cases with me before starting your speech.

However, if you start spreading to the point where you start yelling or raising your voice, it will affect my decision. I am on the ASD spectrum and have sensory issues with hearing. Any unprecedented loud noises make me extremely uncomfortable and overwhelmed, so I ask that you be mindful of this during the round.

I understand some novices don't have the best flow ability, so I understand if your speeches become disorganized by the time your rebuttals start - it's important to address every argument your opponent makes, but you have to manage your time wisely; this I understand.

However, I appriciate signposting and debaters that acknowledged which arguments flowed through or were not addressed/dropped. This will help my decision in the round because it will help determine which case will ultimately outweigh my final decision.

Even if you don't follow all of the things addressed in my paradigm, I will not automatically decide against you. However, it is important to read your judge's paradigm in order to understand their preferences.

Nathan Vigrass Clark HS 2 rounds

Benjamin Vinocur The Meadows School

Amy Zeppenfeld Palo Verde High School

Login to Tabroom

The Meadows School Tournament

2023 — Las Vegas, NV/US

LD Judges Paradigm List

Judges