Parent judge with experience judging humorous interpretation, impromptu, original oratory, public forum and Lincoln Douglas. I am ok with fast speakers, as long as you are clear and articulate in your argument.

I value confidence, respect for your opponent, and a clear speaking voice.

I volunteer to judge these events because I respect and value the time and dedication each student puts into their arguments.

Good Luck and have fun!

Contact Info

Email: joshadebateemail@gmail.com (please add me to the email chain) w/ Tournament Name: School Name (Aff) vs School Name (Neg)

Pronouns: He/Him

Currently: One of the assistant coaches at Dulles HS and I Coach a few other kids.

Background (Updated For 2023-2024 Season)

I am a current Sophmore at Rice University & I graduated from Challenge Early College High School w/an extremely small and underfunded debate program.I've been part of the activity for a while and want to give back to the community. I've tried every format at least once, and I am a progressive debater who started off traditional who has made it to a few BID Rounds, including Emory & Stanford, qualified to TFA State 2x and made it octos, qualed to UIL State for Congress and LD a bunch of times, etc.

I have taught at camps such as TDC, NSD, & VBI

*I Specialize in Non-T Afropess, Afro Opt, Afro-Futurism, Performance, Cap, Security, etc. (pretty much any K literature) but started off stock/lay/traditional and understand Policy args well.

Conflicts

Institutions: Frank Black Middle School; Heights HS; Challenge Early College HS; Dulles HS

Individual Debaters: Carnegie Vanguard KF; Garland LA; & St John TI

TLDR: What I don't like

1) If you are running identity args and you don't identify with that identity i.e afropess, queerpess, feminism and you say "I" and "We" when you don't know the struggle

2) Promoting racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, lack of necessary content warnings, etc.

3) Rudeness- I understand aggression, but I am not a big fan if you are mean to others in the round. Debate rounds can cause anxiety, and people are human... remember that. Rudeness will not lose you the round, but I will tank your speaks- and if someone runs an IVI or a DTD warrant because of something said I will evaluate it.

LD & CX Specific

DA's, Larp, Stock, Lay, Stock, General Debate =)

This is what I started with. I'm cool with it! Just make sure to do the important things like:

[A] Weigh impacts and clearly delineate what arguments you are gaining offense from- if you are Aff my vote is dependent on offense, while for the Neg if the DA's/Disadvantages are great or the offense o/w the Aff- then you get my vote-pretty straightforward

[B] Defense is not sticky- please extend down the flow. I'm a lot more lenient for novices, but if your opponent does it proficiently, I will address

[C] I love evidence comparison- if you indict the author or what the card is saying, I am less likely to evaluate that card in the round- which will severely harm their link chain.

[D] Run whatever args you want and have fun- I'll vote on anything. I will evaluate extinction first and against K Affs I think its a good strat to go for.

Theory:

I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument, reasonability against all other types or friv shells.

I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responses. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.

I personally did not disclose on the wiki because I believe it to be AB, thus, my threshold for disclosure is a lot lower. That being said, I have read different forms of disclosure and lost rounds to it where I have agreed with the RFD. I won't rule out disclosure and have no issue voting on it; just know I won't vote off of like a "small school prep" arg as a gg issue right away unless conceded.

Theory v Theory: Metaweighing is extremely important here and I have a good understanding of these debates- but they were never my prime strat. Please do the work for me-but I will my best to evaluate.

Kritiks & TFW/Topicality

K vs. Framework (TFW) - I don't default any way. I will buy debate bad args and impact turns. P-Fox & Chao helped me out a lot with this- so review their paradigm to understand how I lean

K vs Anything Else- Again, love the K! But just know that I will not hack for them. I did a lot of work with the K's, but also a lot of workIN ROUNDfor my wins with the K. Also, I personally enjoyed spectating other rounds that were not the K, as they were more interesting for me- thus I love the K, but will not hesitate to give people who think I'm a K hack the L

Non T Aff's/K Affs- LOVE THEM! Be careful though, as running Non-T Aff's against really young, inexperienced debaters will get me frustrated. Also, as a person who ran a lot of Non-T Aff's and watches a lot of Non-T performance rounds, I would be careful being lazy around me in regards to this.

*Also if you are running a K or a K Aff please LBL TFW and extinction first warrants. Its okay to impact turn and give top-level/an overview on these arguments- but I've noticed that debaters drop key warranting on TFW and extinction first that controls the IL to Aff offense or just indicts the reading of the K in the first place

**Please do not spread/blitz through your long pre-written overviews. While they do extend offense I often find them very incoherent and if they are not extrapolated to anything on the flow then it makes it hard to include and integrate them into the RFD. If you are reading an overview explain why its key (which I assume you already do) and contextualize it to the important things in the round.

Phil

I do not have the most experience going for Phil, but I have read a decent amount of it and have found myself in the back of many rounds for it.

Be sure to explain the syllogisms as I have a limited understanding of different Phil Authors (especially ones that have similar but slightly different theories to other more universal Phil authors).

Explain the TJFs- I also think that Permissibility negates but be sure to warrant it in the 1N.

Tricks (LD Specific)

I am personally not the biggest fan- I think they're a bad model of debate and are AB, but I will consider them if they are warranted and explained EXTREMELY WELL THROUGHOUT THE ROUND.

[A] Again- I will evaluate tricks but my threshold for responding to them is extremely low

[B] When I say explain it well- I don't mean just spend like 10 secs on it. You probably need to spend a solid 20-30 secs on it and why its a voting issue

[C] Tricks are ever-evolving and you honestly can make them out of any concept. Thus, don't expect me to know what the trick is

[D] I have thought about this and I WILL NOT BUY "EVAL AFTER X Speech"- I find this really dumb and I just refuse to vote on it.

[E] Identity Tricks- My threshold for evaluating them are similar to my threshold to regular tricks- make sure you warrant out the trick and give it offense independent of the AC/NC. If it is not, then I will by any takeouts of substance and cross apply it to the trick. (i.e., IF "X" Identity Trick is similar to "Y" Argument like Case ontology/thesis- then if you end up losing Case ontology/thesis, then you lose the trick).

Round Logistics

[1] Rehighlites- If you are re-highlighting, please read the highlighted text of the card

[2] Speaks IVI's- I have thought about this for a bit and came to a conclusion- If you ask for 30 speaks and you did not do anything to deserve the 30 speaks in round... you will not get it. I am sympathetic to certain situations, and if you give me a good reason for 30 speaks and have a clean round- then you got yourself a deal.

[3] Hitting a Novice- If you are hitting a Novice, here's my advice- run what you want to run (you shouldn't be limited on running certain arguments, just BCS of skill level), but don't be excessive and abusive. I think 1-2 offs (maybe 3 depending on event and skill level) is more than sufficient and you should take to time to explain arguments that they might not understand. Being abusive in round will not give you an L- but will make me super happy to TANK YOUR SPEAKS.

General Strategy:

I will slightly pay attention to Cross, but will not flow it (probably just take some notes for clarification). If it is important just make sure to flag me and BRING IT UP IN THE SPEECH.

Speaker Points: will start at 29 and will move up or down depending on your strategy- if you ask, I probably will disclose speaks and if you have any questions on how it could've improved just ask.

If you are below a 29- (28.7-28.9) Then I think the round was pretty good- but you might go 3-3 at a tournament

If they are 29.1-29.3 Then I think you did a good job and have a decent shot at breaking

If you are a 29.4-29.7 Then I enjoyed the round, thought it was good, but some strategic things had to be fixed

If you are 29.8-30 Then I thought it was a really good debate- and your strat was either extremely good or peerfect

Personal Belief:

I agree with people such as Zion Dixon, Leah Yeshitila, Patrick Fox, Issac Chao, Becca Traber, & Chris Castillo.

Taken from Leah: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=155571

Debate is not a game. Debate has material impacts on those who engage in it, especially POC. Please be mindful that debate is sometimes some debater’s only option when it comes to funding college or having a platform to speak freely. Also, it’s just not unreasonable to consider how it can be a game for some and not for others. You have a high threshold to prove to me why it is (hint: maybe find better, more strategic T shells, friend)

World Schools Specific

A] Make sure to defend your burdens and clearly explain to me why you have won the round based on those burdens

B] I will be keeping track of POI(s) so make sure to reasonably answer about 2 each speech if you are hit with POIs

C] My speaks are somewhat generous. First Speakers- just offer persuasion with the speech; Second Speakers- Make sure to clearly restate your burdens and how you are gaining offense from them as well as offer strong responses; Third Speaker- clearly crystalize the round and what lens I should be looking at it from; Reply Speaker- Please don't offer new points as that will most likely not persuade my vote in any way- just bring it home and if the speakers before did their job it should be all good.

Public Forum Specific

Weigh and clearly delineate what offense you are garnering coming out of each speech. I am a big fan of evidence comparison, weighing, and uplayering. If you do a huge Ethos push in your last speeches and you are not contextualizing the claims to any args in the round then I probably will still down you.

If you wondering if you can run any other args like K's, Theory, etc (More Policy and LD-specific things), reference the above things on my paradigm.

If you decide to run any progressive args (K, Theory, Etc. and your opponent has no idea what it is (In PF)- my threshold for them answering it is a lot lower and if you are extremely abusive with it- i.e running 2 or 3 off when you don't have to- then I will probably tank your speaks.

Speaking Events (Specific)

Just speak good- I had a lot of teammates participate in speaking events and while I have never done them I sat with them at practice and had a coach who heavily focused on speech. I know what good speeches look like and will know what rushed/no-practice speeches look like.

Congress Specific

Just do your thing. As of now I have only judged one congress round at UT but it was a fun experience. I am fine with creative intros as long as they are clever and relate to the topic. Otherwise do your thing and please attempt to create clash (especially if you are later speeches into the cycle)

Hey, I'm Yash. I am a first year out from Lake Highland Prep. I had 3 career bids. My email is yagrawal2023@gmail.com, add me to the email chain please.

Prefs Shortcuts (these are just preferences, you should prioritize reading what you like):

Phil - 1

K - 1

T/theory - 2

Larp - 3

Tricks - 4* (read tricks section)

Defaults (please don't make me default though, none of these are preferences and only if absolutely nothing is mentioned about it in the round):

• Truth testing

• Reps Ks > T > 1ar theory > 1n theory > K/ROB

• No RVIs, competing interps, drop the arg unless it’s advocacy theory

• Accessibility is a voter, fairness and education are not

• Epistemic Confidence

• Permissibility and Presumption negate (neg advocacies flip presumption)

• Aff can weigh case vs. the K

• Skepticism (i.e. just read a framework)

General:

This paradigm describes what I like or am used to, but you should debate how you are comfortable with and I will do my best to evaluate it. I'll evaluate anything unless it's explicitly racist, sexist, or exclusionary in any way. Tech is greater than truth, but all arguments still need a coherent claim, warrant, and impact. Just asserting something is true doesn't count as a warrant, and it needs to make sense in some way (i.e. saying the sky is blue so auto vote aff is not a warrant).

Feel free to email me pre-round for any questions and to ask questions after the round about the decision or for specific comments.

Phil:

This is my favorite style of debate and what I do most. I am familiar with a lot of frameworks including but not limited to Kant, Hegel, Hobbes, Mouffe/Agonism, Levinas, Petit, Contractarianism, Nozick/Libertarianism, and Jaeggi. Whether your framework is listed here or not, try to explain as if I don't know anything and I should be fine to judge it.

Make sure you clearly explain any warrants you go for and weigh them against your opponent's warrants. Dense/well-warranted syllogisms as compared to many quick prefer additionally args will be rewarded with high speaks.

I think hijacks are really cool and interesting, but please don't just read multiple different frameworks and label them as hijacks. I need a clear reason why something the aff said and you answered would result in the hijack if true.

I will evaluate TJFs but am not a big fan of them. If you do read them, make sure you justify why I should care about them and why they are more important than substantive warrants for a framework.

K:

I am very interested in critical literature. I am familiar with classic cap, dean, set col, deleuze, semiocap, lacan, Laruelle, Baudrillard, zizek, various identity Ks, and more.

I don’t really care how you structure your speeches (like big overviews or short ones with more line by line), just make sure you have a good explanation of your theory of power, links to the aff, alternative, and ROTB at some point even if some of it was conceded/massively undercovered.

For the ROTB debate, if you want to go for the K outweighs you need to explain why its actually my obligation as a judge to prioritize your scholarship. For example, “colonialism is bad” wouldn’t do this but “prioritizing colonial scholarship in educational spaces is good” would.

I’m open to tricky K args. I’ll vote on basically any of them, but try to not be shifty and make sure your tricks don’t contradict your K lit (like hiding a ton of abusive spikes in a disability K).

T/Theory:

I am willing to vote on any shell and don’t think that any theory should be rejected on face because it’s “frivolous”, but I probably have a lower threshold for answers to theory that’s not about the actual aff. For example, super specific disclosure, shoes theory, font theory, etc.

Creative and/or new interps I haven’t heard of with a real and clear abuse story are great and will get higher speaks. Make sure you explain the abuse story well, you are trying to prove your opponent should auto-lose for something they did so I need to know why I should care that much.

Please please please weigh between standards, voters, and layers. A lot of theory rounds just end up with offense on both sides with no interaction, make sure I know why I should care about your offense more.

I am very open to paradigm issues debates and think DTA is very under-utilized, especially against shells that indict the fairness of winning an argument and not reading it. RVIs are great too. Reasonability is cool but needs a clear brightline.

T - Everything in theory applies. Make sure you weigh between precision/semantics and pragmatics if you want me to vote on it. I’m cool with any topicality, especially if you have good topical definitions with strong reasons your definition is better and not just true based on one random source.

Disclosure - I don't have a particularly strong stance on disclosure. I am not a fan of the super-specific disclosure shells and am persuaded by reasonability if I [insert your disclosure practices here, such as open source]. I also think disclosure theory does genuinely affect practices so I would rather you meet your own disclosure interps (and am persuaded by the shell saying you must do so). Overall I'll vote on disclosure the same as any other arg but am not a fan of most disclosure theory and would enjoy other rounds more.

Larp:

This isn’t something I do a lot but I’m definitely open to judging it. I would prefer unique or creative advantages to the stock ones everyone reads, and even if they are common advantages some new or different cards would be nice. I also love creative advocacies, these get high speaks (but obviously if it's obscure or really abusive be ready for theory).

Weighing is key in these rounds. You should weigh under things like magnitude, probability, etc., weigh between these metrics, and also compare your specific impact scenarios. Having a strong link chain is also key, I am unlikely to buy your .001% extinction scenario if you don’t at least have a strong and clear link chain to it by the end of the round. I think terminal defense exists.

Make sure you properly justify util and policy-making as well, I think these are really important when larping against non-larp positions. As long as your impacts connect back to a framework it's fine, but for example if you read a disad with no framework against a K aff I will be pretty persuaded by the aff saying it just doesn’t link to a framework and therefore doesn’t matter.

Tricks:

How much I like/dislike tricks is heavily dependent on the style. I think arguments that seem silly but are well defended and collapsed to can be great and really fun to judge (these I would give a 2 or 3 as opposed to a 4 for judging prefs), but strategies that just overload terrible arguments without warrants tend to be more difficult to judge. For example, I would be fine to judge a 1n that’s a couple of random theory shells and skep with real warrants or an aff with permissibility triggers and some theory spikes, less so for a 1n with 10 offs and 10 paradoxes in each or a 1ac that’s 6 minutes of blippy theory spikes. I’m not quite sure how to articulate this exact difference, but basically if you can collapse to an argument that has had a clear and sensible claim, warrant, and impact throughout the round I’m good.

Truth testing is not required for all tricks, I am happy to listen to why your args function under comparative worlds or even K roles of the ballot. However, if that’s what you want to do be explicit about it and don’t just assume the aff being incoherent or something means you auto negate as that’s often not the case especially against K affs.

Substantive tricks are definitely the best. I love cool permissibility triggers, well-warranted skep (especially specific to your opponent's framework, bonus speaks for this), contingent standards, and stuff like that. If these are well executed they get high speaks.

I will evaluate every speech in the round no matter what arguments are made, and I will allow both debaters to make arguments (so no “no aff/neg arguments”). Weird random voters need an actual impact, I don’t care about it just because you say I should. Think of it like justifying fairness or education as voters.

Non-T/Framework:

I’m fine with non-T affs, but to be honest I have never been a big fan and tend to lean towards framework. If this is your main strat feel free to read it, just try to be really strong and explicit about your impact turns and why the TVA doesn’t solve. Also, I don’t mind a couple theory tricks on T to get out of it, would be interesting.

I like having a lot of K impacts in framework. For example, I’m a big fan of going for clash turns their impact turns and stuff like that over just straight fairness. But both are definitely good. Also I think 1-off framework is actually underrated.

General

psa this is a work in progress and will change as a judge and debate more xoxo

they/she/he (switch it up!)

coppell '23 || wake forest '27

send docs hunniya.ahmad@gmail.com-pls pls pls make the subject the tournament, round, & year!!!

credentials because people seem to care??: debated for coppell high school 4 years as an LDer, attended NSDA NATS as a freshman in policy, qualified to TFA state 3 years consecutively, qualified to TOC junior + senior year with 4 career bids not including 5+ bid rounds, breaking to doubles and achieving eighth speaker my senior year. coached middle school debate for 2+ years and have taught 3+ debate camps. have experience in policy, LD, and PF, currently coaching 4 ish HS debaters as well

dont be racist, sexist, homophobic, yada yada u down and i nuke ur speaks. if u feel unsafe in a round or need to talk about anything i am always here just shoot me an email <3

WSD:

Barely dabbled in this event so don't know a lot about event specifics- will most likely end up judging heavily on argumentation and who is winning the overall flow- so more techy than your traditional wsd judges due to my event background- just do your thing and I'll follow along

I find refusing alot of Pois, or asking too many a little frustrating! find the happy medium. Most of my worlds schools understanding comes from watching Coppell Black debate!!. I like the affect of the later speeches but make sure they resolve any argumentative concerns- especially the four. So I have a high expectations for 3s making the round clear and concise, and 2s to do a decent amount of line by line (getting all the arguments needed out there). The 1 should have emotion in their voice, and be engaging with presenting the information.

I like speeches that start with a creative introduction, I think they make the round more engaging and will boost speaks.

I love when debaters start with their offense first! makes stronger speeches

Shortcuts:

these are based on my ability to judge/understanding not personal preferences meaning you can read what you want just tell me how to evaluate it! tldr if ur good at it i dont care what you read just win. im human and have predispositions but my goal is to be trasnparent about them and let you guide my ballot

1- K v K, Policy v K, K v Phil, Traditional

2- Policy v Policy, T, Theory

3- Phil v Policy

4- Phil v Phil, Tricks

Trad

i care tons about weighing and worlds analysis to help me determine the winner. organization is ur best friendi use framework to filter which offense matters- if you dont do this it comes hard to adjucate I need you to not be two ships passing in the night and do the argument interaction work for me.

Counterplans

explain to me how their competitive + net benefits. process counter plans, pics, advantage counterplans are all a green light. im more likely to buy less probable impacts if there's a counterplan that solves the aff so da + cp is a pair that I respect

permutations are test of competitions but can reolsve many concerns on the cp-- they need a text and explanation beyond perm do both that gets blown up later. you should be explaining how the perm shields the link I find it highly persuasive. if ur gonna go for severance as a da to the perm impact it out or it wastes time and explicate how the links are das to the perm.

Disads

care so much about link analysis and the i/l chain, but other than that do ur thing. most impact turns r good except things like death good.

do evidence comparison it can make and break this debate, I hate outdate evidence on things that recency matter for.

K

yes! I read queerpess, cap, security, afropess, psychoanalysis and have an understanding of set col, identity ks but will need hand holding through baudy and any way high theory stuff. organize the 2nr, tell a story, ks dont need an alt but if they have one prove solvency, framing matters as how I evaluate the k and if I evaluate the post fiat impacts of the aff- how I come to that conclusion is up to you. the more specific a link is the more likely I am to vote for you.

contrary to popular belief im not a k hack- clash of civ debates are my favorite andI do vote on extinction own---> just win it

I need a k 2nr to be not 6 mins of reading ur backfiles but actual engagement w the 1ar these debates are most likely lost when you don't explicitly shut the door son 2ar outs and tell me where to flow ur prewritten stuff in the context of the 1ar

when answering a k win u weigh the case I buy clash most as a warrant but also eval fairness etc, if THEY CONCEDE CASE and you go for extinction OWS I am very likely to vote for you -- k debaters answer case or shut the dooorrrr on their access to it that doesn't rely on securitization of threats (bc you concede one is real)

K affs

I will not vote for u just because you read on- dont just do it for me (me having read it means my bar may be higher and so on).

what does the aff do? why do you need the ballot? why not defend the topic? are all questions that arise I expect to be answered in the debate. I won't vote for something I dont understand. performance rocks you do ur thing just justify it. contrary to popular belief- I WILL VOTE ON T- if you dont win your model. yes im the girl who read queer muslim futurity so be as creative unique fun and fresh with what you read and how you embody it

I need to be able to tell u what the aff is in the rfd. If I cannot you WILL NOT get my ballot.

TFW

my brain has tons of thoughts.

debate is a game but that game has value- means yes fairness matters but to what extent is for you to instruct me on. im more persuaded by clash and education 2nrs than anything that sounds like whining to me. definitions may be important but you have to win they are- world comparison on this flow is a make or break for me. contextualize it too the aff.

Theory

have voted on it when its executed well, I default to c/I and drop the debater but you can convince me otherwise. the more frivolous a shell is the less of a bar i have for responses so on and so forth. I enjoy judging this if you do it well

disclosure is good at bid tournaments but if ur a novice/small school debater who doesn't know what the wiki is just say that + error to reasonability and I won't vote you down! evading disclosure for competitive benefits is something I disagree with

yes ill vote on most theory shells just win competing interp and dont make it silly like shoe theory!!! I value tech a ton so if its conceded and no reasonability warrants it doesn't matter what the shell is if it has a voter.

Phil

I dont get this especially beyond Kant so be slow, explanatory and pretend your teaching it to a flay judge. some concepts click with me and ill nod but some fly over my head so watch my facial expressions. I will vote on it if you win it I just need hand holding through understanding it- again I can vote on it ONLY if I understand it

This is the hardest thing for me to judge as it confuses me ALOT because I just haven't delved into these philosophers as much as you. Tell me how this standard concession on framing means u win, tell me how you filter out their offense teach me why consequentialism doesn't matter.

Tricks

t I think these suck for debate so will take tons of convincing and slow/clear explanations, no I will not vote for any eval after x speech arguments but if you convince me to vote for ur apriori good for u i guess? ive come to the conclusion if you win it ill vote on it but the bar for responses is on the floor also pls tell me why the conceded thing means you win and dont assume I know why

Speaks/Notes

tech>truth to an extent, be clear and i dont care how fast you are- ill say clear but also my body language is really obvious! if I look confused I am.

I give speaks yes on speaking but also strategy + organization. make me smile and maybe ill up ur speaks ;). I dont like speaks theory. I will nuke ur speaks out of spite. Just do better !!

sitting down early or using less prep is a power move and a slay- ill reward u heavily in speaks if u do it and crush the win.

NUMBER UR ARGUMENTS PLEASE

the more you split ur 2nr the less likely it is i will vote for you- ur arguments wont be fleshed out enough AT ALL

I have adhd and may or not be on meds when I judge you depending on the day- we love clear slow down moments and organization bc it helps me tons when im not medicated!! before 930am and after 830pm are times when you need to keep this in mind

along those lines pls be a nice person- your energy carries into the room and debate should be a positive place of community

ask me questions! if you disagree with my decision feel free to respectfully inquire about it-just key wordrespectfully andI loveeee helping people talk to me ill work with you on anything

I like when u make my decision easy- do it :)

Please turn your camera on for online debate.

The later in the day it is the more slow + judge instruction heavy I expect you to be

Hello, I am a parent judge in my 5th year of LD judging. My preferences:

1. Please speak clearly and speak to the point. In terms of speed, please do not spread. If you speak faster than conversational, it is okay as long as you slow down at the important parts you want me to flow.

2. Make your argumentation the most important part with clear, concise points. Provide details, evidences and summarize in the end.

All in all be respectful and have fun while debating.

I am a parent judge who also has a background in philosophy. With that being said, I can't really evaluate progressive arguments like theory and kritiks, but can probably understand any philosphical framework you run, as long as it's accurate and well explained. No spreading, and be polite and respectful in round!

I am a parent judge with not too much experience, so I prefer clearly explained arguments with clear warranting. Please no theory, kritiks, or other progressive arguments because I will not be able to evaluate them very well. Also, please do not spread, as I will not be able to understand you!

Hello! I mostly have a British parliamentary background, but have also debated a bit in the worlds schools format (third speeches). Here are just some tips/ things that I am looking for.

Harvard HST (Lincoln - Douglas): Read all of the below under world schools, but no marks for rhetoric. You may speak relatively fast, but don't spread. If you have "evidence" but don't also provide warrants, that means nothing to me. Don't impact outrageously.

Harvard World Schools Tournament:

1. The team that wins is the team that wins the most important clashes in the debate. Debate is all about clashes

2. Teams going for the same impact, with different but unrefuted warrants is (in most cases) not a great idea. Think about it this way, if you say that you get X, and so do the Opp, I have to judge the shift in the world caused by that clash as the difference between the two, instead of just crediting the entirety of the benefits to one team

3. I think that strong rhetoric can heavily impact the weight placed on certain impacts, but you can never win a clash, when the warrants are stronger on the other side, as a result of good rhetoric.

4. Speak slow, or I will not be able to flow (and you'll probably lose style points too)

5. The more unintuitive your argument is to the average reasonable voter, the higher your burden of proof in relation to the claim is!

6. Opp should provide independent reasons to not vote for their side. Most rebuttal, unless you are able to flip the impact to your side is purely mitigatory. This is not enough to count as a positive contribution.

6. Have fun! Statistically 50% of teams will lose the round, but if you enjoyed it/ learnt something, you're a winner 100% of the time!

Hi! I'm Mattew (not a typo) Anazco, and I'm a freshman at Cornell University. I did debate at Staples High School in Westport, CT, where I did 2 years of traditional Lincoln-Douglas for a local league program before coming to Harrison High School, New York. I was not an active member of Harrison's team, but I'm familiar with the fundamentals of debate.

I want to see rounds with genuine clash and arguments with warrants that are fleshed out. I want to see clear reasons you link to a framework on both sides - otherwise, I won't have a clear way to evaluate the round. Please give voting issues, and don't use debate jargon or spread! I will do my best to evaluate the round based on what you tell me. Be sure to extend the warrants for your cards, not just the names. Real world examples and statistics are helpful.

if you post-round me and be mean to me i will cry on the spot

I love debate!!!!

for email chains: zooark038@gmail.com

Hello my name is Muthu. This is my first time judging so bear with me.

Background

I am a Data Scientist in a Government consulting company and have a master's in Data Science.

Preferences

Since it's my first time I would prefer if you speak not too fast speech but if you must, I can try to understand but prefer medium speed so I can comprehend what you are saying take notes. Make sure I can understand your ideas and that they are convincing.

I would prefer strong convincing arguments over any fancy language. I am looking for confidence over aggression and unnecessary arguments, respect each other.

Good luck!

I am familiar with debate, but relatively new to the space. I prefer a moderate pace and will judge based on clarity and coherence of arguments.

While I appreciate technical language, it should build my understanding of the argument and not overshadow clarity. I will be taking notes to capture key points but may not catch everything, so make sure to reference it again if need be.

I will expect the round to be professional, civil, and for debaters to remain respectful by keeping track of your time and avoiding disruptions.

Hey y’all. I’m David and I debated at Newark Science for 4 years on the state, regional, and national level.

College Debate: rundebate@gmail.com

High School Debate:asafuadjayedavid@gmail.com

My influences in debate have been Chris Randall, Jonathan Alston, Aaron Timmons, Christian Quiroz, Carlos Astacio, Willie Johnson, Elijah Smith in addition to a few others.

Conflicts:

-Newark Science

-Rutgers

I coach with DebateDrills- the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy,code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form:https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy

Two primary beliefs:

1. Debate is a communicative activity and the power in debate is because the students take control of the discourse. I am an adjudicator but the debate is yours to have. The debate is yours, your speaker points are mine.

2. I am not tabula rasa. Anyone that claims that they have no biases or have the ability to put ALL biases away is probably wrong. I will try to put certain biases away but I will always hold on to some of them. For example, don’t make racist, sexist, transphobic, etc arguments in front of me. Use your judgment on that.

FW

I predict I will spend a majority of my time in these debates. I will be upfront. I do not think debate are made better or worse by the inclusion of a plan based on a predictable stasis point. On a truth level, there are great K debaters and terrible ones, great policy debaters and terrible ones. However, after 6 years of being in these debates, I am more than willing to evaluate any move on FW. My thoughts when going for FW are fairly simple. I think fairness impacts are cleaner but much less comparable. I think education and skills based impacts are easier to weigh and fairly convincing but can be more work than getting the kill on fairness is an intrinsic good. On the other side, I see the CI as a roadblock for the neg to get through and a piece of mitigatory defense but to win the debate in front of me the impact turn is likely your best route. While I dont believe a plan necessarily makes debates better, you will have a difficult time convincing me that anything outside of a topical plan constrained by the resolution will be more limiting and/or predictable. This should tell you that I dont consider those terms to necessarily mean better and in front of me that will largely be the center of the competing models debate.

Kritiks

These are my favorite arguments to hear and were the arguments that I read most of my career. Please DO NOT just read these because you see me in the back of the room. As I mentioned on FW there are terrible K debates and like New Yorkers with pizza I can be a bit of a snob about the K. Please make sure you explain your link story and what your alt does. I feel like these are the areas where K debates often get stuck. I like K weighing which is heavily dependent on framing. I feel like people throw out buzzwords such as antiblackness and expecting me to check off my ballot right there. Explain it or you will lose to heg good. K Lit is diverse. I do not know enough high theory K’s. I only cared enough to read just enough to prove them wrong or find inconsistencies. Please explain things like Deleuze, Derrida, and Heidegger to me in a less esoteric manner than usual.

CPs

CP’s are cool. I love a variety of CP’s but in order to win a CP in my head you need to either solve the entirety of the aff with some net benefit or prove that the net benefit to the CP outweighs the aff. Competition is a thing. I do believe certain counterplans can be egregious but that’s for y’all to debate about. My immediate thoughts absent a coherent argument being made.

1. No judge kick

2. Condo is good. You're probably pushing it at 4 but condo is good

3. Sufficiency framing is true

Tricks

Nah. If you were looking for this part to see whether you can read this. Umm No. Win debates. JK You can try to get me to understand it but I likely won't and won't care to either.

Theory
Just like people think that I love K’s because I came from Newark, people think I hate theory which is far from true. I’m actually a fan of well-constructed shells and actually really enjoyed reading theory myself. I’m not a fan of tricky shells and also don’t really like disclosure theory but I’ll vote on it. Just have an actual abuse story. I won’t even list my defaults because I am so susceptible to having them changed if you make an argument as to why. The one thing I will say is that theory is a procedural. Do with that information what you may.

DA’s

Their fine. I feel like internal link stories are out of control but more power to you. If you feel like you have to read 10 internal links to reach your nuke war scenario and you can win all of them, more power to you. Just make the story make sense. I vote for things that matter and make sense. Zero risk is a thing but its very hard to get to. If someone zeroes the DA, you messed up royally somewhere.

Plans

YAY. Read you nice plans. Be ready to defend them. T debates are fairly exciting especially over mechanism ground. Similar to FW debates, I would like a picture of what debate looks like over a season with this interpretation.

Presumption.

Default neg. Least change from the squo is good. If the neg goes for an alt, it switches to the aff absent a snuff on the case. Arguments change my calculus so if there is a conceded aff presumption arg that's how I'll presume. I'm easy.

LD Specific

Tricks

Nah. If you were looking for this part to see whether you can read this. Umm No. Win debates. JK You can try to get me to understand it but I likely won't and won't care to either.

Contact info: avejacksond@gmail.com

Background: I competed for Okoboji (IA) and was at the TOC '13 in LD. I also debated policy in college the following year. I coached from 2014-2019 for Poly Prep (NY). I rejoined the activity again in 2023 as an assistant debate coach at Johnston (IA) & adjunct LD coach at Lake Highland Prep (FL).

LD

General: Debate rounds are about students so intervention should be minimized. I believe that my role in rounds is to be an educator, however, students should contextualize what that my obligation as a judge is. I default comparative worlds unless told otherwise. Slow down for interps and plan texts. I will say clear as many times as needed. Signpost and add me to your email chain, please.

Pref Shortcut

K: 1

High theory: 1

T/Theory: 2

LARP: 1/2

Tricks: 2/3

K: I really like K debate. I have trouble pulling the trigger on links of omission. Performative offensive should be linked to a method that you can defend. The alt is an advocacy and the neg should defend it as such. Knowing lit beyond tags = higher speaks. Please challenge my view of debate. I like learning in rounds.

Framework: 2013 LD was tricks, theory, and framework debate. I dislike blippy, unwarranted 'offense'. However, I really believe that good, deep phil debate is persuasive and underutilized on most topics. Most framework/phil heavy affs don't dig into literature deep enough to substantively respond to general K links and turns.

LARP: Big fan but don't assume I've read all hyper-specific topic knowledge.

Theory/T: Great, please warrant extensions and signpost. "Converse of their interp" is not a counter-interp.

Disclosure: Not really going to vote on disclosure theory unless you specifically warrant why their specific position should have been disclosed. If they are running a position relatively predictable, it is unlikely I will pull the trigger on disclosure theory.

Speaks: Make some jokes and be chill with your opponent. In-round strategy dictates range. I average 28.3-28.8.

Other thoughts: Plans/CPs should have solvency advocates. Talking over your opponent will harm speaks. Write down interps before extemping theory. When you extend offense, you need to weigh. Card clipping is an auto L25.

PF

I am a flow judge. Offense should be extended in summary and the second rebuttal doesn't necessarily need to frontline what was said in first rebuttal (but in some cases, it definitely helps). Weighing in Summary and FF is key. I'll steal this line from my favorite judge, Thomas Mayes, "My ballot is like a piece of electricity, it takes the path of least resistance." I have a hard time voting on disclosure theory in PF. Have fun and be nice.

I am a corporate attorney with extensive experience in negotiations, presentations, and training. I have experience participating and judging moot court competitions. I enjoy the competition of the debate formats.

I value well-structured cases and clear arguments. I like conversational debating, making the arguments practical that invite the judge to be an active listener in the presentation. I value assertive cross-examinations but I object to rude cross-examinations. I believe that debaters have to respect their opponent and differences in opinions. I do not reward spreading, I reward a pace that is realistic in negotiations.

I like clash, quality evidence from qualified sources, comparative analysis, and crystallization in last rebuttals. Don’t take anything for granted. You have to explain your arguments, why your evidence is compelling, and how the arguments weigh in the round. It’s your job to persuade me and communicate your positions in a way that is effective—that is how you will win my ballot. I don’t like whining, personal attacks, dominance, aggression, and disrespect. I appreciate professionalism, kindness, and integrity.

I reward speakers who make eye contact and that coordinate voice inflections, hand gestures, and facial expression to highlight important points in their argument.

Debate is fun, smile as often as you can.

I have been an educator for 11 years, with five years experience as a High School ELA teacher (primarily 11th Grade, English 3 and AP Language and Composition).

This is my first time judging Speech & Debate. Please be mindful of your speaking rate and volume (NO SPREADING!) No progressive debate. Respect one another at all times - even comments made under your breath, scoffing, and eye-rolling. Watch tone during cross-ex as well. Use that prep time wisely and be sure to flow. Signposting is highly encouraged!

Hey, I'm Ayman. I debated for Lake Highland Prep in Orlando for 4 years and I'm currently a freshman at Emory University. I broke at the TOC twice.

Email: abadawy598(@)gmail(DOT)com

For in person debate: +.2 speaks if you bring me coffee/an energy drink or a snack

Quick Prefs:

Kritiks - 1

T/Theory - 1

Policy v K – 2

Policy v Policy - 3

Phil - 3 (love it but less experienced)

Tricks - 4 (Won't vote on eval after x speech)

Defaults:

These defaults will only be used if no arguments are made about these things in round.

- Reps Ks > T > 1AR Theory > 1N Theory > ROB

- Fairness > Education

- No RVI, Competing Interps, DTD

- Comparative Worlds

- Presumption Affirms, Permissibility Negates

General:

I am tech>truth, but it's probably easier to win more true arguments in a round than trash ones.

All arguments need a warrant for me to vote on them. For instance, you can't just assert T is inaccessible without a warrant and go for that in the 2AR.

Lots of 2ARs are way too new for me to vote on. If you read a 2 second 1AR shell and blow it up for 3 minutes

Paradigm issues don't need to be extended if conceded but you probably should do it regardless.

Read whatever you want (unless it's a 1AR with 50 paradoxes and 4 shells with no strategic vision) butdo it well. Seriously – if you are not experienced with the K don't read it just because you think I'll vote on it.

Note for tricks – I will vote on them but I won't like it.

Disclaimers:

If you go for pess and you're nonblack I will drop you.

I won't vote on eval the round after x speech. I will vote on things like new paradigm issues bad, no embedded clash, etc., though, and I think these arguments are probably also much more convincing than "eval after the 1AR."

Signpost + be clear

If a 2AR forgets to extend paradigm issues but it's obvious both debaters agree on them (like DTD), I'll still vote on the shell but it's in your best interest to extend them regardless.

Speaks

I average a ~28.7. To get good speaks, do judge instruction and collapse. Make my job easy.

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

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

What I Like

I've gotten a few notes from debaters that my paradigm is mostly about what I don't want to see, rather than what I do. In an attempt to remedy that, here is what I enjoy in a debate round.

Evidence Debate - I love when debaters actually engage with the internal warrants of their opponents evidence and arguments. Point out contradictions between pieces of evidence, expose evidence that is too specific or too general to apply, call out evidence that is just claims rather than warrants. Any engagement with evidence beyond "my opponent's evidence is wrong because my evidence is right" will greatly increase your chance of winning my ballot.

Meaningful Framework Debate - I love when debaters pick and choose their battles on framework and clearly impact the results of the framework debate to how I should evaluate impacts in the round. You will not lose my ballot solely for conceding your opponent's framework. Not all rounds need to have a framework debate, even with different values/value criteria, if those frameworks evaluate impacts in roughly the same way or if both debaters have the same impacts in the round (eg, people dying). Debaters who recognize that and focus on the areas of framework that will actually change how I judge arguments, then follow up with an explanation of what I should look for in evaluating the round based on that change will have a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Internal Consistency - I love when debaters commit to their positions. Many arguments, especially the more unusual philosophical arguments require commitment to a whole host of concomitant beliefs and positions. Embrace that. If someone points out that utilitarianism requires defending the interests of the majority over the minority, be willing to defend that position. If someone points out that Kantianism doesn't permit you to lie to a murderer, don't backtrack - explain it. Don't be afraid to say that extinction does not outweigh everything else. Conversely, if you argue that prediction of the future is impossible in order to answer consequentialism and then cite scientific authors to support your claims, I will be much less likely to believe your position. A debater who is committed and consistent in their ethical position will have a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Argument by Analogy - I love when debaters use analogies to explain or clarify their own positions, or to expose inconsistencies, absurd statements or flaws in their opponents arguments. I think analogies are underutilized as a method of analytical argumentation and debaters willing to use analogies to explain or undermine arguments have a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Comparative Weighing - I love when debaters specifically compare impacts when weighing in the round. Rarely does a debater win every single argument in the round and weighing significantly assists me in making a decision when there are multiple impacts for both sides. While I like weighing arguments in the vein of "This argument outweighs all others in the round" more than no weighing at all, a more specific and nuanced analysis along the lines of "this argument outweighs that argument for these reasons" (especially when it explains the weighing in the specific context of the framework) will give a debater a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Disclosure

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

Timing

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

Speed

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

Flex Prep

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

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

Evidence Ethics

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

Arguments

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

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

Pre-fiat Kritiks: I am very slow to pull the trigger on most pre-fiat Ks. Ensure you have a role of the ballot which warrants why my vote will have any impact on the world or in debate. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the affirmative", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts. That said, I will vote on pre-fiat Ks - a good metric for my preference is whether your link is specific to the aff's performance in this round or if it could link to any affirmative case on the topic (or any topic). If you're calling out specific parts of the affirmative performance, that's fine.

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

Topicality: Totally fine to run. I have a slight bias towards genericist positions over specificist ones, eg "a means any" rather than "a means one".

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

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

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

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

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

Pessimistic Ks - Generally not a fan. I find it difficult to understand why they should motivate me to vote for one side over another, even if the argument is true and the alts are often unclear. I will vote on them but run at your own risk.

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

Disclosure - I will not vote on disclosure arguments. I don't believe that disclosure as a norm is beneficial to debate and I see it used to exclude non-circuit debaters far more often than I see debaters who are genuinely unable to engage because they could not predict their opponent's arguments.

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

Speaker Points

Since I've gotten some questions about this..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judging style

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

Public Forum Paradigm

Frameworks

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

Topicality

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

Theory

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

Counterplans

No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.

Kritiks

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

Burden Interpretations

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

Email for evidence chain: bales@bxscience.edu

Tell me why I should vote for you. Make sense. Explain your terms. Think of me as a relatively smart person who isn't debate-y. I'll vote for what makes sense. If I don't understand it, I can't vote for you.

Make every argument clear and tell me why it is important! Why should I vote for you?

No spreading. I do not have a problem with it on principle. I just will not be able to follow your argument. Please be clear in your articulation. Don’t use a ton of debate jargon/buzzwords- explain what you’re trying to say in your own words and make it clear. This goes for both policy and critical oriented debaters.

Argument-Specific (I prefer traditional arguments)

Critical affs- very unfamiliar. Run them if you have NOTHING else, but be sure you explain yourself VERY clearly.

Neg arguments:
Disad- Explain the story/scenario of how the aff causes a specific impact and why that impact is the most important. I prefer you use traditional impact calculus in your framing.
Counterplan- Provide a competitive counterplan and explain the NET BENEFITS of why the counterplan is better than the aff
Topicality- Prove the aff is untopical and tell me why it’s important
Kritik- Unfamiliar- explain every argument clearly. I strongly advise you not to run one. If you chose to run a K, narrow the argument down to the impacts of the K.

email for the chain: rainabatra@gmail.com (send docs as word docs (.docx) if you send out your speech doc as a google doc or pdf or body of the email etc. i'm deducting 0.5 speaks for accessibility reasons.)

general:

please weigh.

please extend impacts into your rebuttal speeches with links and warrants and link them to the framework and weigh them. the easiest way to win is to write my ballot top to bottom for me in your speech.

when i say clear, it means slow down or i stop flowing and your speaks will not be breaking 28. it is not a suggestion. i am not a flowing robot. i need to hear your arguments to vote on them.

instead of reading blocks at each other, go through and line by line. this makes the debate resolvable.

it is really obvious when you are stealing prep, especially in person. you are not slick.

i am going to start docking points for excessive time wasting. the round should be over in 45 minutes. if it isn't, whoever is the reason it wasn't is getting their speaks docked. an ld round on paper should only take 40.

i have my preferences on this paradigm, but i am not the type of judge to reject an argument because i don't like it. i will vote on almost anything. fundementally i believe the round is your space. i can and have voted on positions i hated listening to. i will let you know how much i hated it though.

i will not vote on something if i cannot explain the argument back to you at the end of the round. this also means i am unlikely to vote on something that was 10 seconds in the 2nr/2ar.

if you decide to leave the room during a prelim before i give my rfd, i will not be giving an oral decision and will dock speaks. it is not my job to come and get you or wait for you to come back.

my coaches who influenced me as a debater and as a person- amrita chakladar, david asafu-adjaye, brett cryan

non-ld events should scroll to the bottom

shortcuts:

policy - 1

t/theory - 1

k (cap, psycho) - 2

tricks done well - 3

k (not cap or psycho) - 3

friv theory - 4

phil - 5

trad - 5/strike

tricks done badly - strike me and spare both of us please

disclosure:

i believe disclosure is a good norm for circuit debate. i will happily vote on disclosure shells.

topicality/theory:

i’m more willing to vote on topicality than most judges.

i am very happy to vote on evidence ethics. you can either read a shell or stop the round.

not a fan of friv theory (think spec shells), will probably be annoyed with it but won't auto-drop it. my threshold for responses is low, though.

if you need accommodations, please email both me and your opponent at least 30 minutes before the round, or within 5 minutes of the pairing coming out. i will only vote on related theory arguments if this occurs (not guaranteeing i will vote on that theory, you would have to still win theory). i.e. i won't vote on spreading consent theory.

policy:

i was a policy debater most of high school and this is what i am best at judging.

please weigh. specifically evidence quality/methodology of studies. spewing cards at each other is not resolvable. tell me why your evidence is better.

yes put recuttings in the doc! i love that! you don't need to read them, but you do need to explain the implications of your recuts.

fine for process cps, pics, agent cps, etc.

ks:

i am not a great judge for most k debaters. i will not do work for you in order to give you the ballot, and i probably don't have the background knowledge of your lit that your blocks assume. i also am not that well versed in the nitty-gritty of technical k debate. my brain is small. i need to understand your k to vote on it. that means you should probably err on the side of more simple and extensive explanations to get my ballot. i.e. if you're running a k, get ready to stand up and explain it to me like i am 5 if you want me to vote on it.

i understand cap. i learned psycho for just the toc my senior year, so i have an ok understanding. anything else you should explain super well. a non-extensive list of things i can understand as long as you explain and walk me through your ballot: cap, psycho, setcol, security, fem, model minority, weaponitis, and pess.

please please please stop reading baudrillard in front of me.

love impact turns.

phil:

i am a bad judge for phil debate. i am not up to date on the meta. i.e. i am more likely to make bad decisions because my understanding of phil in debate is probably different than yours. i will be sad, you will be sad, and it will be very unfortunate for everyone. you should err on the side of over-explanation for very dense phil / less common stuff.

phil debate can become bad debate very fast. i don't want to judge that.

tricks:

i’m probably an above-average judge for tricks, but badly done tricks are just annoying and not fun. i will most often only vote on a trick if it's dropped or if you're uniquely good at going for it. my threshold for responses to tricks is low.

trad:

i would prefer not to judge trad rounds. if you choose to have a trad round, i will evaluate it like a trad judge (not flowing). i would very much prefer to judge circuit arguments. on average, my speaks in a round with progressive arguments will be much higher. i feel like at most natcirc tournaments, "trad" debate isn't true trad debate but rather just bad debate, which i do not want to see. at the same time, i have a lot of respect for good trad debate, i just don't have a long attention span, so if you can do circuit debate, i would highly recommend it in front of me.

speaks:

i think i give average speaks, i'm definitely not one to inflate them. i give 30s a few times every tournament, and most good debaters will get good speaks in front of me. making the round interesting will boost your speaks. a messy round will not be nice for them. i will reward those who don’t read off docs.

i'll disclose speaks if it is not against tournament policy, just ask because i won't do it if i am not asked.

i won't evaluate lazy attempts at speaker points theory.

rewarding students with speaks for food/drink is really gross to me. in lieu of that, here's how you can get more speaks!

ending a speech early/taking less prep time and still giving a good speech (+0.1 speak per minute, you have to tell me)

let your opponent borrow something they need (+0.5)

add a pic of a dog (ideally yours) to the doc (+0.3)

be a generally nice person in round (+0.1-0.5)

being funny (depends on how funny you are)

other events

policy: i did policy at one tournament in high school and cleared (ncfl). i generally understand how the event works. my preference are pretty similar to how i judge ld, but i won't hear tricks or any similar shenanigans in this event.

worlds: i did worlds for three years in highschool. i semi-finaled nsda nationals in this event in 2022. i know how the event works, i will flow. please weigh. absent weighing, principle > practical. i don't care about style no matter what the rubric says. i know motions can suck at worlds tournaments so i will keep this in mind.

pf: i don’t want to judge this event. if i do, please spread, please read extinction impacts, please read theory, please read cps. i will judge it how i judge ld.

American Heritage '20

Bates '24

As a debater I Semi'd at the TOC, won an Octos Bid and a Quarters Bid and was relatively successful on the circuit. I now compete in APDA and BP (College Parli) and coach for Break Debate.

I still flow and listen to spreading on a semi-regular basis, however I have lost my ability to decipher incoherent mumbling at top speed. Either be clear or go at 70% of your normal rate. I will not flow off the doc.

I strongly believe that judges have an obligation to adapt to debaters, not the other way around. This is your activity and you should read arguments and explore ideas that are interesting to you. My role is to act as an impartial adjudicator (in as much as this is possible). I will vote on any argument that is won, warranted, and weighed.*

The rest of this paradigm should be read as a guide to:

1] How my priors and predispositions will effect how I judge.

2] My background/experience with certain types of arguments.

3] How to get good Speaks.

*I will not evaluate 30 speaks theory and will give you bad speaks for reading it.

Philosophy Debate:

Go wild. This is my favorite type of debate and what I read most often; I believe it is what distinguishes LD from being a better version of PF and worse imitation of Policy.

I love unique frameworks. Generic Kant/Hobbes is fine, but I will bump speaks for creativity. Similarly, I will reward frameworks with actual syllogisms, as I dislike affs that just list 60 2-sentence "Independant justifications".

Weighing between justifications/establishing logical priority is often very important in these debates. It can be hard to resolve chicken or the egg claims about who controls the internal link to normativity or other random meta-ethical issues.

Policy:

I read these arguments occasionally in high school and feel comfortable evaluating them. Parli has made me appreciate good topical/utilitarian debate a lot more, and I am happy to judge these rounds.

Compared to the average judge, I probably give more credence to probable arguments with robust link chains. Winning an extinction scenario does not mean that you have 100% certainty that extinction will occur, just that the probability of extinction is meaningfully higher. I will still vote on marginal extinction impacts, but you should do explicit weighing as to why even small increases in existential risk come first.

Good analytics>>>bad evidence. Cards should have warrants, especially if they are making predictions and not just listing facts.

I enjoy creative plans, PICS, and counterplans and will boost your speaks if you read something outside of the box. I am not the biggest fan of advantage counterplans, but will vote on them.

I find the Planorama strategy against Nebel T very funny and will give you high speaks if you execute it well.

Please for the love of god do weighing. The round will not be resolvable if you do not do weighing. Do not just assert something bad happens and pretend your opponent doesn't exist.

I will not judge kick an argument unless you argue that I should.

Kritiks:

I went for these more than my reputation suggested, but I am not super well versed in the intricacies of K literature.

If you are reading something besides a common K (Afropess, Set Col, Ableism, Cap, etc) or something I have background knowledge of (Nietzsche, Buddhism, Baudrillard, philosophy stuff) err heavily on the side of over-explanation.

1ARs increase their chance of winning if they respond to the K on the line by line alongside generic blocks and case outweighs.

Non-T Affs should be debatable and have actual offense linked back to a framing mechanism. I dislike cases that are tautologies where the advocacy and the role of the ballot are identical.

Neg K's are much stronger if they have actual links to the aff. Three card K's which assert "every theory besides mine is wrong" are less strategic then positions that engage with the topic and their framing.

I will vote on identity K's and pessimism, but strong claims should have strong warrants. If you want to argue that nothing will ever get better, you should defend a cohesive theory of ontology or politics, not read an underhighlighted card that just lists empirical examples of oppression.

I will vote for or against T framework. I think the policy making good/education/TVA collapse is underutilized, but fairness first is first.

1ARs against Framework don’t need to read a counter interp (though this is cool and strategic), but they should establish a framing mechanism for weighing impacts. I have no idea how to weigh impact turns absent being linked back to accessibility or a role of the ballot.

Tricks:

Most people considered me a tricks debater and I am very familiar with these arguments.

That being said, I think 'tricks' is basically just used as a catch all term to lump together arguments that people don't like.

Some of these arguments are very bad such as the resolved apriori, aprioris that intentionally misdefine words in the resolution, or eval after the 1ar.

On the other hand, 'tricks' that are based in philosophy or cleverly apply literature to 'break the topic' are some of my favorite arguments in debate.

I am a huge fan of Skep, Burdens (bring these back), creative NIBS, clever topical aprioris, Contingent Standards (great speaks if you read one of these), etc.

Truth Testing is a great argument and incredibly strategic if you go for it well.

Theory:

I am fine with 'frivolous' and gamey theory shells that are relevant to the round.

Reasonability with a brightline of structural abuse is heavily underutilized as a response to shells which rely on the risk of marginal abuse.

I would rather not judge disclosure theory, but will vote on it.

I would really really rather not judge new affs bad, but will (unfortunately) still vote on it.

Topicality:

I find semantics impacts much more persuasive than most judges.

Nebel T is fine, but more debaters should read actual Topicality shells against plan affs that are borderline non-topical and defend super marginal advocacies.

Lay Debate:

For progressive debaters against lay/trad debaters.

-- Be nice and try to make the round educational.

-- Spreading the 1ac is fine, but go at a speed your opponent can at least understand for other speeches.

-- Probably don't spam theory shells, but normal circuit arguments are fine. I won't punish you for winning quickly and cleanly, but I will boost speaks if you make the round a positive learning experience.

For lay/trad debaters against progressive debaters.

-- Try to understand their arguments and make the responses that seem logical and obvious to you.

-- Engaging to the best of your ability increases your chances of winning more than vague claims that progressive debate is bad.

Lay vs Lay rounds

-- Do weighing and be comparative. The biggest problem with 90% of these rounds is a lack of weighing and engagement when both sides have radically different characterizations of the resolution.

-- I will not vote on new arguments.

NSDA 2024 PF UPDATE

If your cards are not properly tagged, cited and cut, I will be tanking speaker points severely.

If an email chain is not set up, I will be tanking speaker points severely.

If I get so much as a whiff of evidentiary dishonesty, I am dropping you, closing my laptop and leaving the round.

Otherwise, congrats on making it to NSDA. Have fun and do you, boo !

About Me

I attended and debated for Rutgers University-Newark (c/o 2021). I’ve ran both policy and K affs.

Coach @ Ridge HS in Basking Ridge, NJ.

Influences In Debate

David Asafu – Adjaye (he actually got me interested in college policy, but don’t tell him this), and of course, the debate coaching staff @ RU-N: Willie Johnson, Carlos Astacio, Devane Murphy, Christopher Kozak and Elijah Smith.

The Basics

Yes, I wish to be on the email chain!

saied.beckford@rutgers.edu

COLLEGE POLICY: I skimmed through the topic paper and ADA/ Wake will be my first time judging this season. Do with this information what you wish.

GENERAL: If you are spreading and it’s not clear, I will yell clear. If I have to do that too many times in a round, it sucks to be you buddy because I will just stop flowing and evaluate the debate based on what I can remember. Zoom through your cards, but when doing analytics and line by line, take it back a bit. After all, I can only evaluate what I catch on my flow. UPDATE FOR ONLINE DEBATES: GO ABOUT 70% OF YOUR NORMAL SPEED. IF YOU ARE NOT CLEAR EVEN AT 70%, DON'T SPREAD.

In general, I like K’s (particularly those surrounding Afro-Pess and Queer Theory). However, I like to see them executed in at least a decent manner. Therefore, if you know these are not your forte, do not read them just because I am judging. One recent pet peeve of mine is people just asserting links without having them contextualized to the aff and well explained. Please don't be that person. You will see me looking at both you and my flow with a confused face trying to figure out what's happening. Additionally, do not tell me that perms cannot happen in a method v. method debate without a warrant.

I live for performance debates.

I like to be entertained, and I like to laugh. Hence, if you can do either, it will be reflected in your speaker points. However, if you can’t do this, fear not. You obviously will get the running average provided you do the work for the running average. While I am a flow centric judge, be it known that debate is just as much about delivery as it is about content.

The bare minimum for a link chain for a DA is insufficient 99% of the time for me. I need a story with a good scenario for how the link causes the impact. Describe to me how everything happens. Please extrapolate! Give your arguments depth! It would behoove you to employ some impact calculus and comparison here.

Save the friv theory, bring on those spicy framework and T debates. Please be well structured on the flow if you are going this route. Additionally, be warned, fairness is not a voter 98% of the times in my book. It is an internal link to something. Note however, though I am all for T and framework debates, I also like to see aff engagement. Obviously these are all on a case by case basis. T USFG is not spicy. I will vote on it, but it is not spicy.

For CPs, if they're abusive, they are. As long as they are competitive and have net benefits, we're good.

On theory, at a certain point in the debate, I get tired of hearing you read your coach's coach's block extensions. Could we please replace that with some impact weighing?

Do not assume I know anything when judging you. I am literally in the room to take notes and tell who I think is the winner based on who gives the better articulation as to why their option is better. Therefore, if you assume I know something, and I don’t … kinda sucks to be you buddy.

I’m all for new things! Debating is all about contesting competing ideas and strategies.

I feel as though it should be needless to say, but: do not run any bigoted arguments. However, I’m well aware that I can’t stop you. Just please be prepared to pick up a zero in your speaking points, and depending on how egregious your bigotry is, I just might drop you. Literally!

Another thing: please do not run anthropocentrism in front of me. It’s something I hated as a debater, and it is definitely something I hate as a judge. Should you choose to be risky, please be prepared for the consequences. (Update: voted on it once - purely a flow decision)

For My LD'ers

It is often times difficult to evaluate between esoteric philosophies. I often find that people don't do enough work to establish any metric of evaluation for these kinds of debates. Consequently, I am weary for pulling the trigger for one side as opposed to the other. If you think you can, then by all means, read it!

Yale Update: Tricks are for kids.You might be one, but I am not.

I'm gonna have to pass on the RVIs too. I've never seen a more annoying line of argumentation.

In general, give me judge instructions.

On average, tech > truth --- however, I throw this principle out when people start doing or saying bigoted things.

Hello there! I’m Ishan. I am excited to hear what y’all have to say!! For what it’s worth, I haven’t been involved in a couple of years, so please explain jargon and debate a little slower than you would otherwise.

Email for LD: ishanbhatt42@gmail.com. Could you make the subject line something like: “ Tournament -- Year -- Aff vs Neg”?

Updated for Harvard 2024

Form Preferences:

1. Read what you want if it is well-warranted and well-explained. This is theoretically a content-neutral preference, but I may be worse for very short arguments with very extreme implications. The size of an argument’s implication and its length should be inversely correlated.

2. Please be sure that every word you say is understandable. I’ll say clear. If I do, please go back, and say your argument again. I don’t open speech docs until after the round, so I do want to hear all the words of the card.

3. If an argument is dropped, you get the warrant, not the tag. The implication of a dropped argument can still be contested.

4. I’m more persuaded by specific arguments. It’s hard to win no progress if you drop aff solvency, threat inflation if you concede the China war scenario, “fairness always first” without some debating about the internal link, etc.

5. Please be transparent about your argument. Don't be coy about the function or content of the argument, or else I may not understand it either! And please don’t refuse to answer questions at all.

6. The 1NC must fully develop the argument. My sense of the meta is only based on judging twice in the last two years, but I thought many off-case positions I saw weren’t complete arguments and the 1AR could’ve briefly dismissed them.

Content Preferences:

Plans/CPs/DAs:

• I really don’t need everything to lead to extinction.
• For most “cheating” counterplans, a clear theory of “what should be competitive” is most compelling.
• A perm needs explanation in the speech in which it is introduced.

Theory:

• Predictably defining the words in the topic matters the most for topicality. Once you’ve defined a word, proving a good vision for the topic regarding research, ground, limits, etc. is great.
• I basically won’t vote on bad theory arguments, especially really contrived interpretations (e.g., “may not do exactly what you did”). A solid “this is arbitrary + reasonability + don’t drop the debater” push should do the trick for me.
• Reasonability, to me, makes most sense as “voting on theory means we lose out on a substantive debate, therefore defense is sufficient.” I’m often confused by reasonability “bright line” arguments.
• Please don’t claim that a debate practice (like a new case or conditionality) makes debate “unsafe.” I feel like safety is meaningful thing and is probably outside the realm of technical debating.

Ks:

• You need to explain a structural claim, not just say the claim.
• I likely won’t vote on an argument about personal stuff.
• I really don’t understand most arguments over fiat. “Fiat” makes most sense to me as shorthand for the “is-ought” fallacy.
• I might be stricter than the median judge for neg DA links – if you “destroy the system of capitalism,” the neg is probably right about the link to the econ DA.

See also: Andrew Garber's paradigm.

Cypress Bay 2020

FIU- current

I've been with Champion Briefs since the 2020-2021 season

I'd like to be on the chain :) garrett.bishop2577@gmail.com

Policy note - I'm good for any kind of debate you want to do, but don't judge the event super often, so I'm not going to get most topic jargon.

1 - K/Performance, esp high theory (but I also think T is true)

1-2 - Policy v Policy

2 - Dense idptx positions

3 - Phil you can explain well

4 - Theory heavy positions, besides T

5 - Dense phil you can't explain very well

Public forum stuff is near the bottom

#deBAYbies

Super duper short pre-round version: If you read Ks, I should be a high pref. If you read tricks and/or phil, I should be a low pref. I'm more familiar with the pomo side of Ks. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible. I say probably a lot. I generally don't flow author names, and I wasn't the best at flowing while I was competing. So... slow down on extensions a lil bit?

You can debate, really, however you want to debate. However, help me help you, and don't paraphrase your evidence. Reading essay style cases can also be hard to follow, so do with that information whatever you will.

Non T positions are cool, extra T and fxT are chill absent theory. I promise you can read whatever you want.

If that didn't help, you have questions, and you don't want to read my rambling, just shoot me an email. If it's before a tournament, I can't promise as to how quickly I'll answer, but at tournaments I have my email open 24/7.

Small 2023 update: I'm pretty okay with listening to phil/tricks positions, I think. However, you must be aware that this is not a branch of theory I think about often, or a form of debate that I coach or did while I was in high school. Phil v K debate is probably an uphill battle to win. You also must slow down when reading the big/abstract positions, and you should explain implications to me. If you read phil/tricks, I want you to explain it to me like I'm your younger sibling -I will not understand the phil buzzwords and jargon. ALSO, unrelated: 1AC theory makes me feel icky. You get infinite prep, you shouldn't have to read theory in your 1AC. Just debate. I believe in you.

The above is still true, especially the 1AC theory stuff, but after several months of doing prefs for my Cypress kids... there are a lot of people on the circuit now that are outright hostile towards phil stuff, or even tricks debate and this is kind of disappointing to me. Read the arguments that you want to read in front of me, but you should know that there are certain levels of explanation that you need to hit for me to vote on something - the brightline for voting on a dropped 1AC spike is going to be a lot higher for me than a fully fleshed out 1NC DA + case answers.

Longer version

• Some of the judges/coaches who particularly influenced me and my debate style during my career include: Daniel Shatzkin, Alex Landrum, Aleksandar Shipetich, Allison Harper, Sawyer Emerson, Mitchell Buehler, Claire Rung, Rob Fernandez

• Defaults: Role of Debate > Judge > Ballot; comparative worlds first; competing interps; drop the debater; presume negative; reps/pre-fiat > literally everything else

• Background + my thoughts on the (negative) K: My career started at the Samford Debate Institute in the policy lab where I learned how to disad/counterplan/case debate. At my first tournament of the year, I turned around and read a death good aff and haven't turned back from the K since. In my senior year alone, I read: Anthro, Baudrillard (a few variations of this one), Dark Deleuze, Abolition, and Security. I don't think kritiks are really ever cheating unless they create a perfcon. I'm far more familiar with the post-modernism/high theory side of K debate over the identitarian side, though I have read a considerable amount of literature on both sides. Other Ks that I haven't read in round, but know the literature well enough include: Psychoanalysis, Afropessimism, Wake Work, settler colonialism, and queer pessimism, among others. You'll get +0.1 speaks if you use correct human/nonhuman animal rhetoric. Please don't read a K you don't understand just because I like Ks :)

• The (affirmative) K: I read these from pretty much day 1. There was only one instance in which I didn't (looking at you, UK), and that was a bit of a mess. Similar to the negative section, try not to read confusing (but fun) K affs just because I like them. It's more painful to listen to someone butcher a Deleuze aff than a hard right policy aff. I primarily read Fiction theory my senior year, and I love it more than anything, so you get brownie points if you also read these :)
• - - FW v K affs: It is often a true argument, and I will definitely vote on it. I think that TVAs are overhyped and to win on one, it should definitely solve at least 80% of the aff. That said, I think that affirmative debaters often just don't know how to beat back framework with their aff. You should leverage case v fw. You read six minutes of dense theory. You should use it.
• - - K v K affs: I think these are really cool. I don't really know if I know some of the identity lit well enough to judge something like afropess v afropess, but if you can explain the nuances well enough, then by all means go for it. The Baudrillard v Baudrillard debate was one of my favorites to be a part of in high school.
• - - Counterplans v K affs: I think these are often underutilized by debaters, myself included. The glitter bomb cp is legitimate. No questions asked.
• - - Plan affs - I like these. I think they're cool and very fun. Not really my style but that doesn't mean I hate them or won't vote on them. I think if you're gonna go for the policy option, you should just read a hard right plan with like a space-col advantage. I feel like the competitive advantage that soft-left policy affs traditionally got access to in HS Policy debate is kind of moot in LD because of the prevalence of both K debate as well as phil debate.

• - - Case debate: This is where the good stuff is. Also a great place to flex and/or show some personality and not be a robot. In my own words, "This inherency is awful 5head, cut a better card."
• - - CP/DA v Case: please don't say ceepee or deeaye, stop trying to be edgy and cool. Same thing goes for "arg" instead of argument. Just say the word pls. But yes these are cool. I like these. I didn't read these but I liked these a lot.
• - - Impact turns v Case: As long as it's not oppression/bigotry good, go for it. ffs i read death good lol
• - - T/th v Case: If there's an abuse, there's an abuse. If not wearing shoes is abusive to you, then we have different concepts of abuse. Do with that what you will. If you have to ask, "Is x shell frivolous?" The answer is probably yes. I probably don't think that T is really ever an RVI. The only feasible justification for an RVI on T that I can possible imagine is if you cross applied abuse from other shells. But eh who knows?
• - - K v Case: Yes please :) This was my favorite debate to have. I feel like there are the most potential layers to interact on. There's the case page itself, framing, the K, and anything else you might throw in there. "K bad judge help" isn't a legit argument. If the 1NC is one off, you shouldn't concede the entirety of the 1AC. I made this mistake a few times; it's not the move. Clash of civs is goated and I will not argue with you on this.

- Misc:

1. If I laugh I promise it's not at you

2. I enjoy it when two debaters clearly get along

3. Please don't be mean to younger debaters

4. R e s p e c t e a c h o t h e r

5. Do your own thing and do it well

6. Don't be afraid to ask questions

7. I have much less patience for frivolous arguments the farther we get into the tournament.

8. If you have any questions about the things that I read in particular, feel free to email me.

- Those Chart things because I think they're cool and fun

Policy-----------------------------------X----------K

Tech --X---------------------------------------------Truth

Condo ---------X------------------------------------Not Condo

Clarity -------------X-------------------------------Speed

Bowdreearrd X-------------------------------------------- Balldrilard

Ampharos X---------------------------------------------Literally any other Pokemon

A2/AT ------------------------------------------X-- A healthy, inconsistent mix in every file

A2 --------X------------------------------------ AT

Analytics in the doc -X------------------------------------------- A blank text file

Extending warrants ----------X---------------------------------- Extending authors

Jokes in the speech -----X--------------------------------------- Hello it's me, debate robot #6

I am a big meanie -------------------------------------------X- I am not a big meanie

Getting the shakes before a drop X-------------------------------------------- I don't understand this reference, grow up

Starship Troopers ----------X---------------------------------- Dune

The alt is rejection ------------------------------------------X-- Part of the alt might necessitate rejecting the aff

Defense ------------------------------------------X-- Offense

Please don't dodge questions in cross

Public Forum

I have a lot of feelings about this event. A lot of them boil down to, "If you want me to judge this round like a tech judge, you should probably follow the norms of technical debate." This means that I'll pull the trigger very easily on theoretical arguments that justify things that are "normal" in other forms of debate. Id est, disclosure and paraphrasing bad. It's possible to win disclosure bad or paraphrasing good in front of me, but it will for sure be an uphill battle.

I'm okay with speed.

I'm good with technical arguments.

Please don't read Ks or other "tech" arguments just because I like them. It's more painful to listen to them read poorly. That said, if you know the arguments, then feel free to read them.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them, I promise I'm not as mean as this paradigm likely makes me out to be.

This is perpetually going to get longer and longer as I see things that I need to address. I'll shorten it eventually, I promise.

I’m a parent judge and relatively new to judging. Please clearly articulate your positions and provide supporting evidence. I value clear, reasoned, compelling arguments that illustrate that you know your topic thoroughly.

Updated for Harvard 2/17/2024:

I don't typically judge LD; given this, I will try to be as tech as possible but no promises. I am comfortable with Ks, theory, etc. whatever weird arguments you want to run. Just be clear ab what you're doing and be ready to time yourself (lol)

Updated for Princeton 11/30/2023

In high school in Houston, TX, I competed in PF and FX for 4 years on the state and national circuits. In college, I competed in American Parli (APDA) and British Parli (BP) for 4 years. I graduated from Boston College in May 2023 with majors in philosophy and biology. I now work in clinical trials.

• Please be as clear as possible about where you are on the flow. Signpost and let me know which side you are starting on. I am going to be typing fast but I am paying attention :)
• No new evidence after 2nd rebuttal or 1st summary
• Speaker points based on strategy, not fluency
• Spreading is fine
• I DONT FLOW CROSS - let me know during your speech if something happened that you want me to put on the flow
• Weigh terminal impacts!!! Meta-weigh issues of scope, probability, etc. Impacts are NOT intuitive in PF and not for the judge to discern.

Plz let me know if you have any questions. Put me on the email chain!

alexandraboehning@gmail.com

As a Coolidge debate judge for the past 3 years, I enjoy watching teams that play fair, speak clearly, and have well-thought-out arguments. I value good sportsmanship, clearly defined position and argumentation, and eye contact. I'm not a fan of speed in debate and want to see the quality of arguments and evidence vs. quantity of data.

I am a parent judge. I competed in speech and debate all through high school and college. I did some LD debate and some CEDA, but I focused a lot of my time on platform speech events (original oratory, informative, communication analysis, extemp, impromptu, poetry, and duo). I am a lawyer by profession and currently serve as a justice on a state supreme court. So, I evaluate arguments on their merit, but I also value communication skills. I’m not a huge fan of topicality arguments and certainly do not see a topicality as being jurisdictional in the sense that it deprives a judge of authority to judge a round. Someone would have to be taking some serious liberties with the resolution for me to vote on topicality grounds. I am also open to evaluating plans and counter-plans, and taking conflicting positions (when done clearly and when well-warranted) does not offend my sensibilities.

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

General:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PF:

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

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

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

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

LD:

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

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

Congress:

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

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

BQ:

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

Pronouns: she/her

email: thaliacharles915@gmail.com. Include me on the email chain.

I competed in CX and LD debate in high school and NFA-LD and parliamentary debate in college (East Coast).

General:

1. I prefer traditional/lay to progressive debates. I prefer a slower debate. If I cannot understand you, I cannot vote for you.If I shout Clear three times and you don't slow down so that I can understand, I may stop flowing.

2. I love a passionate debate, but don’t be rude to your opponent. You can be sassy but don’t be mean or condescending. I will adjust speaker points accordingly.

3. Speaker points- I don’t think there is an exact science to speaker points, but basically I’m going to give you low speaker points if you intentionally use any racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist language against your opponent (or me!). Debate rounds should not be boring! There is a lot of possibility for education in each round. That is exciting. I’m going to give higher speaks to the person who is a more engaging speaker.

4. Signpost!

5. Debate is supposed to be an educational activity where you learn important life skills. I think one of the most important skills I learned from debate is how to clearly communicate a point. So, crystallize, crystallize, crystallize! Write my ballot for me. Tell me exactly why I should vote for you.

6. Stats are important, but this is LD, not policy. I don’t want the round to devolve into a debate about a stat or a card

Framework:

1. The framework debate is key in LD. This is a philosophical style of debate. Do not neglect the value debate.

2. If you’re using an uncommon V and/or VC, explain it to me. I encourage fresh V and VCs, as it could make for a more educational debate.

3. Warrant your framework. Explain why your V and VC are relevant to the resolution.

4. Impacts are always important. You need to explain the impacts of affirming and negating your case and weigh them (especially if you have a consequentialist value system). What is at stake? Tie your value system into your impacts.

Progressive debate:

1. I'm okay with theory as long as you explain it and it's relevant to the round
2. I do love a good K, but it needs to be relevant to the round. I want strong links to the round and clarity about whether the K applies to "debate" overall, the AFF case specifically, etc.
3. I'm not a huge fan of perms and CPs

VOTERS:

i will vote for whatever you prioritize in the round, however, I do like a strong framework debate.

1. Framework
2. Impacts and weighing.
3. Line by Line.

Ideally, the winner of the round would clearly uphold their value system, have strong impacts, and clear crystallization, and the best defense or offense. Obviously, the ideal is the ideal. If you win on framework and lose on impact, you’ve gotten my ballot.

Extra note:

(This isn’t important but some insight into me) I work in the legal field, where these philosophical debates are very real. People have very different views of what “justice” or “morality” means— and caught in the middle of these competing interps are people and their lives. So, I just ask you to remember that these debates are not abstract, real life policymakers are having these debates, and just try to recognize the humanity. Basically, in judging and competing, I have debated and seen people debate some arguments that are dehumanizing in service of winning a round. There is a stronger argument out there. You can find it. (Not trying to chill speech but trying to encourage stronger argumentation and education)

Hi. Don't spread, it's annoying. I consider myself a trad judge. Strike me for tricks/dense Phil/ theory/ Kritiks (I'm trying to emphasize that I'm trad- take the hint). Be topical. I don't disclose speaker points so don't ask but I will disclose the result of the round.

Don't post round me- I don't care that you don't think you lost, you did.

frasatc@gmail.com - please use this to add me to the chain. Please do not send me emails regarding my final decisions.

add me on the email chain! lexcynthiayc@gmail.com

I competed in LD for Lexington High School from 2014 to 2018, and have been away from debate until late 2023. So, if I don't remember certain types of arguments (IVIs, etc.), it's because I'm old and rusty. I've been told that my facial expressions give away what I'm thinking, so you should probably use that to your advantage. Speed is fine, but I will ask you to slow down on T/theory/UV/tricks. I flow by ear, and I'll say "clear" twice. If I still can't understand you, I'll stop flowing. I'm most comfortable with K's (I love a good non-topical K aff), T/theory, LARP, phil is ok. My defaults: condo good (unless you're going for >3 offs), no RVIs, drop debater, CIs, theory highest layer.

For Preferences:

K - 1

LARP - 1 (LARP v LARP tends to get very messy and hard to evaluate, please collapse appropriately and not go for every single argument in your last speech, extinction impacts are boring, LARP v K is fun)

Theory/T - 1

Phil - 2/3 (I don't understand high theory stuff like Baudy/Deleuze, read at your own risk)

Traditional - 2 (how i feel about trad is how i feel about a plain bagel - lukewarm but I'll still eat it)

Tricks - 4 (only evaluated indexicals, if you go for tricks, please only collapse to one and explain it very well)

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

on speaks:

how to get a 30: give me an overview, collapse appropriately, don't read > 3 offs (my favorite roadmap is "1 off case"), and sign post clearly

how to boost speaks: being funny, being nice to your opponent, email chain already set up, conceding prep/speech time (tell me how much), smart CX

how to get <25 speaks: going on your phone (beyond setting a timer), telling someone that "they don't look black so therefore they can't read afropess" (yes, this did happen), aggro^2 (i love sassy cx/rebuttals, but do not be problematic)

K

I have a soft spot for non-topical K affs, performance is fun, give me warrants as to why it's good for debate. You should have some solvency, clear ROB, and framing. Don't read a K in front of me because I like them, I have heard some problematic extensions and I will not be afraid to dock speaks. Buzzwords need to make sense and you should absolutely know your lit if you read it in front of me. Feel free to impact turn on T/theory.

From Sai Karavadi's paradigm:

"Update-- you know -- I am slowly getting the ick regarding how people are instrumentalizing literature of specific groups for ballots -- if you are not part of a community and decide to read the literature anyways, but you clearly have a surface level understanding of it, I will be unhappy -- I am tired of cishets using queer pessimism, able-bodied people reading disability pessimism, and white people reading afro-pessimismwithout any real engagement with the literature -- and I don't think non-indigenous people reading settler colonialism is somehow distinct, nor do I think that non-black people reading other structural criticisms about antiblackness is distinct enough for it to mean that you are somehow using images of suffering more ethically. I am vexed with the inauthentic way that y'all are reading this literature, so I am watching with a very close eye regarding CX answers, the way you structure the K, the authors you read, and the 2N explanations. I won't auto-drop you or anything, but I do reserve the right to drop you on the ick if it's obvious you are not taking the literature seriously. I have had conversations with other judges and coaches who feel similarly, so read things at your own risk from now on. I still think you can read them, but I need you to do it at a level where it is clear you care and know what you're talking about."

LARP

This is fine. Plans/CPs/DAs/PIC/Ks cool. My issue with judging LARP is that oftentimes the impact is extinction with the most generic cards (Avery/Pummer with util framing). Make sure you have a clear link story and that UQ is there (like within the last year, ideally the last few months). I think consult/communication CPs are lazy and don't make for good debate.

Theory/T

I really,really don't like frivolous theory (think spreading/condo bad). Disclosing is chill (aff should disclose 30 min prior to round, don't need to disclose if new - like actually new new, not just one card being changed). I'm not fully convinced you need full doc to be able to engage, tags + author + cite + first and last 3 words of card is good enough for me. If it's blatantly obvious that you are the more experienced debater in the round and you choose the lazy path like disclosure theory, I will be very unhappy (ceiling for speaks is probably a 26).

Also from Sai Karavadi's paradigm:

"Side note -- if you impact spreading bad or other shells to ableism, maybe think about that -- debate is of course extremely ableist, but I find it paternalistic to generally claim that disabled debaters are unable to debate able-bodied debaters who spread or speak fast. That's not to say I won't vote on it or that I don't think there is some truth to the claim, but I do think you should watch how you phrase the argument at least -- i.e., "disabled debaters cannot debate unless you disclose early cause they have to think on their feet" -- this sounds problematic and like you're saying that disabled people can't critically think in the moment, but "it is better to not spread to encourage access for people with certain disabilities" -- this sounds more agreeable. Be very careful when you talk about ableism because I have heard very problematic collapses that I am not happy with."

Phil

Most rounds have util as framing, which is fine, though I'm not convinced it's a great ethical theory. Comfortable with eval kant v util, all that good stuff.

Hi! I'm Iris (any pronouns) - Harvard-Westlake LD (2019-23), TOC qual 2x, mainly read policy args.

I coach with DebateDrills. This URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy, code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form.

For email chain (or any questions): irischen2536 at gmail dot com (fileshare/speechdrop also fine)

harvard update - I will try my best to evaluate phil/theory rounds without intervening. Speaks won't be affected as long as you keep things somewhat reasonable.

topic update (jf24) - I don't think t-no subsets (in means throughout / region means entire region) is the best arg - you're probably better off reading t-substantial or t-military presence

--

General

Defaults: T > theory > everything else, competing interps, no RVI, DTA unless I can't (T/condo/disclosure), comparative worlds, epistemic confidence, presumption = side of least change

Safety (misgendering, accessibility, etc): I'd prefer for you to email me or interrupt the round rather than reading a theory shell

I close my eyes sometimes while flowing, not asleep just trying to listen better

--

Policy!

Impact turns / process/adv counterplans specific to the aff <3

Judge kick if the 2NR says so – arguments against it must be introduced in the 1AR

Inserting re-highlightings is good

2NR cards must be directly responsive to 1AR arguments

Generally won't read cards unless someone tells me to or the debate is irresolvable

Decently involved in topic prep/probably have an ok amount of background knowledge

--

Kritiks

Cap/IR Ks/set col = ok, anything else = I will prob be confused. Mitigate the risk of case.

Not a super big fan of the idea that the ballot/my decision is a referendum on identity or moral correctness

Non-T affs: probably biased in favor of framework (fairness/clash > movements) – presumption is also good

--

Topicality

Debate over definitions in the literature are much more interesting than "haha nebel 19 go brrrrr” – that being said, if you have a semantics-based T argument contextual to the resolution’s wording and explain it correctly I will be very happy

Like: well-written offensive/defensive caselists, fleshed out descriptions of how the topic should look, size-of-internal-link weighing, good definitions comparison

Dislike: education outweighs fairness/fairness outweighs education, 12-point AT PICs that gets progressively more incoherent, treating semantics and pragmatics as if they're entirely separate concepts, "JUDGE THERE ARE 512 AFFS!!!," "interp the aff may not spec and the neg may not read PICs"

--

Theory

Topic-based spec and reasonable disclosure args are fine – most other things will probably annoy me/I have a relatively low tolerance for nonsense (obv situation dependent – if it's the cleanest option or abuse is egregious, go ahead)

Ev ethics as a shell is fine, I will eval based on NSDA/tournament rules if you stake the round

Logic is an underrated standard

Competing interps/reasonability are about the counter-interp, normsetting/in-round abuse are about the specific instance

Things that are not arguments: "affirming/negating is harder [doesn't explain why that justifies your model]," "they can't make X combination of args because it's hard to respond to :(((," "they can't contest X part of my 1AC/1NC because defending it is hard :(((," eval X after Y, RVIs on T, most "independent voting issues," 3 second long paragraph theory

--

Phil

Don't run away from clash

Plan affs / counterplans with unique philosophical offense are quite cool

Ks of philosophy can be very interesting but should present an alternative that does not boil down to "consult X minority about ethics" – you will simply lose to the perm like every other consult CP

Would prefer skep/permissibility to be leveraged as a framework justification (X fwk triggers skep so it's wrong) rather than a reason to affirm/negate because there are no obligations

If reading util and going for extinction outweighs, be sure that your ev substantiates an extinction impact

--

Speaker points

Will adjust based on tournament context (bid level, geographic location, etc)

Being funny, knowing your arguments well, strategic vision, being clear, good CX (but not aggressive/mean), and trolling/making fun of bad arguments will boost speaks

Note about docs - there is nothing inherently wrong with them (in fact, they are sometimes necessary and good e.g. for explanations of dense phil/critical arguments) – however, if I can tell that you are clearly reading off a doc for the entire 2NR (probably because it's my third time hearing the same speech word for word), I am not going to assign speaks as if you were the one who came up with the arguments

--

Debate is a game – play to win, be kind and don't take it too seriously :)

I am a parent judge. Please limit the use of jargons but feel free to send me cases at judylycheng@gmail.com

Here are some guidelines for success:

1) Please speak clearly; I can only vote for an argument I thoroughly understand and is well supported. Please attempt to remove as much jargon as possible.

2) Just because I am a lay does not mean you can forget about warrants. If you want me to buy an argument, I need to know why it is true. Do not just make claims and expect me to buy it.

3) Handle your own time and prep. Create a way of evidence sharing before the round start time.

4) Be respectful to me and your opponents, any form of inappropriate behavior will result in an automatic loss and the lowest speaks I can give you.

5). Confidence, Presentation and Clarity of speech is half the game. Present yourself clean and neat; conduct yourself calm and collected.

Hey, I'm Rushil (he/him).

Strake Jesuit '23

Princeton '27

Note that I haven’t been involved with debate for almost a year at this point and am unfamiliar with the topic; err towards overexplanation.

I debated Lincoln-Douglas at Strake Jesuit for four years and have a little over 10 years of experience in Speech & Debate. I have four career bids and a bid round and have qualified to TFA State (x3), TOC (x2), and NSDA Nationals(x2).

Add me to the email chain: rechetty23@mail.strakejesuit.org

Tech>Truth to a large extent, I should have little work to do at the end of the round and your final speech should write my ballot

Prefs:

LARP/Trad - 1

Theory/T - 1

Kritiks - 2

Phil - 3

Tricks - 4

LARP:

Read whatever you're comfortable with

Weighing and clash are super important on both impacts and evidence

I love a good framework debate, CPs and Politics are great too

Theory:

I default competing interpretations, no RVIs, DTD, and Fairness unless told to evaluate differently

Please don't read frivolous theory lol

Weigh well between voters and standards

Slow down if there's no doc

T:

Please be specific and explain your arguments and weighing well

I'm not a fan of Non-T affs so my threshold for responses is not very high

Kritiks:

I've read mainly SetCol and Cap but understand a few other Ks as well

I'm okay with reps and not a huge fan of K affs

Don't use this to evaluate what you read though because I will not fill in any gaps for you or vote off anything that is not well-explained - especially if it's clear to me that your opponent does not understand your explanation as well

If you're asked to explain the K in CX and talk really fast and use a lot of jargon that your opponent clearly cannot understand, it will hurt your speaks

I prefer material alts but I'll still evaluate refusal - explain why it's good and solves case if possible

Please don't throw in a floating PIK out of nowhere, at least hint at it in the 1N

Phil:

Not a huge fan of Phil and not the best at evaluating it either, but I'll do my best to listen to your arguments

Weigh well and explain your warrants

I default to truth testing and presumption and permissibility affirm

Tricks:

Yeah please don't read any lol, this includes skep triggers and a priori

I'll still evaluate them but my threshold for responses is really low - if your opponent tells me to throw them out because they ruin debate I'll 100% listen to them because I agree lol

I'll allow responses to "Evaluate the debate after X" in all speeches because I really don't like voting on these and don't like them in general

If you do read tricks and are really dodgy about explaining or identifying them in CX, it will hurt your speaks

Miscellaneous:

Keeplocal recordings of your speeches - anything that I don't hear does not get flowed unless you can send me a recording of it

Be polite and don't swear - I find it really annoying when debaters feel the need to swear in round or try to one-up their opponents - it's not ethos-y at all and doesn't make you a better debater

Please don't read or say anything offensive or intentionally misgender your opponent - I won't drop you if you accidentally do it but if it becomes obvious I'll be more receptive to arguments they make. Obviously if you do something offensive, please take time to apologize for it WITHIN THE ROUND

I won't read off the doc, so make sure you are clear

I'll call clear twice before I stop flowing anything I can't understand

I'll flow CX

Please make the round accessible - this doesn't mean always debating trad against a novice, rather explain your arguments very well and don't spread

Arguments must be extended through every speech to be evaluated

If you concede it, it's true

No new responses in the 2NR/2AR unless you're going for meta theory or responses to 1AR shells

I am a lay judge.

Stay on topic. Clash on key contentions. Weigh and impact your arguments.

I prefer traditional over progressive approaches to debate. Spreading is fine but not preferred.

I will score the round based on your flow, not your presentation style.

I DON'T WANT TO SHAKE YOUR HAND PLEASE DON'T ASK

Now that that friendly introduction is over:

Email: maanik.chotalla@gmail.com

I'll disclose speaks if you ask.

Background: I debated LD for four years for Brophy College Preparatory in Arizona. Graduated in 2016. Current LD coach for Brophy College Preparatory.

TOC Update: I haven’t updated my paradigm in a few years and while my attitude towards debate hasn’t fundamentally changed the activity and norms within it have very much changed so I felt a need to write an update. At its core, I do believe this activity is still about speaking and so I do still value debaters being able to articulate and deliver. Yes I will still vote tech but I have very little patience for debaters who refuse to adapt and articulate. My preference is to not be reading your rebuttal off a document, if it isn’t on my flow I can’t vote for it. All that said—my advice to you is to go slightly below your max speed with me. I believe every judge embellishes their flowing ability to a degree and while I’m not awful at flowing I am certainly not as good as I used to be and I also have no competitive incentive like you do to be perfect on the flow. I will do my best but I am certainly going to be a cut under most judges that were former TOC competitors. I am simply in a spot in where debate is no longer my whole life (just a large part of it) and I have not been able to keep up with everything. Will do my best but if you are expecting a robot judge you will be disappointed.

Crash Course version:
-Go for whatever you want, I like all forms of argumentation
-Have fun, debate is an evolving activity and I'm all for hearing creative well-warranted arguments
-The round belongs to the debaters, do what you want within reason
-Tech > truth, extend your warrants, do impact analysis, weigh
-I default to competing interps but will go for reasonability if you tell me to
-For Ks please be prepared to explain your obscure lit to me, don't assume I'll know it because I promise you I won't. It will benefit you if you give an overview simplifying the K.
-If you run a theory shell that's fine but I don't really like it when a shell is read as a strictly strategic decision, it feels dirty. I'll probably still vote for you if you win the shell unless it's against a novice or someone who clearly had no idea how to respond to it.
-Default to epistemic confidence
-Good with speed
-Don't like tricks
-Don't be rude, the key to this activity is accessibility so please don't be rude to any debaters who are still learning the norms. This activity is supposed to be enjoyable for everyone

For the LARP/Policy Debater:
-You don't necessarily have to read a framework if you read a plan but if your opponent reads a framework I'm more likely to default to it unless you do a good job with the framework debate in the 1AR.
-If you run a framework it can be either philosophically or theoretically justified, I like hearing philosophy framing but that is just a personal preference
-Utilize your underview, I'm guessing you're reading it for a reason so don't waste your time not extending it.
-Running multiple counterplans is okay, prefer that you provide solvency
-Make sure your counterplan does not link yourself back into your DA, please

For the K Debater:
-Please label each section of your K (link/framing/impact/alt) it makes it more clear to me how the argument is supposed to function
-If you aren't running a typically organized K then please just explain the argument properly as to how I should evaluate it
-If your ROTB is pre-fiat you still need to respond to post-fiat framing to completely win framework debate
-Feel free to ask more questions before the round

For the traditional debater/everyone else
-Crash course version should cover everything. I have more below for the people who really want to read it but you can always ask more questions beforehand

More details:

1. General

I like debates which are good. Debaters who are witty, personable, and I daresay good speakers usually score higher on speaker points with me. I'll vote on any argument (So long as it isn't blatantly offensive or reprehensible in some way). I'm a big believer that the round should belong to the debaters, so do with the debate space what you wish.

I like framework debate a lot. This is what I did as a debater and I believe that it makes the round very streamlined. I always like hearing new and cool philosophies and seeing how they apply, so run whatever you want but please be prepared to explain them properly.

Please slow down on impacts and pause between tags and authors!! Yeah, I know everyone has the case right in front of them nowadays but I still want you slowing down and pausing between your authors and tags. Finally, for both of our sakes, please IMPACT to a weighing mechanism. I have seen too many rounds lacking impact analysis and weighing. It's possible it will lead to a decision you don't like if you don't impact well. I don't particularly care what weighing mechanism you impact to so long as you warrant to me that it's the more important one.

2. Theory/T

Run whatever shells you would like but nothing frivolous, please. I wouldn't recommend reading theory as strictly a strategic play in front of me but I will still evaluate it and vote on it if you prove there is actual abuse in round. I default to competing interps but will go with whatever you tell me. In general, I think you should layer theory as the most important issue in the round if you read it, otherwise what was the point in reading it?

Shells I will likely not vote on:
-Dress Code theory
-Font size theory
-Double-win theory (I'll probably just drop whoever initiated it)
-Frivolous shells unrelated to debate (i.e. lets play mario kart instead)
-Comic Sans theory
-This list will grow with time

3. Tricks

I don't like them. Don't run them. They make for bad debate.

4. Ks

I myself was never a K debater but I've now found myself really enjoying hearing them as an argument. I'd appreciate if you could label your K or section it off. I wasn't a K debater so I don't automatically know when the framing begins or when the impacts are etc. The biggest problem I usually see with Ks is that I don't understand the framing of the argument or how to use it as a weighing mechanism, so please help me so I can understand your argument as best as I can. I have dropped Ks because I just didn't understand the argument, err on the side of me not knowing if it is a complex/unconventional K.

5. Miscellaneous

I don't time flashing/making docs during the round but I expect it to take no longer than 30 seconds. Try to have a speech doc ready to go before each round. I'm good with flex prep. I don't care if you sit or stand. I'll hop on your email chain. Don't be rude, that should go without saying. Lastly, and I mean this seriously, please have fun with it. I really prefer voting for debaters who look like they're having a good time debating.

If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round or contact me via email

Care about overall impact and scale of argument, especially in framework clash.

PF/LD: Focus on the big picture and the totality of your arguments. Less focus on contentions or cards dropped and more on the overall quality and impact of your arguments.

My pronouns are they/them/theirs. Please do not call me ma’am. I know it's a southern respect thing but it's icky to me. If you need a title for me, I unironically like being called judge, Judge Contreras is fine, just Contreras works too. My students call me Coach, and that's also fine. Teens, please don't call me El (that's one southernism I stand by!)

Affiliations:

Head Coach and social studies teacher at L.C. Anderson High School in Austin, TX since 2022.

San Marcos High School- I competed all four years in high school, I did extemp, congress, and UIL Policy.

Order:

1. Speech

2. Debate

3. Congress

4. General Comments

1. Speech people!!!!

I will not rank a triggering performance first. I just won’t do that. There’s no need for you to vividly reenact violence and suffering at 8 a.m. on a Saturday morning (or like, ever). Triggering performances without trigger warnings will have their rank reflect the performance. Use your talent to tell a story, not to exploit pain. Also, normalize giving content and trigger warnings before your performance!! Give people a chance to take care of themselves. If I'm judging your round and another competitor triggers you, you are welcome to quietly get up and walk out during their performance. I will not dock or punish you for this, your mental health is the most important. Please take care of yourself and each other!! I'm in a "you should do a different piece" mindset on this issue and if you can't reenact that narrative without exploiting suffering, something is wrong.

2. Debate comments (PF, LD, CX, World Schools)

Just disclose. I know LD's norm is sending 30 minutes before round, I think that's a great norm.

In PF, send case docs. Don't be secretive with your cards. Your opponents should not have to disclose a disability in order to get you to send docs. I also think sending a speech doc for rebuttal and summary is a good norm. This is not (necessarily) something I'll down you for but it could be, if you're intentionally being harmful.

I will evaluate anything as long as it's warranted and extended. I won't make arguments for you, tell me why and how you're winning. I'll vote tech over truth unless the truth overwhelms the tech. Sticky defense is so fake, extend your arguments if you want to win them. Unextended = dropped. Proper extensions, tag and cite, claim, warrant, impact!!

Both partners need to participate in grand cross. PF is a partner event! No, you can't skip grand cross. I'm listening to cross and waiting to hear the questions from cross brought into round.

Please do a www.speechdrop.net room, it is a fantastic site, and I will definitely pop in and read cards and cases if you have the speechdrop room set up. Always send case, always send speech docs. I am #notsponsored, just a fan! My email is down below.

Spell out all the abbreviations you use in round. Don’t assume I know what you’re talking about. People know what the UN is, the EU, etc, people may not know BRI, any random trade agreement, etc.

speed: You don't have to go at a conversational pace but nobody should be full-on-spreading in PF. When you're off the doc, you have to go slower. I try not to flow off the doc but I will use it as support if you're faster than I can follow. I'm not in a debate round to read off your case doc, I'm in round to hear YOU. Slow down on taglines, analytics, authors- basically anything you think is vital to my decision.

PF-specific comments:

• I'll vote on anything, not a huge fan of theory, not the best judge to evaluate theory
• i love frameworks! they should be well-developed. blippy frameworks don't win framework debates
• extensions are not just saying "Extend my contention 2", you must extend the card tag/cite and the claim, warrant, and impact! Let me hear the link chain again!!
• speaker points- these national tournaments keep giving me a rubric to use and I'm trying to apply that to all the realms I judge in. Points start at 28 and I adjust from there. Points will only be below a 27 if you did something harmful or rules/norms were horribly broken.
• PFers, please read cards with actual taglines. "furthermore", "and", are not taglines. A tag is the thesis of the card, it is the summary of the content. I've been seeing a lot of that lately- it's lazy and bad practice.

LD-specific:

• I don't judge LD often, not as comfortable with LD speeds but I'll use the doc
• I will evaluate k's, as long as they're well-developed and defended. i know theory is normative in LD and I'll do my best to evaluate it fairly and wisely. probably not the best judge for your theory debates
• consider me pretty lay, generally pretty trad. Read me a standard, read me a value, slow it down!!
• I know this event is generally more technical but again, don't assume I know what you're talking about!! spell out all your abbreviations, provide definitions (especially if you're reading a K), do your best to make the round and the space more accessible!
• pref me slightly better than a lay judge
• I come from pf so arguments such as kritiks and theory will make less sense to me butI’lltry my best to evaluate them

email- theedebatecoach@gmail.com

and

docs.anderson@gmail.com

please <3

This message is specifically for competitors in debate events; I value respect in the round. Please don’t be rude in front of me. It doesn’t make me laugh, it reminds me of uncomfortable/unpleasant rounds where my competitors were rude to me or my partner. That has no business in a debate space, please don’t bring that energy into a round. This goes double for people in privileged positions who make women and gender/racial minorities uncomfortable or unsafe in the debate space. Not only will I chew you out and tank your speaks, but I will also let your coach know about the harmful practices. it's on all of us to make the debate space inclusive and equitable.

TLDR- be nice, be kind, and be self-aware.

3. Congress comments:

I did congressional debate all four years I competed in high school, I really enjoyed it and love watching a good Congress round. I have a lot of respect for a strong PO and usually reward that with a higher ranking. POs that struggle with precedence, maintaining decorum, and Robert's rules of order will have that reflected in their rank.

Clash, clash, clash! Put the debate into congressional debate.

There's a line between sassy and rude. Tread it carefully.

General comments:

broke: "is anyone not ready?"

woke: "is everyone ready?"

something that I genuinely appreciate in every event is a trigger warning before potentially triggering performances and speeches. controversially, I care about all of your experiences in a round and would like to give everyone an opportunity to opt out. If you’re a spectator or a competitor in a speech room, you deserve the opportunity to step out. If you’re competing in a debate round, you have every right to ask your competitors to read a version of their case that excludes the triggering material. As a judge, I reserve the right to step out/turn off my camera for a moment before you give your performance.

In a debate round, I’d appreciate that triggering material cut out. I don’t think intense/graphic depictions of human suffering add much to your overall case anyway, I’d rather you extend cards in that time or frontline or do anything besides exploit human suffering.

If I correct your pronunciation of a word in my ballot, it’s genuinely to educate you. It’s hard to know how to pronounce a word you’ve never heard aloud, just read (looking at you, Reuters!)

I have a degree in history, with a focus on Latin American history. Keep that in mind when discussing issues focused on Latin America. Feel free to ask me for a reading list to better understand conflicts, revolutions, and government suppression (including US intervention) in Guatemala, Argentina, Honduras, El Salvador, and more.

If you are spectating an event and are fully texting in front of me or attempting to talk to/distract a competitor, I’m going to ask you to leave. I will not warn you once, I have a zero-tolerance policy for disrespecting competitors or interfering with competition in that way.

Head Coach @ Jordan HS

Wake Forest University – 2022

Jack C Hays High School – 2019

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

PFBC update: if your evidence does not have a tag at all, or it is functionally nothing (ie “concludes”, “explains”, etc), I will not flow it

General
I have been told that my paradigm is too short and non-specific. In lieu of adding a bunch of words that may or may not help you, here is a list of people that I regularly talk about debate with and/or tend to think about debate similarly: Patrick Fox (former debate partner), Holden Bukowsky (former teammate), Dylan Jones, Roberto Fernandez, Bryce Piotrowski, Eric Schwerdtfeger

speed is good, pls slow down a little on analytics

if harm has occurred in the round, i will generally let the debater that has been harmed decide whether they would like the debate to continue or not. in egregious instances, i reserve the right to end the debate with 0 speaks and contact tab. violence in the debate space is never ok and i will hold the line. if you have safety concerns about being around your opponent for any reason, please tell me via email or in round.

i am an educator first. that means that my first concern in every debate is that all students are able to access the space. doing things that make the round inaccessible like spreading when your opponent has asked you not to will result in low speaker points at a minimum. racism, transphobia, etc are obviously non-starters

you can use any pronouns for me

For online debate: you should always be recording locally in case of a tech issue

please do not send me a google doc - if your case is on google docs, download it as a PDF and send it as a PDF. Word docs > anything else

Specific arguments:

K/K affs: yes - you should err on the side of more alt/method explanation than less


Framework:

I view fw as a debate about models of debate - I agree a lot with Roberto Fernandez's paradigm on this

I tend to lean aff on fw debates for the sole reason that I think most neg framework debaters are terminally unable to get off of the doc and contextualize offense to the aff. If you can do that, I will be much more likely to vote neg. The issue that I find with k teams is that they rely too much on the top level arguments and neglect the line by line, so please be cognizant of both on the affirmative - and a smart negative team will exploit this. impact turns have their place but i am becoming increasingly less persuaded by them the more i judge. For the neg - the further from the resolution the aff is, the more persuaded i am by fw. your framework shell must interact with the aff in some meaningful way to be persuasive. the overarching theme here is interaction with the aff

To me, framework is a less persuasive option against k affs. Use your coaches, talk to your friends in the community, and learn how to engage in the specifics of k affs instead of only relying on framework to get the W.

DA/CP/Other policy arguments: I tend not to judge policy v policy debates but I like them. I was coached by traditional policy debaters, so I think things like delay counterplans are fun and am happy to vote on them. Please don't make me read evidence at the end of the round - you should be able to explain to me what your evidence says, what your opponents evidence says, and why yours is better.

Topicality/Theory:

I dont like friv theory (ex water bottle theory). absent a response, ill vote on it, but i have a very low threshold for answers.

I will vote on disclosure theory. disclosure is good.

Condo is fine, the amount of conditional off case positions/planks is directly related to how persuaded I am by condo as a 2ar option. it will be very difficult to win condo vs 1 condo off, but it will be very easy to win condo vs 6 condo off.

all theory shells should have a clear in round abuse story


LD Specific:

Tricks:
no thanks

LD Framework/phil:
Explain - If you understand it well enough to explain it to me I will understand it well enough to evaluate it fairly.

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.

Dartmouth '24

amadeazdatel@gmail.com for the email chain

I debated in college policy for three years at both Columbia and Dartmouth, winning a few regionals and clearing at majors. In high school, I debated primarily local LD with some national circuit experience my senior year. I'm currently an Assistant Coach at Apple Valley and coach a few independent LDes, and am the former Director of LD at VBI.

General thoughts

Online debate: I flow on my computer so I won't be looking at the Zoom and don't care whether your camera is on or not. You should locally record all your speeches in case your WiFi cuts out in the middle.

Tech > truth. My goal is to intervene as little as possible - only exception is that I won't vote on args about out-of-round practices, including any personal disputes/callouts (except for disclosure theory with screenshots). I probably come across as more opinionated in this paradigm than I am when evaluating rounds since non-intervention supersedes all my other beliefs about debate. However, I still find it helpful to list them so you can get a better idea of how I think about debate (and knowing that it's impossible to be 100% tech > truth, so ideological leanings might influence close rounds).

Case/DA

Debates over evidence quality are great and re-highlighted ev is always a plus.

Evidence matters but spin > evidence - don’t want to evaluate debates on whose coaches cut better cards.

Extra-topical planks and intrinsicness tests are theoretically legit and an underutilized aff tool vs both DAs and process CPs.

I don't think a risk of extinction auto-outweighs under util and err towards placing more weight on the link level debate than on generic framing args unless instructed otherwise - this also means I place less weight on impact turns case args because they beg the question of whether the aff/neg is accessing that impact to begin with.

Soft left affs have a higher chance of winning when they challenge conventional risk assessment under util rather than util itself.

Zero risk exists but it's uncommon e.g. if the neg reads a politics DA about a bill that already passed.

Case debate is underrated - some aff scenarios are so bad they should lose to analytics.

Impact turns like warming good, spark, wipeout, etc. are fine - I'm unsympathetic to moralizing in place of actual argument engagement (also applies to many K practices).

CP

Smart, analytic advantage counterplans based on 1AC evidence/internal links are underrated.

Immediacy and certainty are probably not legitimate grounds for competition, but debate it out.

Textual competition is irrelevant (any counterplan can be made textually competitive) and devolves to functional competition.

I'll judge kick unless the aff wins that I shouldn't (this arg can't be new in the 2AR though).

T

I like good T debates - lean towards overlimiting > underlimiting (hard for a topic to be too small) and competing interps > reasonability (no idea what reasonability is even supposed to mean) but everything is up for debate.

Generally think precision/semantics are a prior question to any pragmatic concerns - teams should invest more time in the definition debate than abstract limits/ground arguments that don't matter if they're unpredictable.

Plantext in a vacuum seems obviously true - this does not mean that the aff gets to redefine vague plantexts in the 2AC/1AR but rather that both sides should have a debate over the meaning of the words in the plan and their implications.

Theory

I care a lot about logic (and by extension predictability/arbitrariness impacts) - this means that competition should determine counterplan legitimacy and arguments that are not rooted in the resolutional wording or create post hoc exceptions for particular practices (like “new affs justify condo” or “process CPs are good if they have solvency advocates”) are unpersuasive to me. That said, I err against intervention - I dislike how judges tend to inject their ideological biases into T/theory debates more than substance debates.

I default to theory being a reason to reject the arg not the team, except for condo.

I don't see how condo can be anything but reject the team - sticking the neg with the CPs is functionally the same since they conceded perms when they kicked them. Infinite condo is the best neg interp and X condo should lose to arbitrariness on both sides - either condo is good or it’s not. I personally think infinite condo is good but don’t mind judging condo debates.

K

I think competition drives participation in debate and procedural fairness is a presupposition of the game - the strongest opinion in this paradigm.

While I’ve voted for Ks, I don’t think they negate - the best 2AR vs the K is 3 minutes on FW-neg must rejoin the plan with a robust defense of fairness preceding all neg impacts. Affs lose when they over-allocate on link defense and adopt a middle-of-the-road approach that makes too many concessions/is logically inconsistent.

Line by line >> long overviews for both sides.

Ks that become PIKs in the 2NR are new args that warrant new 2AR responses.

K Affs

See above - while I think T-FW is just true, I'll vote for K affs/against FW if you out-tech the other team.

For the neg, turns case arguments are helpful in preventing these debates from becoming two ships passing in the night. TVAs are the equivalent of a CP (in that they're not offense) and you don't always need them to win. SSD shouldn't solve because most K affs do not negate the resolution.

For the aff, impact turning everything seems more strategic than defending a counter interp - it’s hard to win that C/Is solve the neg’s predictability offense and they probably link to your own offense.

Topic DAs vs K affs that are in the direction of the topic can also be good 2NRs, especially when turned into uniqueness CPs to hedge back against no link args.

K v K debates are a big question mark for me.

LD Specific

Tricks, phil, and frivolous theory are all fine, with the caveat that I have more policy than LD experience so err on the side of over-explanation. Phil that doesn't devolve into tricks is great. Some substantive tricks can be interesting but many are unwarranted, and I might apply a higher threshold for warrants than the average LD judge.

I’m a good judge for Nebel T - see the T section above.

1AR theory is overpowered but 1AR theory hedges are unpersuasive - 2NRs are better off with a robust defense of non-resolutional theory bad, RTA, etc. that take out most shells. RTA in particular is underutilized in LD theory debates.

There are too many buzzwords in LD theory that don’t mean anything absent explanation - like normsetting/norming (which debaters generally use to refer to predictability without explaining why their interp is more predictable), jurisdiction (which devolves to fairness because it begs the question of why judges don’t have the jurisdiction to vote for non-topical affs), resolvability (which applies to all arguments but never actually seems to make debates impossible to adjudicate), etc.

Presumption and permissibility are not the same and people should not be grouping them together. I default to permissibility negating and to presumption going to the side that advocates for the least change.

Conceding a phil FW and straight turning their (often underdeveloped) offense is strategic.

Speaks - these typically reflect a combination of technical skills and strategy, and depend on the tournament - a 29 at TOC is different than a 29 at a local novice tournament.

I am the head coach of Speech and Debate (primarily focus on Lincoln-Douglas) at Middle College High School in California, 2023-2024

As a judge I will be focusing on the arguments presented in the debate, meaning: the contents of what is said, and not just how it is stated, will make all the difference. Striking the balance between speaking persuasively, but also having sound logic behind your claims will set you apart from your opponent. I will take a step back and evaluate as a third party: the quality of the argumentation in the debate. The archetypal argument must consist of a claim (what you are trying to advance) and a warrant for that claim (why is it true). I don't need your case. Avoid including me in the chain. Strong evidence should be clearly stated, and not outdated.

Avoid spreading. If I can’t understand you, and you fail to articulate yourself clearly, I can’t judge in favor of your case. Speak clearly and signpost.

I will look to the structure of your cases and be on the lookout for framework (essential in LD). Topicality Frame for 1AC and 1NC: Define any key terms in the resolution that may come up later in the debate or will be crucial to your contentions. Give your Value and its definition. Give your Value Criterion and its definition. Address Significance and Inherency, harms and impacts along with solvency (aff)/clash(neg). Neg: Without clash, there isn’t any debate. Debaters must clash directly and specifically to their opponents’ arguments. CLASH is a central, deciding factor of a debate. If a debater fails to clash with major points, you will lose the debate.

1 AR- I will be looking that you provided answers to the Neg Clash. Do NOT extend your case or read more harms and impact evidence for your contentions. 1NR- Do NOT extend your case or read more harms and impact evidence for your contentions and NO COUNTER-PLANS. I will not consider new evidence presented in 2NR so please do not give new cards or provide new evidence

Avoid:

• Getting confrontational. It’s a debate–it should not get personal. Face the judge, not your opponent.

• Getting too loud. Louder does not mean you are more convincing or does not signal you are right.

Speaker points: out of 30 (however the scale starts at 26, unless the student was intentionally rude, made offensive or hateful comments-this will result in a 25). I may assign the winning debater the highest number of speaker points (granted there weren’t major issues and they weren't subpar), unless I believe it is a low-point win.

Results will be on Tabroom. Thank you.

I prefer a traditional style of LD that doesn’t run kritiks or feature spreading. If you do something more circuit style, you have to break it down for me very clearly so I follow you.

I wish to see clarity, precision, and depth in argumentation. Employ classical rhetoric, meticulous definitions, and logical coherence. Prioritize clear connections between premises and conclusions. In Lincoln-Douglas style, champion the art of persuasion through reasoned discourse and principled advocacy. I also wish to see etiquette when debating and keeping a calm and mature posture.

I was classically educated and I seek truth, beauty, and goodness from every argument. I wish to see virtue displayed by all participants. Simply put, please come to the table with reasonable arguments, and don’t be afraid to OVER define!

Speak clearly and do not speed read, if I can't understand you what is the point in debating? Please, do not run k and do not run theory. And please do NOT spread too quickly.

Julianne Dorman

Thales College, Class of 2025

My name is Linda Dums (Dooms as in Doomsday)

My email is lindadums@yahoo.com

I am still a newer judge so please don't pref me very high if you are very technical. I was not a debater at all. I am learning as I go. You should speak in a conversational speed. I am not familiar with debate jargon and terminology so please try to over explain your arguments in a way that even people who don't do debate would understand. I will evaluate all arguments that I understand to the best of my ability. If I can't understand you, I can't judge you. If you are playing games and tricks, don't bother.

Try to convince me with evidence and reasoning why I should vote on your side.

I do expect debaters to be polite and respectful at all times to everyone in the room: your teammate, opposition, judge and any audience. Do not argue with me.

Above all take a deep breath and have fun!

Hi,

I'm a senior at MIT with experience in persuasive writing and public speaking but have not competed in debate. I value clear, articulate delivery and the use of strong appeals. I see impactful arguments as incorporating multiple types of appeals and rhetorical devices. Body language and variation of tone also lend towards good delivery.

I am a PhD student in philosophy at MIT.

I debated from 2012-2016 and coached actively from 2016-2021.

Since the 2020-21 season, I have done very little meaningful coaching/judging. I have attended 1-2 tournaments per year and have not judged many debates at those tournaments. If I am judging you at Harvard, then I have not listened to spreading in almost a year and you should not expect me to know much (anything) about the topic, nor about recent trends in debate. I am quite confident that I can still follow most debates and render competent decisions about them, but it does fall to you to slow down some, explain key bits of jargon, etc.

Email: greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com

Here is an older and longer version of my paradigm. Everything on the longer version remains true.

Short version: If you are aff, you should read a well-researched affirmative that defends someone doing something. If you are neg, you should read something that meaningfully engages with the aff.

Here are some things that it will be useful to know if I am judging you.

[1] I don’t flow author names.

[2] Please slow down on analytics, probably more than you think you need to.

[3] I am best suited to judge well-researched debates about a clear point of contestation in which both sides are clear about what they’re defending. Policy-style, K, T, 'phil,' and many theory debates are all fine.

[4] I will not vote for exceptionally bad theory arguments. Exceptionally bad arguments include but are not limited to: so-called "role of the ballot spec," "neg may only make 2 arguments," "must spec CP status in speech," "must read an explicit standard text," "must contest the aff framework," and "must spec what you meant when you said 'competing interps.'" By contrast, arguments that are fair game are CP theory, plans good/bad, stuff like that.

If you’re unsure whether an argument counts as exceptionally bad, err on the side of caution. You should err on the side of caution on very specific / demanding disclosure theory arguments.

[5] Other theory predispositions:

I think it's good to keep topics fairly small, which makes me good for the neg in many T debates.

It's pretty hard to convince me that 1 condo is bad. 2 starts to push it, and I think 3+ is probably bad. I'm increasingly convinced PICs should have a solvency advocate. And I'm pretty in the middle with respect to whether process counterplans & the like are good.

[6] No tricks. I won't vote on them. If you think your argument might count as a trick, don't read it. If you do go for tricks, you will not win and your speaks will not exceed 26.

[7] I value explanation a lot. I vote aff in a lot of debates in which the neg goes for a ton of arguments, each of which could be a winning 2NR but end up getting very under-explained. I have also voted for a lot of debaters whose evidence is not amazing but who give very good explanations/spin for that evidence.

[8] I am unlikely to be convinced that something categorically outweighs something else (e.g. extinction outweighs regardless of probability, tiny unfairness outweighs all education no matter what, etc.). Weighing arguments should be contextual and comparative.

[9] No "inserting highlighting" or inserting a list of what the aff defends. You have to read it.

[10] Debaters should disclose, and the aff should tell the neg what aff they’re reading before the debate unless it is new. No one should lie when disclosing. It is very hard to convince me that disclosure isn’t good.

[11] Clipping and reading miscut evidence will result in an automatic loss, regardless of whether your opponent notices / mentions it. More on that here.

[12] I will not vote on: tricks (broadly construed), "paradox" tricks (e.g. Zeno's Paradox, the "Good Samaritan" Paradox), a prioris, oppression good (if you concede that your position entails that oppression is good, then your position is that oppression is good), skepticism ("both frameworks are wrong; therefore, 'permissibility'" is skep), trivialism, arguments that the other side cannot make arguments / that I should evaluate (any part of) the debate at the end of a speech other than the 2AR, or awful theory arguments. These arguments are bad for debate.

Isidore Newman '23 and Wake Forest '27

Debating for Wake + Coaching/Cutting Cards for Greenhill LD

send docs - speech drop/file share/elizabethelliottdebate@gmail.com

Please format the subject of the email with relevant information.

I have Wake Debate stickers on me so feel free to ask for one / ask any questions you have about Wake/college debate in general !!

---

Be a decent human being.

To vote on an argument, I must understand it and it must be on my flow. I flow and evaluate every speech. I flow straight down and do not flow author names.

Tech >>> truth, but your speaks are mine. I will do my best to decide the debate to minimize intervention. Judge instruction helps a lot with deciding in your favor.

Post-rounding is good. If I make a decision you disagree with, please ask questions. It makes the activity better and forces judges to pay attention. Feel free to email me with questions (just make sure someone else is cc'ed).

You can insert rehighlightings of cards and perm texts.

Arguments have a claim, warrant, and an impact. I will only vote on complete arguments, I believe this is true for disadvantages as much as I do for one-line blips

I think zero risk is possible. I evaluate things probabilistically except for debates about models which are yes/no questions.

I protect the 2NR more than the average judge, AFF teams should make sure to either justify new arguments they are making or make sure they can vaguely be traced to earlier speeches (minus impact calc/ev comparison).

Unless the affirmative is new*, the chain should be sent before the round starts. Please start speaking at the start time and minimize dead time.

Evidence quality matters a lot. If I need to read the evidence in a debate - I read the evidence in 'invisibility mode' - this means evidence you have entered into the debate is part of the evidence that you have read.

Saying the phrase 'independent voting issue' does not make it an 'independent voting issue.'

---

DA/Plan AFFs: Turns the DA/Case is better with carded evidence. Impact calculus/comparison matters a lot. Explain how arguments interact / what it means to win broad theoretical claims.

CP: Have perm texts for anything other than 'do both' or 'do the cp.' I will not judge kick unless instructed to by the negative. 1AR deficits should be tied to impacts. Counterplan theory as the 'A Strat' never makes much sense to me. I would much rather see theory debates as competition debates.

K: Middle of the road in these debates. Framework debates are a question of models. I will decide the framework debate as a yes/no question and not a middle ground---this makes the framework page (regardless of which side you are on) very important in front of me. I am good for K tricks as long as they are made clear in earlier speeches (LD).

T/Theory: Caselists matter a lot to me. Make sure you extend your interpretation/counter-interpretation. Weighing between standards usually decides these debates in front of me. I am pretty bad for 'reasonability' absent judge instruction, implicating thresholds for what offense matters, etc. I lean negative on most forms of CP theory but given the state of LD, I will happily vote on condo if well-executed/well developed.

Tricks/Frivolity/Phil/Theory debates that do not exist in policy: I would rather not. I will vote on it, but you will not like your speaks. I am horrible at evaluating this debate and I will openly say the quality of my RFDs in these debates is bad. I need a higher level of explanation than most judges. Examples>>> You need to go slower than you think you do...I will vote on presumption if your 1AC is unflowable.

---

Speaks: I am unpersuaded by a 30-speak spike. Ways to boost your speaks: doc organization, judge instruction, clarity, numbering, line by line, and argument innovation.

Debating Novices/People with Less Experience: You should do what you need to do to win the debate, but make the debate as accessible as possible ie. slow down, explain things, be nice, etc. If you are clearly ahead either go for the winning argument and sit down or have a debate your opponent could engage with. I am uninterested in hearing 6 minutes of a K that was dropped.

Online Debate: I have no preference between camera on vs. off. You should locally record speeches in the event you cut out. The less I think you are stealing prep the better.

*"New AFFs" are affirmatives that have not been read by you, a teammate, your prep group, or another school. To be read as 'new,' none of the evidence in the AFF should have been read before. If evidence has been read before, the evidence should be disclosed to your opponent. Changing tags/how a card is cut does not make an affirmative new. If you break 'New' and your affirmative is not new - your speaks are capped at a 25 in prelims and I will have a very low bar for voting against you on disclosure in elims.

I am a lay, first-time parent judge. This means that you should not spread or run progressive arguments (Ks, theory, phil, tricks, etc.). Don't use too much technical jargon; if you do, please explain it or the argument may be lost on me. Please keep track of your own time, give off-time road maps, and signpost clearly.

I will vote on the big picture. I am not impressed by debaters who can cover every blippy argument; focus on stating a clear position, back it up with cogent reasoning, and demonstrate why it upholds the V/VC. I like to see clear links and weighing. Tell me exactly why I should vote for you and not for your opponent.

Finally, be respectful of one another. Don't be rude or overly aggressive to your opponent in CX. Any argument that is blatantly offensive or degrading will be dropped.

*TOC coaching affiliation: I am a coach for Break Debate. Conflict List---Barrington AC, Carnegie Vanguard LH, Durham SA, Flower Mound AM, Garland LA, L C Anderson LS, L C Anderson NW, Lexington MS, Lynbrook BZ, Lynbrook OM, Monta Vista EY, Oak Ridge AA, Sage Oak Charter AK, Scripps Ranch AS, Southlake Carroll AS, St Agnes EH, Seven Lakes VS.

*Please start the email chain without me - I flow without the doc.

Debate is a game that requires dropped arguments to be evaluated as true in order to function. That means I will vote on anything sans racism, sexism, etc.

—CX—

One of the most important parts of the round. I will shake my head if you ask about a card that wasn’t read.

—Ks—

2NR must explain why either the plan or plan focus is bad. Quotes from evidence, cx, and references to their performance are persuasive.

An offensive reason for why they shouldn’t be able to weigh case + a link to the affs reps is sufficient. You do not need an alternative because framework provides uniqueness.

If the link is to the plan, you do not need to win framework as long as you treat the K as a critical DA and CP. Link turns case prior to solvency, the impact to the link outweighs case, the alt solves enough of the aff for the link to outweigh the solvency deficit, etc.

Perm cards and generic DAs are unpersuasive. Spend that time doing contextual analysis, using the link to explain why the perm fails.

—Policy vs K—

2AR must explain why either their reps are good, or why plan focus is good.

Good affs have smart tricks vs the K: aff is anti-militarist, withdrawal inevitable, plan affirms sovereignty, etc. Use them.

Perm double bind.

Debate the links, don’t just assert the opposite - explain why their characterization of the aff is wrong. Links have three levels: link, internal link, impact. Answering any one of these is usually sufficient.

—K affs—

DAs to the negs model must be intrinsic - your offense should be about something their interp mandates, not arguments that can potentially be made under it.

Alternatively, you can read a DA that establishes why their performance in this round is a reason they should lose.

Most aff framework angles rely on winning debate shapes subjectivity - this is probably the most important argument in any debate where the impact is clash.

If the impact is fairness, affs should have reason for why debate is more than a game, alternatives to competition are possible, etc.

Ballot key?

—Framework—

The impact to fairness is fairness. However, it is your job to prove that.

2NRs should probably win that debate is a game and content is neutral.

Explain why their DAs don’t apply to your model. Explain why their C/I links harder to their offense.

Line by line their arguments with offense and defense. If clash is good, do it.

—Policy Vs Policy—

I should not be in the back of this. I understand substantive interactions but am not well versed in competition. However, I will do my best to evaluate these rounds as technically as possible.

—Phil—

I vote on it. Decent understanding of skep, intent-based vs consequentialist frameworks, etc.

—Theory/Tricks—

A dropped argument is a dropped argument no matter how silly. However, silly arguments are by virtue east to answer.

*TOC coaching affiliation: I am a coach for Break Debate. Conflict List---Barrington AC, Carnegie Vanguard LH, Durham SA, Flower Mound AM, Garland LA, L C Anderson LS, L C Anderson NW, Lexington MS, Lynbrook BZ, Lynbrook OM, Monta Vista EY, Oak Ridge AA, Sage Oak Charter AK, Scripps Ranch AS, Southlake Carroll AS, St Agnes EH, Seven Lakes VS.

*Please start the email chain without me - I flow without the doc.

Debate is a game that requires dropped arguments to be evaluated as true in order to function. That means I will vote on anything sans racism, sexism, etc.

—CX—

One of the most important parts of the round. I will shake my head if you ask about a card that wasn’t read.

—Ks—

2NR must explain why either the plan or plan focus is bad. Quotes from evidence, cx, and references to their performance are persuasive.

An offensive reason for why they shouldn’t be able to weigh case + a link to the affs reps is sufficient. You do not need an alternative because framework provides uniqueness.

If the link is to the plan, you do not need to win framework as long as you treat the K as a critical DA and CP. Link turns case prior to solvency, the impact to the link outweighs case, the alt solves enough of the aff for the link to outweigh the solvency deficit, etc.

Perm cards and generic DAs are unpersuasive. Spend that time doing contextual analysis, using the link to explain why the perm fails.

—Policy vs K—

2AR must explain why either their reps are good, or why plan focus is good.

Good affs have smart tricks vs the K: aff is anti-militarist, withdrawal inevitable, plan affirms sovereignty, etc. Use them.

Perm double bind.

Debate the links, don’t just assert the opposite - explain why their characterization of the aff is wrong. Links have three levels: link, internal link, impact. Answering any one of these is usually sufficient.

—K affs—

DAs to the negs model must be intrinsic - your offense should be about something their interp mandates, not arguments that can potentially be made under it.

Alternatively, you can read a DA that establishes why their performance in this round is a reason they should lose.

Most aff framework angles rely on winning debate shapes subjectivity - this is probably the most important argument in any debate where the impact is clash.

If the impact is fairness, affs should have reason for why debate is more than a game, alternatives to competition are possible, etc.

Ballot key?

—Framework—

The impact to fairness is fairness. However, it is your job to prove that.

2NRs should probably win that debate is a game and content is neutral.

Explain why their DAs don’t apply to your model. Explain why their C/I links harder to their offense.

Line by line their arguments with offense and defense. If clash is good, do it.

—Policy Vs Policy—

I should not be in the back of this. I understand substantive interactions but am not well versed in competition. However, I will do my best to evaluate these rounds as technically as possible.

—Phil—

I vote on it. Decent understanding of skep, intent-based vs consequentialist frameworks, etc.

—Theory/Tricks—

A dropped argument is a dropped argument no matter how silly. However, silly arguments are by virtue east to answer.

I am first year LD debate coach with a history of policy debate in high school. I have a degree in chemistry and teach science at our school as well as coach debate. Please make sure you are clear and well cited. I prefer a clear voter/impact analysis at the end of the final speeches to help explain to me why I should vote aff or neg. Good luck and looking forward to hearing your debate!

I have no set opinion on the current topic.

About presentation in general, I will "flow", but I prefer intelligible debates conducted at semi-human pacing to spreading.

If you must spread (like in circuit rounds), please send me cases in advance at rob@teamapartments.com.You will need to hit your framework and taglines clearly.

Finally, I find that close or good debates tend to hinge on which debater best uses the CX to attack the opposing value and best helps a judge weigh impacts.

Good luck!

I’m the Executive Director of National Symposium for Debate, as well as the site director for NSD’s Flagship LD camp. I’m also an assistant LD coach for Lake Highland Prep.

I debated circuit LD for 4 years in high school, and I graduated in 2003. For what it’s worth, I cleared twice at TOC, and I was in finals my senior year. Since then, I have actively coached LD on the national circuit. For a period, I was a full time classroom teacher and debate coach. I have also coached individually and worked as an assistant coach for a number of circuit programs. I coach/judge at 8-10 TOC level tournaments per year.

Email for docs: tomevnen@gmail.com

TLDR rankings:
K - 1
Phil - 1
Policy - 2
Theory - 1
Tricks - 2
T vs K aff; K aff vs T - 1 (I’m happy on both sides of these debates, regularly vote both ways in these debates, and coach both ways in these debates)

Longer explanation of rankings:

Re my policy ranking - Feel free to read these arguments in front of me. I vote for them frequently. I’ll admit that I do the least amount of thinking and researching on the policy wing of topics. This probably makes me an OK, but not excellent, judge of policy vs policy rounds. In policy vs something else rounds, the 2 ranking doesn’t affect things much, except see paragraph below.

Re my tricks ranking - Again, feel free to read these arguments in front of me. I vote for them (and against them) frequently. I find well thought out tricks that are integrated with the substance of your phil framework or K interesting. I find a lot of other tricks fairly boring. Again, see paragraph below on adaptation.

Generally speaking, I won’t have any objection to what you read. You are usually better off reading your A strategy in front of me than substantially diverging from that strategy to adapt to me. When relevant, you should tweak your A strategy to recognize that I am also open to and comfortable with the standard maneuvers of debate styles other than yours. For example, if your preference is policy arguments and you are debating a K, you should recognize that I won’t functionally assume you can cross-apply the aff or that extinction outweighs the K, when contested. Similarly, if you are a phil debater, you should recognize that I won’t functionally assume that your phil framework precludes the util tricks (modesty, extinction first, etc.).

Whatever your style, if you have thought carefully about strategic interactions with opposing styles, and you are comfortable winning those debates in front of a judge who does not assume all of your priors, I will be a fine judge for you. If you need a judge who is strictly “in your lane” stylistically, then there will be matchups where I am not your ideal judge.

In terms of my familiarity with arguments: in phil lit, I am well read in analytic and continental philosophy (less so analytic philosophy, except in the area of ethics) and in the groups in between (Hegel and post-Hegelians, for example). In K lit, I’m well read in critical/Marxist theory and high theory, and I’m pretty comfortable (though slightly less well read) with the identity literature. I actively coach debaters on all of the above, as well as on theory, T vs K affs, K affs vs T, and (some) tricks. My debaters read some policy args, and there are scenarios where I encourage that, but I am less involved in coaching those arguments.

Miscellaneous

As a general policy, I don't disclose speaks.

Generally speaking, I'm not very receptive to arguments like "evaluate after the 1n" or "no neg analytics" (you know the genre). I'm fine with these arguments when they are scenario specific, and you can give an explanation why a type of argument needed to be made in a specific speech; obviously those arguments are sometimes true. Otherwise, I don't think these arguments are worth reading in front of me -- I never find myself comfortable making decisions based on sweeping claims that mean debaters generally can't respond to arguments.

General

Email: Ewingtonlouis@gmail.com

Pronouns: He/Him

I debated LD for four years in HS at North Mecklenburg HS in North Carolina. Currently double majoring in Philosophy and German at Tufts University. If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round, I will be happy to clarify.

Prefs

Phil - 1.

Ks - 2: most familiar with Cap Ks, but feel free to throw something interesting like a Heidegger or Baudrillard K my way

Theory - 3

LARP/Policy- 4

Tricks - No.

Framework(s) and all that Jazz

- The framework is the primary point of contention within a round. It frames the scope and perspective of your case, and is incredibly important to guiding my decision. E.g. what may be the moral option under util may not be under a deontological framework, because the question of what is "moral" is evaluated differently between the two. So, while you may convince me that your impact outweighs your opponent in a round, that doesn't matter if your opponent won the framework debate, and convinces me that consequentialism isn't an adequate way to evaluate a moral decision. In short, tell me what value framework guides my decision, then tell me how your case fulfills it.

- I'm partial to unique frameworks. Saying "my value is morality and the criterion is maximizing wellbeing/util/consequentialism," or some variation thereof gets boring very fast and makes for a less dynamic, more predictable, and very generic debate. Don't be afraid to introduce an interesting framework that breaks from this monotony. In essence, please do not neglect the value debate.

- Write my ballot for me. Tell me why exactly I am voting for you and extend your case accordingly. I will not be extending anything on the flow that you don't do the work of explaining yourself.

- Warrant your framework. Don't just tell me what your value and criterion are. Tell me WHY they are what they are, i.e how it's relevant to the resolution. This goes for any observations, definitions, burdens, etc. that you may have in your case as well.

- When you do warrant your framework, make sure it is not circular! "Judge prefer util because it's the only framework that can properly maximize pleasure/minimize pain." Like yeah, obviously that's what utilitarianism does. but tell me why that matters in the first place!

- Generally speaking, I don't love Util (or its many variations) at all. However, since so many folks run it, I think it's important to mention that when looking at any consequentialist framework I will take some things into consideration:

1. Have a clear impact. I have run into cases before which simply don't explain the actual consequences of negating/affirming the resolution, despite having a consequentialist value framework. When running a framework that evaluates morality based off of the consequences of an action, you can imagine why this may be an issue. This makes it very hard to see how I as the judge am meant to make the supposedly "moral" choice when its consequentialist moral qualifications are opaque. In essence, make your impacts clear and explicit.

2. Stemming off of this, once you've hopefully ascertained that you as a consequentialist have impacts, weigh them! It isn't enough just to tell me how bad x or y impact is in your rebuttal. You need to do the heavy lifting of contrasting these impacts with those of your opponent.

Speaking

- I'm fine with speaking relatively fast, but I am not overly familiar with spreading. If you spread I may have a very hard time understanding you. If I cannot understand you, writing a decision in your favor will be difficult.

- Signpost.

- Crystalize.

- I am more than fine with being brazen in rounds, but don't take this too far. I.e. you can be sassy, but don't be mean or hurtful to your opponent.

- I think it's a futile task to try and reduce speaker points down to an exact science. No, I cannot tell you the exact boundary between what determines 29 and 28 speaker points, and I frankly am not sure anyone truthfully can. Coming from a point of candor, the most exact answer I can give on how I determine speaks is as follows: If you speak well, you're likely to get higher speaks. If you speak poorly you're likely to get lower speaks. The exception to this is being unnecessarily rude, mean, or belligerent to your opponent or me, which will result in the lowest possible speaker points.

Flow

- I will base my decision off of the flow. I do not and will not vote based off of which side "spoke better." I am judging debate after all, so the flow is the crux of my decision.

- Tech > Truth. However, this doesn't mean you can run completely bonkers and logically invalid arguments. I.e. make sure that if I assume the premises of your argument, there is no possible situation in which the conclusion can be false. I.e. Make sure your argument actually follows the structure of, you know, an argument.

- Quality > Quantity. I prefer two good, well warranted and linked contentions as opposed to four sloppy and small contentions.

- I don't flow cross. However, I will still pay attention and look to how it engages with the flow.

Other Stuff

- Don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic, etc. Duh. This will result in a loss.

- Lastly, this paradigm is subject to subtractions, additions, and any/all change in general. If there are questions about it you may have, feel free to ask me! I can clear it up before and after the round, and add on to this paradigm for the future!

I come from the Australian World Schools/Australs Circuit. This means I am used to a vastly slower mode of speaking than the American styles. Please enunciate and be comprehensible. Provided that I can understand you clearly, any speed is fine. Use keen discretion here.

Good arguments are contentious and plausible.

Speech and Debate should be a space for education, inclusion, and intellectual development. As this is so, NO AD HOMINEM ATTACKS OR BLATANT LACK OF SPORTSMANSHIP IN ROUND. I will automatically vote you down if either of these things become present in the round.

(For speech events, please scroll to bottom for a short description of a paradigm)

In the case of sharing evidence (or cases in circuit rounds), please be mature. I do not care if someone “doesn’t have the right donegal”. Please figure out a way to make the round as fair and fun as possible. Establish what the protocol for case sharing should be BEFORE THE ROUND BEGINS and communicate the decision with myself. I also wish to be a part of the exchange of cases or evidence if it is agreed upon so it is easier for me to follow along. ( fitchzayne@gmail.com )

For my experience, I primary competed in traditional style LD and OO during my four years on the high school team. I competed at State and National level events during that time and was ranked 2nd in my state for LD by my senior year; i.e. I understand the majority of debate jargon and will be able to follow along on a flow.

SIGNPOST. SIGNPOST. SIGNPOST. It is not my job as the judge to assume or figure out where your arguments or defenses are located on the flow. Your arguments should be clear and understandable.

I also believe cross-examination is where the winner of a round is decided. If you effectively gain concessions through your questioning and tie those concessions back into your next speech, I view those as valid arguments and the sign of a competent debater.

I also believe debate is more than cards or a flow and love the fact it allows for people to show their art of convincing/story telling. Therefore, I’m an expressive judge. If I like and think an argument/defense/etc. is good, I will nod my head or smile. If I believe an argument/defense/etc. could have been dealt with better, I may seem unimpressed. If I am lost or confused because of something that is said, it will most likely be reflected on my face. THIS HOWEVER DOES NOT INDICATE OR DICTATE WHO IS WINNING THE ROUND OR HOW I WILL VOTE.

LD Paradigm:

• If you have definitions they better be integral to your arguments and position.
• If you have observations they better be integral to your arguments and position.
• I will not vote based off dropped definitions or observations alone as they carry no weight if you lose on other areas of the flow.

Traditional v. Traditional- Core Value and Value Criterion clash are key to this debate. The sooner in the round framework is established, the easier it is for me to weigh the case arguments. By the end of the round it should be clear to me how to evaluate the impacts based on the results of the framework debate. JUST BECAUSE YOU CONCEDE FRAMEWORK DOES NOT MEAN YOU LOST THE DEBATE. Strategic concessions are a thing that exist. As long as you can show that you achieve the core value more fully/better in your world than your opponent’s, you win. I do not care whose core value it was to begin with.

Traditional v. Circuit- Generally a traditional debater going against a circuit debater is out of their element. I feel it is the circuit debater’s job to make sure the traditional debater understands how to interact with their case (more specifically in relation to K’s). Plus, as an LD debater, you should be familiar with the history of LD and how traditional LD works. If you are the circuit debater…

• You need to have a framework which is explained and shown as clashing with theirs
• You need to make it clear to me that you understand your case/K AND how it links to the resolution
• If you are running a K, ensure it has solvency
• Make sure to avoid spreading
• DO NOT be rude or condecending to someone going outside their comfort zone
• If you try to run T, disclosure theory, or any other pre-fiat arguments against someone who clearly doesn’t know how policy arguments work, I will vote you down.

Circuit v. Circuit- These debates inevitable turn into mini policy rounds where Ks need alts. Make sure the sign posting is clear, especially if switching between flows. YOU STILL NEED FRAMEWORK SO I KNOW HOW TO EVALUATE THE IMPACTS. The earlier the framework for the round is established, the cleaner the debate is all around. If you spread, make sure it benefits you because I cannot flow what I cannot understand (and yes, I know if you actually know how to spread versus just trying to read the cards really really fast).

PF Paradigm

PF should not need a paradigm. It is supposed to be the lay man’s debate. The only thing I will say is that I do not see a point to framework in PF unless it’s an onbalance framework which I view as default anyways. Also, please please please do not make it a definitions debate. I know what the words “is” and “the” mean. Unless there is one major word up for interpretation or a definition must be set for specific arguments to work, these debates become boring and grindy. Instead focus on the pros and cons of the resolution.

Speech Paradigm

If I have the privilege to have you share your story with me in whatever event it may be, I will be all ears and promise to become deeply invested in the plot. Most importantly however, the part above about me being an expressive judge is more relevant than ever here. I will laugh and I will cry… if it is warranted.

I will judge each separate event on the baseline criteria covered on the ballot. IF YOU ARE DISRUPTIVE OR DISTRACTING DURING ANOTHER COMPETITOR’S TIME I WILL AUTOMATICALLY PLACE YOU AT THE BOTTOM OF THE BALLOT. Sportsmanship is key and making others feel safe and comfortable is a necessity.

update: toc 23'

Email chain: chris@alterethosdebate.com

TLDR

Debaters ought to determine the procedural limits and educational value of each topic by defending their interpretations in the round. I ought to vote for the team that does the best job of that in the debate.

I mostly care about warranting arguments and engaging with opponent's through analysis and impact comparison. The team that does the better job justifying my vote at the end of the debate will win.

Debaters should not do any of the following:

Clip cards

Steal prep

Ignore reasonable things like showing up on time and maintaining speech times and speaking order.

Disregard reasonable personal request of their opponents. If you don’t wish to comply with opponent requests, you ought to have a good reason why.

Misgender folks

Say or do racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic or ableist things.

Read pessimism args from identities they don't identify as.

Argumentative Preferences

WARRANTS & EXPLANATIONS over blippiness.

Education > Fairness

Breadth = Depth ---> both are important please make warrants here.

K’s don’t need to win an alt to win.

Reasonable disclosure practices should be followed.

Analytic > Low quality evidence

Specific Stuff

Theory

Disclosing before the round is a reasonable thing to do. That being said, I come in with a slight bias against theory arguments in LD. Lots of frivolity in this space right now.

To adapt for this bias teams can read theory that actually has the potential to improve debates or read shells that will have clear and significant violations. Running theory as an exploit of tech judges makes debates less enjoyable for me and I am inclined to vote against them at the smallest of responses. Affirmative teams should feel comfortable reading fewer spikes and more substance.

t/framework

Neg teams ought to engage with plan free or non-topical affirmatives. Affirmative teams should advocate for some departure from the status quo within the context of the topic. The more an aff is steeped in topic literature, the less likely I am to vote against it as a procedural issues, so strong topic links are crucial. I generally think education is a more important element of debate than fairness and that an inability to prepare against an argument doesn't inherently mean that argument is unfair.

Topicality

I default to reasonability because I think it incentivizes innovative research by the aff and expands the limits of the topic in a good way.

Perf Con.

I'm good with multiple worlds but think perf cons make for less enjoyable debates and I am inclined to vote against 1NC's that read cap and the econ da in the same speech.

Counter Plans

If you have a solvency advocate, its legit.

PIC’s are generally good because they force the affirmative to more deeply examine their advocacy, I want them to be excluding something substantial and to have a solvency advocate of some kind.

Conditionality

Neg definitely gets to be conditional. Limited conditionality is the most reasonable interp.

DA's

I like topic DA's, and find most politics and econ based internal links implausible. But, I won't vote against them on face, I let your opponent make those arguments.

Presumption

Neg walks in with presumption. Neg teams should still make presumption analysis in the round though.

*If I haven't mentioned it here, ask me. It has been a minute since I've judged.

hi my name is nicholas (u can and should call me nick/ nick ford) i debated for niceville high school in nwfl & am currently a first-year at columbia

email: nicevilledebates@gmail.com -- email chain > speechdrop unless there's like, a lot of people in the room

*for anything EXCEPT docs, pls contact me through my personal email (nicholasaford2@gmail.com)

note for stanford/online tournaments: go like 70-80% speed for me; my audio quality is pretty good but has issues sometimes

quick prefs:

*to clarify: these are based on how comfortable i am in evaluating these types of arguments -- i will evaluate anything, but i'm less good at evaluating certain things

k/performance - 1

theory - 1

friv theory/trix - 1/2

LARP - 3

common phil positions (kant/util) - 3

other phil - 4/5

general stuff:

just be clear -- if i can't flow the argument you probably shouldn't go for it

tech>truth, extend arguments and warrants so that i can eval them

misc stuff:

in-round safety is my highest priority; that means i'm down to stop the round even if neither debater says anything about what i'm perceiving as a safety violation (i.e., repeated, salient misgendering). similarly, you will lose the round with awful speaks if you are making it an unsafe space for me or anyone else in the room

easy ways to get higher speaks with me:

bring me an energy drink (the brightline to an energy drink is 80mg+ caffeine; speaks are a sliding scale based on caffeine but bringing me a bang will give you negative speaks)

i'll try to do a prn check before round for safety reasons but if i don't, remind me

drop ur spotify and i'll adjust your speaks by somewhere between -1 and 1 based on how much i like your music taste

tell me a fun fact about destin or niceville florida and if i didn't know it already i'll bump your speaks. emphasis on fun fact, not like, the year they were founded

k/performance:

last year i almost exclusively read kritiks rooted in identity (queer/trans*, fatness) literature, so i'm best at evaluating this debate. non-identity ks are also cool

lbl > overviews w/ a ton of embedded clash

for the t-fw debate, counterinterps are cool and so are turns. also carded tvas are way more convincing

k(pomo):

i'm stupid and don't understand a lot of pomo stuff -- feel free to read it, but please be thorough in explaining the lit base

theory:

no theory is friv but there are some norms that are way less intuitive for me. that being said i'll still evaluate them if you're winning the theory debate

weigh between standards within the context of the round and u will prob like the rfd more

tell me why theory uplayers so that i can vote on it

trix:

implicate things on the flow and clean things up if they're messy

LARP(policy) and lay:

didn't read much of this, but i'll be fine evaluating it as long as you do the work for me

i never had much fun with lay debate but if thats your jam go for it

be nice to novices & lay debaters at circ tournaments for the first time

phil:

i never read phil so i'm significantly less familiar with these arguments. i'm probably okay for kant but tend toward over-explanation when reading less common phil positions like deleuze, heidegger, etc.

note for PF: i am not a pf judge. i know little about this event and i would rather be judging something else. i will evaluate things on the flow, but make it easier for me to do that and you will be happier with the decision.

Parent judge, mostly local experience.

Prefer trad cases over tech.

I am a sophomore at Harvard competing in APDA and British Parliamentary. I primarily did WSDC and BP in high school. I have no affiliation with any school in the US.

Rules

1. Be respectful. This doesn't just mean "don't be rude", it means do your best to create a welcoming and inclusive environment where everyone, regardless of debate experience or identity, can feel safe, comfortable, and empowered to perform to the best of their capabilities.

Paradign/General Preferences

1. I do not have major PF, Lincoln-Douglas, or Congress experience - this means that I am not familiar with common buzzwords/jargon. Please ensure the way you are expressing your arguments takes this into account because I will not be able to credit what I don't understand.
2. I am okay with responses that go in the order of the flow - I am also okay with responses that are sorted into themes or that go in any different order. As long as I can comprehend the point you are responding to and the point you are making, I will credit it.
3. As a judge, I will attempt to position myself as the "average voter". This, for me, describes a person who is moderately informed about the events in the world but does not know their nuances/details. This means that any reference to articles/papers or assertion of details about the situation will not be credited, especially if the other team is able to provide robust argumentation.
4. Please weigh. I will DEFINITELY keep an ear out for weighing and take it into account in my adjudication.
5. I do as a person believe that human suffering should be minimised. In the absence of alternate weighing, I will default to "which side causes the most benefit/least harm to humanity as a whole". However, I am always ready to listen to and be swayed towards other ways of judging the debate.
6. I adore puns. The worse the better.
7. I do not think human extinction is likely to occur. I have a slight preference towards arguments about higher probability impacts as opposed to arguments about nuclear war.

Parent Judge. My daughter has been debating LD for two years now so therefore I have judged quite a bit, but I do not have any experience with debating myself. Please talk at a conversational pace, If I cannot understand hear/understand you I will not be able to decide whether or not you win. Please run a traditional case.

Aanya Ghosh

aanyaghosh23@gmail.com

I usually take on the longer side to decide debates (~10 minutes average) even if it's not close sorry!!!!

You can ask questions but if the post rounding gets excessive and I'm just answering the same question over and over again I'm just going to leave :/

PLEASE try to be clear if you are spreading through analytics at top speed and ur not clear I won't feel uncomfortable not voting on something that was incomprehensible

General

I debated for four years at Lexington High School in MA (1A/2N). I accumulated 9 bids and qualified to the TOC four times, consecutively double-qualifying in CX and LD. Coaching Lex + some independents.

I would prefer not to judge lay/traditional rounds but I will adapt to you.

I don't care where you sit/stand as long as I can hear you. You don't have to ask me to take prep.

The email chain should be formatted as follows:

Tournament Name Year Round # Flight # --- AFF [Team Code] vs NEG [Team Code]

Tech > Truth whenever possible. I will try and adhere as closely as possible to the flow to adjudicate debates, save for morally abhorrent arguments or callouts. Clarity >>> Speed. I will listen to CX. I don't care if you tag-team/open CX. Prep can be cross, but cross is never prep. Compiling a doc is prep, but sending it doesn't count. I don't have defaults--please don't make me flip a coin.

I will hold the line on new arguments -- I should be able to trace a line from the 2AR to the 1AR.

For new 2NR evidence, my thinking is as follows: if it's supporting an evidentiary position held in the 1NC and is responsive to new 1AR evidence, then it's generally permissible (for example, if the 1NC reads heg bad and the 1AR reads new heg good cards). However, I err against the 2NR introducing new evidence that could have been read in the 1NC (e.g. reading a new impact scenario for a disad) ABSENT the 1NC justifying why they should get to. Any defaults I have can be easily changed and only apply when no arguments have been made regarding the matter.

Policy

Evidence matters just as much as spin, and the latter is distinct from lying. Yes zero risk if it's won. I like impact turns. Cheaty counterplans/permutations are yours to debate.

Kritik

I consider myself agnostic in these debates--have been on both sides.

Neg teams should read framework and link walls in the 1NC. I will hold the line on new 2NR framework interpretations that seem to have emerged from nowhere. Please don't pref me if you read overviews that take up half of your speech.

Fine for clash/fairness/skills 2NRs as well as counter-interps/impact turns. I enjoyed going for kritiks and presumption versus K affs.

Philosophy

I'm familiar with most common frameworks, but over-explain super niche stuff. I would prefer to see a robust defense of your syllogism and not hedging your bets on preclusive end-all be-alls such as "extinction outweighs" or "induction fails".

Determinism is probably one of my favorite arguments to hear and I will especially enjoy if you read Van Inwagen!

Theory

I don't care how frivolous it is. Reasonability and drop the argument are underutilized.

For policy: I am a good judge for theory; I won't intervene and will vote on anything (1 condo, new affs bad, hidden ASPEC (if I flow it)).

T

Precision should be articulated as an internal link to clash and limits in the 1NC. LD should have more policy-esque T interpretations that define terms of art in the resolution.

Tricks

I didn't really go for these when I debated but I'm not opposed to judging them--just make them easy for me to evaluate.

Saying "what's an a priori" is funny one time maximum.

PF

Given my background, I probably care very little about lay appeal relative to your technical skill in terms of determining who gets my ballot (but it will, of course, factor into speaks). Good for spreading/tech arguments, just don't execute them badly. I would prefer that you read cards; if not, at least have formal citations when paraphrasing.

PLEASE share evidence/cases before your speeches with me (and probably each other), whether it's via an email chain, SpeechDrop, or Tabroom file share.

If you disclose in PF, I will give +0.1 speaker points for having a wiki page and +0.3 if you have open-source disclosure for most rounds (let me know before round/before I enter speaks).

I won't default to sticky defense; just make a short reason as to why it is or isn't valid.

Speaks

I'm probably a speaks fairy; I think they are oftentimes interventionist and will take into account their effect on seeding/clearing. I won't dock speaks for reading any particular style of argument. I will for being egregiously rude.

Speaks are lowkey relative depending on how tired I am but I usually inflate anyways

Technical efficiency above all will be rewarded, but here are some extra things you can do to boost your speaks (pre round ideally):

• Sit down early and win and/or use less prep (let me know)
• Read entertaining/funny arguments I haven't seen before
• Bring me food (protein bars/shakes/preworkout please!!! fruit tea boba, black coffee, energy drinks (Celsius, sugar-free Monster, C4), anything with caffeine, healthy snacks) +0.5
• Correctly guess my astrological element, zodiac sign, and/or moon and rising signs. You get 3 tries for each variant.
• Correctly guess my favorite three-stage Pokémon evolution (NOT eevee)
• I will bring my speaker preround and if you play a song I like
• Beat me at Gamepigeon Word Hunt/Anagrams or Monkeytype 30 second no punctuation typing test
• W references (Drake, Naruto, Serial Experiments Lain, South Park, Gone Girl)

Background

First, and most importantly, I am a Black man. I competed in policy for three years in high school at Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School; I did an additional year at the University of Kentucky. I am now on the coaching staff at Little Rock Central High School. I have a bachelor's and a master's in Communication Studies and a master's in Secondary Education. I said that not to sound pompous but so that you will understand that my lack of exposure to an argument will not preclude me from evaluating it; I know how to analyze argumentation. I have represented Arkansas at the Debate Topic Selection for the past few years (I authored the Middle East paper in 2018 and the Criminal Justice paper in 2019) and that has altered how I view both the topic process and debates, in a good way. I think this makes me a more informed, balanced judge. Summer '22 I chaired the Wording Committee for NFHS Policy Debate Topic Selection; do with this information what you want.

Include me on all email chains, at bothcgdebate1906@gmail.comandlrchdebatedocs@gmail.com,please and thank you

Randoms

I find that many teams are rude and obnoxious in round and don’t see the need to treat their opponents with dignity. I find this mode of thinking offensive and disrespectful to the activity as a whole

I consider myself an open slate person but that doesn’t mean that you can pull the most obscure argument from your backfiles and run it in front of me. Debate is an intellectual game. Because of this I find it offensive when debaters run arguments just run them.

I don’t mind speed and consider myself an exceptional flower. That being said, I think that it helps us judges when debaters slow down on important things like plan/CP texts, perms, theory arguments, and anything else that will require me to get what you said verbatim. I flow on a computer so I need typing time. Your speed will always outpace my ability to type; please be conscious of this.

Intentionally saying anything remotely racist, ableist, transphobic, etc will get you an auto loss in front of me. If that means you need to strike me then do us both a favor and strike me. That being said, I’m sure most people would prefer to win straight up and not because a person was rhetorically problematic, in round.

Update for Online Debate

Asking "is anyone not ready" before an online speech an excise in futility; if someone's computer is glitching they have no way of telling you they aren’t ready. Wait for verbal/nonverbal confirmation that all individuals are ready before beginning your speech, please. If my camera is off, I am not ready for your speech. Online debate makes speed a problem for all of us. Anything above 75% of your top speed ensures I will miss something; govern yourselves accordingly.

Please make sure I can see your face/mouth when you are speaking if at all possible. I would really prefer that you kept your camera on. I understand how invasive of an ask this is. If you CANNOT for reasons (tech, personal reasons, etc.) I am completely ok with going on with the camera off. Debate is inherently an exclusive activity, if the camera on is a problem I would rather not even broach the issue.

I would strongly suggest recording your own speeches in case someone's internet cuts out. When this issue arises, a local recording is a life saver. Do not record other people's speeches without their consent; that is a quick way to earn a one-way trip to L town sponsored by my ballot.

Lastly, if the round is scheduled to start at 2, don’t show up to the room asking for my email at 1:58. Be in the room by tech time (it’s there for a reason) so that you can take care of everything in preparation for the round. 2 o’clock start time means the 1ac is being read at 2, not the email chain being set up at 2. Timeliness, or lack thereof, is one of my BIGGEST pet peeves. Too often debaters are too cavalier with time. Two things to keep in mind: 1) it shortens my decision time and 2) it’s a quick way to short yourself on speaks (I’m real get-off-my-lawn about this).

Short Version

My previous paradigm had a thorough explanation of how I evaluate most arguments. For the sake of prefs and pre round prep I have decided to amend it. When I debated, I was mostly a T/CP/DA debater. That being said, I am open to just about any form of argumentation you want to make. If it is a high theory argument don’t take for granted that I understand most of the terminology your author(s) use.

I will prioritize my ballot around what the 2NR/2AR highlights as the key issues in the debate. I try to start with the last two speeches and work my way back through the debate evaluating the arguments that the debaters are making. I don’t have to personally agree with an argument to vote for it.

T-USfg

Yes I coach primarily K teams but I have voted for T/framework quite often; win the argument and you have won my ballot. Too often debaters read a lot of blocks and don’t do enough engaging in these kinds of debates. The “Role of the Ballot” needs to be explicit and there needs to be a discussion of how your ROB is accessible by both teams. If you want to skirt the issue of accessibility then you need to articulate why the impact(s) of the aff outweigh whatever arguments the neg is going for.

I am less and less persuaded by fairness arguments; I think fairness is more of an internal link to a more concrete impact (e.g., truth testing, argument refinement). Affs should be able to articulate what the role of the negative is under their model. If the aff is in the direction of the topic, I tend to give them some leeway in responding to a lot of the neg claims. Central to convincing me to vote for a non-resolutionally based affirmative is their ability to describe to me what the role of the negative would be under their model of debate. The aff should spend time on impact turning framework while simultaneously using their aff to short circuit some of the impact claims advanced by the neg.

When aff teams lose my ballot in these debates it’s often because they neglect to articulate why the claims they make in the 1ac implicate/inform the neg’s interp and impacts here. A lot of times they go for a poorly explained, barely extended impact turn without doing the necessary work of using the aff to implicate the neg’s standards.

When neg teams lose my ballot in these debates it’s often because they don’t engage the aff. Often times, I find myself having a low bar for presumption when the aff is poorly explained (both in speeches and CX) yet neg teams rarely use this to their advantage. A good framework-centered 2NR versus most k affs involves some type of engagement on case (solvency deficit, presumption, case turn, etc.) and your framework claims; I think too often the neg gives the aff full risk of their aff and solvency which gives them more weight on impact turns than they should have. If you don’t answer the aff AT ALL in the 2NR I will have a hard time voting for you; 2AR’s would be smart to point this out and leverage this on the impact debate.

If you want toread a kritik of debate,I have no problems with that. While, in a vacuum, I think debate is an intrinsic good, we too often forget we exist in a bubble. We must be introspective (as an activity) about the part(s) we like and the part(s) we don't like; if that starts with this prelim round or elim debate then so be it. As structured, debate is super exclusionary if we don't allow internal criticism, we risk extinction in such a fragile world.

LD

If you don't read a "plan" then all the neg has to do is win a link to the resolution. For instance, if you read an aff that's 6 minutes of “whole rez” but you don't defend a specific action then the neg just needs to win a link based on the resolution OR your impact scenario(s). If you don't like it then write better affs that FORCE the neg to get more creative on the link debate.

If theory is your go-to strategy, on either side, please strike me. I am sick and tired debaters refusing to engage substance and only read frivolous theory arguments you barely understand. If you spend your time in the 1AR going for theory don’t you dare fix your lips to go for substance over theory and expect my ballot in the 2AR. LD, in its current state, is violent, racist, and upholds white supremacy; if you disagree do us both a favor and strike me (see above). Always expecting people to open source disclose is what is driving a lot of non-white people from the activity. I spend most of my time judging policy so an LD round that mimics a policy debate is what I would prefer to hear.

I’m sick of debaters not flowing then thinking they can ask what was read “before” CX starts. Once you start asking questions, THAT IS CX TIME. I have gotten to the point that I WILL DOCK YOUR SPEAKS if you do this; I keep an exceptional flow and you should as well. If you go over time, I will stop you and your opponent will not be required to answer questions. You are eating into decision time but not only that it shows a blatant lack of respect for the "rules" of activity. If this happens and you go for some kind of "fairness good" claim I'm not voting for it; enjoy your Hot L (shoutout to Chris Randall and Shunta Jordan). Lastly, most of these philosophers y’all love quoting were violently racist to minorities. If you want me (a black man) to pick you up while you defend a racist you be better be very compelling and leave no room for misunderstandings.

Parting Thoughts

I came into this activity as a fierce competitor, at this juncture in my life I’m in it solely for the education of the debaters involved; I am less concerned with who I am judging and more concerned with the content of what I debate. I am an educator and a lover of learning things; what I say is how I view debate and not a roadmap to my ballot. Don’t manipulate what you are best at to fit into my paradigm of viewing debate. Do what you do best and I will do what I do best in evaluating the debate.

I coach with DebateDrills- the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy, code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form:https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy

Email: andrewgong03@gmail.com

Hi! I'm Andrew, but people also call me gongo. I did LD at Harvard-Westlake, got 18 career bids, and reached finals of the TOC. I graduated in 2021.

Top level:

1. As a senior, I read only big-stick policy positions. This should tell you what types of debates I'm most comfortable judging, but it shouldn't dissuade you from reading your favorite args (exception: tricks).

2. Clarity is very important to me. No, I will not flow from the speech doc, so if I can't hear you, I'll stop flowing and yell clear until you slow down.

3. Online debate - keep a local recording in case you cut out. Keeping your camera on would be ideal, but it's not a requirement.

Non-T Affs:

I'm probably 60/40 biased in favor of T framework against non-T affs. Arguments like truth testing make intuitive sense to me.

I like education more than fairness, but both are fine.

I went for the cap K against non-T affs a lot as well. It's also a good option.

Ks:

I like these more than my argumentative history would imply. I think good K debates are a lot of fun to watch and judge. I've read a lot of Deleuze, a little bit of Baudrillard + settler colonial literature, and I have a good grasp of most other Ks.

Good 2NRs on the K will have specific links that implicate aff solvency, and contain lots of real-world examples on all parts of the flow. Good 2ARs on the K will either have lots of link defense and disads to the alt, or go for framework + extinction outweighs.

I really like impact turns against the K. Heg good and cap good are awesome, provided you go for them correctly.

Arguments couched entirely in terms of you or your opponent's personal identity/out-of-round actions are probably bad.

CP/DA:

I'm sympathetic to 1AR theory and very lenient in competition debates against cheesy process counterplans. However, 1AR theory debates are generally late breaking and annoying - I'll hold the line against 2AR explosions of 1AR blips, especially when there's not much in-round abuse (1 condo/1 pic).

I read ev, good ev is important.

T/theory:

I'm not the best at evaluating either of these arguments - as a debater, I rarely went for either except as last-ditch efforts. This isn't to say that I don't want to vote on them, but I do prefer substantive debates.

I'm definitely better for T than theory. Nebel T is probably wrong, but I'll vote on it (reluctantly) if you win it.

I'll default competing interps, but I'm very persuaded by in-round abuse claims and reasonability. This also means I don't like nonsense theory arguments (e.g. non-resolutional spec shells, shoes theory).

Don't go for an RVI unless you have literally no other choice lol

Philosophy:

Probably biased towards util. Permissibility and presumption triggers, including calculation/aggregation impossible, are ridiculous to me, but I'll vote on them if conceded.

If your opponent reads a nonsense contention, concede their framework and go for turns!

I went for the race/colorblindness K against phil a lot, and I like the argument.

Tricks:

I'll be very sad voting on conceded 1-line blips. The worse an argument is, the lower your bar for answering it. And if I don't understand your argument in the speech it was presented, I'll give your opponent leeway in terms of new answers in the final rebuttal speech.

Hey, I'm Ms. Granchi I am an executive in medical devices. I have judged for 2 years now. I'd prefer it if you addressed me in rounds treating me as as a generally informed person that you are trying to persuade.

I know people have lots of questions, so here are some things about how I judge rounds.

1) Do your best to write my ballot for me in your last couple of speeches. If you do not tell me how I should evaluate the round; you do not tell me how to weigh (please do this) your arguments; and you do not tell me how you win the round; I will decide for myself purely based on substance if you do not do these things. It will also reflect poorly on speaker points.

2) If you want me to evaluate something, please warrant it thoroughly (for example, don't rely on the existence of a card or a tagline as a sufficient explanation for your argument).

3) Please respect each other in the debate round, I do not tolerate any misconduct/harassing.

4) I allow progressive debates if there is an actual substantial abuse and the theory is not an excuse for not debating and I'm explicitly told how to evaluate it, I'll evaluate it.

5) I'll only call for cards if both sides are saying opposite things about the same piece of evidence and/or I'm explicitly told to call for the card.

6) I can flow any level of speed, but spreading will reflect poorly in speaker points.

7) Please signpost. You really don't need give me off time road maps like "I'm going to respond to my opponents' arguments and return to my own," I can follow you if you tell me in the speech where you're going.

8) If you postround me, your speaker points will decrease monotonically with the amount of time you spend postrounding me. I welcome questions, but my decision is what it is.

P.S.: I have a dog named popcorn and if you relate the argument at the end with my dog popcorn, I will give you an extra speaker point! ????

-Ms. Granchi

.

Hello,

I'm Stephen Greer Jr, a National Board Certified teacher of English language arts, IB literature and AP Language and Composition. I've been teaching since 2002, and this will be my first time judging any type of debate. I have an interest in seeing and understanding the different applications of rhetoric and debate is one of the most important, in my opinion, so I am happy to be participating!

As I am inexperienced with not only judging, but debate in general, I'd like to request notes on the arguments you'll be presenting (as allowed by the rules, of course). I'm not sure at all that I will need them, but better to be safe than sorry. It is my intention to do the best job of judging that I possibly can. Be advised, however, that I am absolutely new to this and still learning, so if you have particular points you intend to emphasize, you can help us both by ensuring they are in the notes provided and that you place obvious emphasis on them during your arguments!

Good luck to all of you, and I'll see you all in Atlanta!

General Debate

You can time yourself, but I am the official timekeeper. If you time yourself, your alarm needs to silent. If you argue with me, you are begging for the loss.

Speed - You can speak at the pace you prefer, but it is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Voters - If you don't provide them, I have to choose. Don't roll the dice.

Evidence - You get two free card requests, for the rest must be on your prep time.

Cross - Is non binding. If you uncover something, bring it up in your next speech.

Lincoln-Douglas

Burden - Pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof, clash, and persuasion.

Framework - This is everything. This needs to be clear and connect to all the contentions. I expect strong framework clashes. Impact analysis should revolve around this.

Ethics violations - Do not propose these lightly. If you assert an ethical violation, you have the burden of proof. If you don’t meet it, you lose the debate.

Public Forum

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

Kritiks and Plans/Counterplans - No. Join policy.

Burden - Pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof, clash, and persuasion.

Rebuttals in Crossfire - Don’t. I reserve the right to stop a crossfire that ceases to be in a question-answer format or one that becomes abusive.

Final Focus - This needs to have clear voters and extend the summary speech. My RFD is largely dependent on the voters.

Policy

Flashing - One free flash. After that, it comes out of prep time.

Be kind to your opponents in the round, or face the wrath of a default loss (this is more of an issue in policy debate than any event)!

I judge on stock issues. In terms of stock issues, the most important one is significance.

Pre-round paradigm

Hello! I am good with pretty much any argument as long as it is developed as an actual argument. I much much much prefer clash to avoiding argumentation. Something isnt an argument just because you say it is, it has to actually be an argument. and dont read tricks please :)))))

Prefs paradigm

Please put me on the email - Harvanko11@gmail.com - but I probably wont be reading ev during the debate I enjoy all types of debates as long as they are done well, I will try my best to be tab and adapt to whatever style of debate you are used to rather than having y'all poorly adapting to what i am used to. I am fine with most things as long as you take your opponent seriously. go at like 70% of top speed. I obviously do have opinions on things as everyone does so the rest of this will be trying to be transparent about what those are. None of this is set in stone and I will try my best to rid myself of any ideological bias during the round.

For quick prefs i hate you if u read tricks and will happily evaluate everything else

POLICY AFFS

I enjoy all of them from the most stock aff on a topic to an in-depth process aff as long as they are debated well and I am given a clear story of the advantages/what the aff does to solve them.

K AFFS

Go for it, I would much prefer if the aff had *some* relationship to the topic either being "in the direction" or telling me why I shouldn't like the topic (and more importantly why that means I should vote aff) and I do not really like an aff that is just something that can be entirely recycled every topic. With the framework debate I probably err towards a well thought out counter interp than just straight impact turning everything but both can be viable and winning strategies.

PHIL POSITIONS

I have at least some experience in most philosophies. I have a hard time believing that all the philosophies that y'all claim don't care about consequences actually don't care about them (kant is an obvious exception). With a policy against a phil debate, I would prefer having some spin as to why your offense is relevant under their framework than just going all in on their framework being wrong or yours being normatively true but either can be a winning strategy.

COUNTERPLANS

I really enjoy a good counterplan so long as I know both how it competes and what the net benefit is (competition from net benefits is competition enough but there can be more). I really really enjoy process counterplan debates as long as I understand its distinction from the aff.

Counterplan theory is pretty much the only theory that I am wholeheartedly for. I come from LD originally and have moved into policy so my thoughts on condo aren't really clear yet, for LD I can be easily convinced of either side.

DISADVANTAGES

I don't really have any strong opinions about disads. I would like a lot of impact and turns case analysis if the disad is the only thing in the 2nr. I don't think I would be comfortable voting on a disad if the aff has a comparable impact without some level of solvency push by the negative.

THE CRITICISM

This is what i have debated with, read, and coached the most so this is where I am most familiar (and subsequently hold harder lines for explanation). I enjoy innovations in critical literature quite a bit so long as it can be well explained.

THEORY

I can get behind most theory debates as long is there is actual abuse. I know I know, reasonability is arbitrary but I think there are affs that clearly are not abusive. I think that fairness is a good internal link but not an impact in and of itself (and I imagine that that will be hard, but not impossible, to convince me of). I actually find myself hating judging theory debates nowadays because they are usually way to fast for me, so with that, I would prefer if you slowed down quite a bit if you're going to be making hella quick analytic args (this is generally true but especially true for theory debates). I really don't like disclosure in most cases unless the aff has been broken but isnt disclosed online and isnt disclosed in person before the round.

TOPICALITY

Go for it, I am predisposed to think that t isn't an RVI but can potentially be swayed otherwise. The more contextualized definitions are to the topic the more I like them. I think t can be incredibly persuasive against k affs as well (not as a framework position but actually going for t)

TRICKS

dont read them please :)

ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS

- CX is binding but I probably wont write anything down unless you explicitly direct me to in the moment.

- Speaks start at around a 28.5 and I look to go up or down from there based on strategy, efficiency (not time efficiency but if you are too repetitive on an argument), and clarity.

- Please ask me questions before the round if you are unsure of anything!!!!!

- I welcome you all to post round me, we are all in debate for a reason and i love to argue

Hello! My name is Zahra Hassan. I'm a lay judge. Please ignore my PF record; I was having Tabroom issues, so I had to use someone else's record (with their permission).

Strake Jesuit Class of 2020

Fordham 2024

Email - hatfieldwyatt@gmail.com

Debate is a game, first and foremost.

I qualified for the TOC Junior and Senior years and came into contact with virtually every type of argument

Summary of my debate style - I just enjoyed the activity while reading all types of arguments with my own spin on them. I think debate is often boring with debaters just reading blocks and not being innovative.

Please note that I have strong opinions on what debate should be, but I will not believe them automatically every round they have to be won just like any other argument. Tech>truth no exceptions.

Triggers - French Revolution and Freemasonry

I am not a fan of identity-based arguments. Please don't run arguments that are only valid based on your or your opponent's identity.

Speaks -

How to get good speaks 29-29.5

• be entertaining either with good music, good jokes etc
• making arguments that I like or agree with; this includes Catholicism and Monarchism.
• Style
• Reference something from Scooby-Doo

How to get 30

• Define the 4 Marian Dogmas
• Explain Unam Sanctam
• Explain who you think the greatest monarch is and why
• Explain who you think the greatest Saint is and why
• Recite the our father or hail mary in latin

How to get low speaks

- Having bad strategy choice

-being really rude or mean

- Swearing or cursing, try to keep it professional and respectful, please

Styles of Debate -

I will vote on all of them if I see your winning them

Tricks - 1

Larp - 2

Phil - 1

K - 3

Theory - 1

K performance - 5

EXPERIENCE: I'm the head coach at Harrison High School in New York; I was an assistant coach at Lexington from 1998-2004 (I debated there from 1994-1998), at Sacred Heart from 2004-2008, and at Scarsdale from 2007-2008. I'm not presently affiliated with these programs or their students. I am also the Curriculum Director for NSD's Philadelphia LD institute.

Please just call me Hertzig.

Please include me on the email chain: harrison.debate.team@gmail.com

QUICK NOTE: I would really like it if we could collectively try to be more accommodating in this activity. If your opponent has specific formatting requests, please try to meet those (but also, please don't use this as an opportunity to read frivolous theory if someone forgets to do a tiny part of what you asked). I know that I hear a lot of complaints about "Harrison formatting." Please know that I request that my own debaters format in a particular way because I have difficulty reading typical circuit formatting when I'm trying to edit cards. You don't need to change the formatting of your own docs if I'm judging you - I'm just including this to make people aware that my formatting preferences are an accessibility issue. Let's try to respect one another's needs and make this a more inclusive space. :)

BIG PICTURE:

CLARITY in both delivery and substance is the most important thing for me. If you're clearer than your opponent, I'll probably vote for you.

SHORTCUT:

Ks (not high theory ones) & performance - 1 (just explain why you're non-T if you are)

Trad debate - 1

T, LARP, or phil - 2-3 (don't love wild extinction scenarios or incomprehensible phil)

High theory Ks - 4

Theory - 4 (see below)

Tricks - strike

*I will never vote on "evaluate the round after ____ [X speech]" (unless it's to vote against the person who read it; you aren't telling me to vote for you, just to evaluate the round at that point!).

GENERAL:

If, after the round, I don't feel that I can articulate what you wanted me to vote for, I'm probably not going to vote for it.

I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary.

I don't view theory the way I view other arguments on the flow. I will usually not vote for theory that's clearly unnecessary/frivolous, even if you're winning the line-by-line on it. I will vote for theory that is actually justified (as in, you can show that you couldn't have engaged without it).

I need to hear the claim, warrant, and impact in an extension. Don't just extend names and claims.

For in-person debate: I would prefer that you stand when speaking if you're physically able to (but if you aren't/have a reason you don't want to, I won't hold it against you).

I'd prefer that you not use profanity in round.

Link to a standard, burden, or clear role of the ballot. Signpost. Give me voting issues or a decision calculus of some kind. WEIGH. And be nice.



To research more stuff about life career coaching then visit Life coach.

Kyle Hietala (he/him)
kylehietala@gmail.com

CURRENT:
Program Director & Head Coach, Palo Alto High School
President, National Parliamentary Debate League (NPDL)
Vice President, Coast Forensic League (CFL)

FORMER:
Coach: St. Luke's, Spence, Sidwell Friends
Competitor: LD, APDA

In the last 5 years, I've judged 249 rounds. I've voted AFF 115 (46%) vs NEG 134 (54%). I've been on 111 panels and squirreled 11 times (9%).

____

SUMMARY
Experienced, ‘truthful tech’ flow judge from a traditional debate background. I’m receptive to many arguments, styles, etc., but I prefer strategic case debate or substantive critical debate. Any clash-heavy strategy focused on well-warranted, comparative, topical argumentation should work well for you. I'm not a great judge for contemporary progressive debate (e.g. AFF Ks, performance, tricks, frivolous theory). I'm fine with moderate speed if you slow down on taglines, enunciate, inflect, etc., but I won't flow off the speech doc. Above all, please be kind and respectful to others. And have fun!

____

VOTING
I usually vote wherever the most thorough warranting and responsive weighing was done. If there's no meta-weighing by either team, I tend to prioritize probability/timeframe over scope/magnitude. I tend to value analysis (quality, depth) over assertion (quantity, breadth) on the flow. I'm unlikely to vote for something blippy and under-developed, even if it was conceded. I tend to vote against strategies I consider clash-evasive (e.g. frivolous theory, tricks, conditional CPs, unlinked Ks). Keep in mind that my own rhetorical responsibility is to cogently justify to the losing team why they lost, so being clear is to your advantage.

____

CASE/POLICY
I think debaters chronically misallocate time to stating the obvious about impacts (e.g. "extinction irreversible"), instead of comparing not-obvious details about warrants/evidence. Impact terminalization is fine, but I'm reluctant to vote for extreme impacts with brittle links – I'd prefer to hear probability analysis rather than nuclear war/extinction reductionism. AFF needs to show how their advocacy/plan creates solvency. I like framework-heavy case strategies that challenge net benefits/utilitarian policymaking, especially strategies focused on actor analysis and ethical obligations.

KRITIK
I like K debate, but I also find a lot of it to be obtuse. The link is the most important part of the kritik, because it tells me what you're critiquing/what your opponent did wrong. Links of omission are not links, and reject the AFF/resolution is not an alternative. I'm not comfortable with Ks that ask me to make judgments about a student's immutable identity.My favorite K debates are topically-relevant examinations of academic assumptions, especially in discourse/rhetoric.

THEORY/TOPICALITY
I'm receptive to theory/topicality when it's needed to check in-round abuse, but unreceptive to it for its own sake. An abundance of technical skill shouldn't excuse someone from playing fairly. I'm willing to intervene against debaters who think that baffling their opponent with frivolous theory entitles them to my ballot, and I'm also happy to intervene in favor of a debater who doesn't know the minutiae of theory shells, but is contesting something which is excluding them from the round.

I am a lay judge who did not debate in high school or college. However, I am the Director of Assessment and a faculty member at a nearby university who teaches research methods, assessment design, and public scholarship. My classes are based on research integration and effective argumentation!

Effective debaters:

* are knowledgeable of the rules
* are reliable and arrive promptly
* are able to look up from their prepared, written remarks
* maintain appropriate speed
* are able to roll with technology glitches

I do not reward spreading. If I cannot follow and document your argument, I will not hold your competitor accountable for a response.

*debater writing this for her mom

Hi!

She's lay but takes notes -- don't spread, your args should be clear/well-organized. Run your lay cases; she's less likely to buy wild extinction scenarios.

Big picture/voters in the back half is appreciated. Do your best to resolve clash and make it clear why you win -- she's more likely to intervene/vote off cross if it's a really messy debate. Basically just a lot of judge instruction.

She listens to cross, know your args and be able to explain/answer questions well.

Don't be too aggressive or loud, all the regular parent judge stuff.

Good luck!

Hi! My name is Quinn and my pronouns are he/him. email - qah2104@columbia.edu

I debated for Evanston Township High School reading Ks/theory and a bit of LARP, I now coach with Flex Debate.

Read whatever you feel most comfortable with, I am most comfortable with Ks, Theory and LARP but I have been exposed to and debated against a fair bit of phil. Feel free to email to ask any clarifying questions.

I am a coach -- but I coach many events (do not specialize in any in particular). I have a working knowledge of Lincoln Douglass, not an extensive one. Don't overcomplicate your arguments. I prefer clear signposting to guide me through your points. To me, the most important aspect of any argument is the organization of your material, so make sure that is clear and logical. Make sure you can back your impacts up. Progressive case styles (theory shells, kritiks, plans, etc) are not my favorites, but I will consider them if they are reasonable, logical, and used very effectively. Be nice to each other in the round; rudeness will cost you speaker points.

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

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

1. I love a debate where both parties are having a good time. Which means, I am naturally opposed to intimidating behavior or attempts to bring your opponent down through your body language, choice of words or extreme aggression.
2. Know your case - Make sure you understand what you are presenting as I will look for the ways you are responding during free form cross fires more so than the initial presentation of your argument
3. I like the critical thinking exercise that debaters go through as they respond, so I will be looking for that rather than repetition of pre-prepared materials

Overall, debate is a way for you to improve your communication, critical thinking and public speaking. Remember that you are always winning by just playing the game regardless of whether you win or lose a particular round. So go ahead and have a great time!

FOR PF:

1. Please no spreading
2. Be realistic with impacts. If the impact of the case is nuclear war but it has zero plausibility, it's really hard to vote on it
3. Weigh your arguments. Multiple things in a round can be true, but they are probably not all equally important
4. I don't understand complex theory, so if you use it, I might get lost
5. Please be courteous and respectful to your fellow debaters!
6. Explain your evidence but please give evidence

FOR LD:

1. I prefer traditional LD (trad ppl please pref me)
2. Please no spreading
3. If you read Ks or theory, please explain it well. I get it but not a lot
4. Please give me evidence but make sure to explain it

Add me to the email chain: sebastianjuarez@college.harvard.edu

UPDATED PARADIGM:

While I primarily judge Congressional Debate, I have experience judging both PF and LD.

If you want my vote, here are some of my do's and don'ts.

Do’s:

1. Clearly state facts and data and build up your argument properly. I shouldn't have to struggle to understand your points.

3. Be succinct

4. Display professionalism

5. Respect your opponents’ arguments without losing temper or going off on a tangent

6. Maintain proper body language

Don’ts:

1. Deviate from the subject

2. Substitute opinions for facts

3. I'm not too fond of spreading

4. Talking over the other person. Show respect for each other.

5. Over Gesticulating

6. Repeating the same arguments multiple times. Tell me something new or add to what you've already said.

More than anything, I want debaters to enjoy their experience being part of the overall debate ecosystem. Don't forget to have fun.

(I go by Sai + they/them)

Quarry Lane 19, NYU 22

(skaravadi.2001@gmail.com) -- Pls use speechdrop, fileshare, or add me to the email chain! And feel free to ask me questions before round about my paradigm or judging, but pretty extensive notes here!

If there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible, pls don't hesitate to reach out!

I don't know how much this matters, but this is my 9th year in debate -- pls I'm so old. I debated for Quarry Lane in high school and then for NYU in college. I had 9 career TOC bids in high school LD, broke at the TOC, won a college policy tourney and reached late elims at others, and coached LD debaters who reached late elims at the TOC and other bid tourneys. I've also judged like 300 rounds of LD and policy at bid tournaments since 2019, including bid rounds and late elims. I care about my role as an adjudicator and educator, and also think extensively about my paradigm when making decisions, meaning I try to make sure nothing affects my decision that is not on here and I avoid intervention as much as possible to ensure the debate is in your hands, not mine. :))

UPDATE FOR TOC:

This is my last tournament in debate, so I am feeling more generous with speaks than usual, unless I get the ick! Check the bottom for more on how to avoid that.

Will be taking a bit longer to decide than usual since I know rounds are more high stakes for y'all (and will likely be closer), so please bear with me.

No tricks pls! :D

(Moral uncertainty --> util, regress and bindingness, aspec and plan flaw = yes, these are just framework or theory arguments -- those are fine and are just, but no im not evaluating the round before the end of the 2AR or voting for the resolved a priori -- you can ask me if I will evaluate/vote on X argument before the round, but the litmus test should be whether or not the argument is relevant in discussing the aff irl -- plan flaw is and paradoxes are not imo)

TLDR:

Pls go 70-80% speed. Sucker for a good K, techy phil debate, smart impacting on a spec shell standard, well-researched small advantage plan aff, etc. -- framing and impacts!!!!!

Tech > truth -- I aim to be as tab as I can and have experience reading, coaching, and judging every style of debate in LD -- I'll vote on anything, within reason. My approach to rounds has always been who do I need to do the least work for. That means you’re always better off with more judge instruction, clear weighing, impact comparison, and strong line by line as well as overview analysis. That’s obviously a lot (and LD rounds are short), so prioritize issues and collapse in later speeches. I think I probably have a relatively high threshold for warrants, which means quality > quantity.

I have specific sections below for everything, but larp is cute but please comparatively weigh, phil is dope but please collapse, K's are fun but you need to be clear and warrant things, T is I love and I default T > case, and theory is cool but idk what the brightline for spreading is and yes on disclosure but meh on docs, new aff's, open source, etc. -- not discouraging general disclosure theory tho. I am willing to vote on impact turns, perf cons, independent voting issues, etc. — just make them clear, warrant them, and don’t leave me with a ton of questions at the end of the round. I don't like lay debate -- you can spread, but just still answer stuff. Also, misgendering, slurs, etc. -- those are voters.

Also check my rant at the bottom on speed and off's!

My only hardcore paradigmatic policies are that I will not enforce an argument about what a debater should wear because I feel uncomfortable doing that (shoes theory, clothing theory, etc. will earn you an auto-loss) or anything that is overtly violent, but you are also welcome to ask me or have your coaches ask me about my comfort evaluating certain strategies or arguments.

Defaults only matter if not debated, but:

Substantive: comparative worlds, tech > truth, epistemic confidence, presume neg unless neg reads a counter-advocacy or reads 3+ off

Procedural: competing interps, no RVI's, drop the debater

SIDE-NOTE: If you don't want someone in the room, feel free to ask them to leave (or email/contact me privately if you are uncomfortable with having to say it yourself and I will ask them to leave).

For prefs -- I like to think I'm a good judge for you regardless of what you read (except tricks -- im over it), as long as you warrant and explain how I should evaluate arguments. I read everything during my career and have actually mostly judged non-K rounds (despite having mostly read K's as a debater) -- I feel confident I'm a good judge for really any style of debate because I'll grant anything with a warrant -- the bigger the claim, the more established the warrant should be ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . So yes, I will grant your non-T aff and be interested, I will grant your framework warrants and be interested, I will grant your interps and be interested, and I will ALWAYS grant a well-researched and updated DA story, but I will also easily grant answers to any of these -- read what you want, just be creative!

SPECIFIC SECTIONS/TYPES OF ARGS:

Policy/LARP:

I don’t think there’s much of an issue here since this is my initial foundation, I defended plan aff's and DA's throughout my career, I was a west coast debater, I read policy strategies in college with my partner, coached a couple policy and LD kids who read topical plan aff's, and I love policy debate. Debate as you do and I doubt there’s gonna be a problem for me.

However, these debates do end up getting quite messy, especially in LD. I am a sucker for strong link overviews with impact calc that's also comparative. I think collapsing, impact overviews, and framing analysis can help here.

I'm a sucker for weighing and warrant comparison -- when I say comparative, I basically mean that you should also make sure you answer/deal with weighing arguments made by the other debater -- these debates can sometimes become frustrating to resolve as a judge because there's a lot of impacts thrown out in later speeches with weighing implications attached to them, but I'm often left having to resolve them or figure out who did that tiny bit of comparison that I can vote on -- you can easily win my ballot by telling me how to evaluate this/compare between weighing args -- you can call it what you want, framing or comparative weighing or second level impact calc -- I find it super persuasive and a smart technical move that often wins my ballot.

Don't be afraid to defend a policy aff against k's or phil -- I don't mind voting aff on Zanotti 14, but I'd rather you have a coherent justification for the aff being a good idea and a developed link turn strategy. Compare between the aff and the alt. Do framework comparisons if there's an NC and don't pretend Bostrom is enough. Also, adding in an impact that applies to marginalized populations could really help in debates where you want to go for a DA against a K aff, which shouldn't be hard to find since shtuff like climate change, war, and poverty affect those groups the most and also first.

DA's and CP's are fine and I have no problem here. I really like specific links and very specific politics scenarios, from like specific bills in Congress to international relations. I think 2 condo PIC's might be starting to push it, but that just means you should be ready to defend that you get them because I don't care as long as you answer any potential theory args.

Phil:

I’m mostly familiar with Butler's work and Kant, but also have experience with Epistemic Humility, Civic Republicanism, Virtue Ethics, Pragmatism, Particularism, Agonism, Butler, Deleuze, Levinas, Hobbes, Rawls, Locke, Descartes, and skep (also of course, util of all forms). I've read into the literature of and/or defended all of these, but never studied them too in-depth academically and wouldn't call myself an expert -- I haven't had trouble judging them and actually enjoying hearing them, so just do your best and you should be fine. Also I love Kant LOL.

I default epistemic confidence, but am open to hearing epistemic modesty and/or other framing mechanisms for evaluating competing ethical theories -- but that's up to you to justify and win.

I think phil arguments are strategic due to the amount of credence I must grant them -- i.e., I don't think someone can ignore independent framework warrants like shying away from answering bindingness or regress -- but I would need you to slow down a tiny bit and collapse harder in later speeches. Again, you do you! I am happy to judge anything and love framework debate a lot.

I find Phil vs. K interactions really interesting, but both sides could benefit from specific warranting when it comes to this rather than just winning your own framework or theory of power, but I am just as willing to vote on Kant as I am to vote on a K.

I also really really like phil vs. phil debates -- these are some of the most interesting debates and I am impressed by both the technical proficiency and critical/logical thinking skills that debaters employ. I am likely to grant both debaters very high speaks in these debates if they are done well, but also really feel like I learn a lot in these rounds. This also includes like Kant vs. util, but I think something like ordo amoris vs. Deleuze would be so so interesting.

I am not very persuaded by author indicts of philosophers, but can be convinced if it is argued well -- BUT I have a higher threshold for this than a turn to the framework itself. For example, I won't auto-vote on Kant (as in the guy) is racist, unless someone proves that his theory itself also is and does the work of proving that thus the aff is as well, OR is able to prove to me why I should not evaluate any of the work that someone who is a racist philosopher/writer has done -- which is a valid argument to make, but again, it requires a LOT more work than simply saying it. Of course, this does not mean I won't vote someone down if they drop the argument and its implications, but you need to give me those implications.

To that end, you can't just end it at Kant or Hobbes (or X author) is racist -- explain to me why that's a voting issue/reason to drop the debater/argument because I'm so far not convinced by the super old and recycled cards everyone keeps reading against aff's that don't actually even cite primary source philosophers. And if you're defending a framework against these objections, stand your ground and defend your aff without being repugnant -- impact turning racism is NEVER ok, but you can definitely win that your framework guides against structural violence even if the original author sucks.

HOWEVER, this is a different story if they actually read cards/cite the author you are calling out -- i.e., if someone read a Kant card (like citing Immanuel himself lol) and you read Kant is racist, I don't see a real no link argument or a way to prove why their reading of Kant is uniquely necessary (i.e., they could just cite Korsgaard instead right?) -- at which point, the author is racist voter issue becomes very very persuasive to me (this is true regardless of whether it's a philosopher) -- however, this is pretty rare and it's 2024, so update your authors.

Theory:

Go for it. I read everything from solvency advocate theory to ROTB spec to body politics, so I as long as it’s not actively violent (I basically won't vote on clothing-related theory) and you're not being too frivolous -- it's fine with me, but the more frivolous it gets, the lower my threshold for responses gets ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Also have some notes on a couple specific shells near the bottom of this section.

My defaults: competing interps, drop the debater, no RVI’s — this is just how I will evaluate the theory debate if you don't give me paradigm issues, but please do and I'm more than willing to vote on reasonability or grant an RVI if it's won.

Reading paradigm issues in your second speech collapsing to a shell is a bit late and persuades me to grant the other side leeway on controlling them, but still debatable I guess (does not mean I will give leeway to brightlines on reasonability, just reasonability itself).

On IVI's -- impact turns are not RVI's, but rather independent voters/offense, and I still haven't heard a single persuasive or compelling reason I shouldn't vote on an impact turn -- feel free to read your no impact turns dump, but I recommend just cleaning up the flow by answering them instead -- a lot of impact turns to both T and theory are just cross-apps of case or huge conflations of arguments -- point that out, make it a link, put offense on that too or make args for why the shell is a prior issue in the case that you go for it -- however you deal with it, deal with it. I feel that the easiest strategy is just to explain why the DA/impact turn doesn't link, why the shell comes first, and/or why something else you're going for (state good, cap K, etc.) disproves the internal link to the impact turn/independent voter.

Random note on disclosure these days -- I'm not that persuaded by these shells that you should send full on docs before rounds or that you must open source in order for negs to prep, etc. -- not to be an old zealot, but the norm when I was in high school was mostly just to disclose cites, tags, and the first 3 + last 3 words of cards -- we were fine and had more in-depth clash than what I've seen people read these days, so I am not that convinced -- THAT BEING SAID, I will still vote on it, but don't expect me to be that excited bout it or give you the highest speaks + I will have a low threshold for answers. However, if someone is fully not disclosing past rounds or telling you what the aff is gonna be, that changes the matter ofc -- still fine for disclosure, just not convinced that people need to give you every single word that they're about to read

Also not sure how I feel about spreading theory -- feels arbitrary to delineate as a judge where I draw a line between what is too fast and what is not. I'll vote on it, but idk -- the argument that it is impossible to delineate what is too fast prolly makes reasonability super persuasive. That being said, if you're obviously going fast, then LOL it seems reasonable that I would consider that to be spreading and evaluate the debate based on the standards. Either way, going for this in the 2N isn't really the move for me and I hope it's not for you. I'll still vote on it, but ugh, you and I both don't want to bring the debate to this issue (pls). If you read spreading bad and spread, I will prolly tank your speaks. Should be self-explanatory why.

Side note -- if you impact spreading bad or other shells to ableism, maybe think about that -- debate is of course extremely ableist, but I find it paternalistic to generally claim that disabled debaters are unable to debate able-bodied debaters who spread or speak fast. That's not to say I won't vote on it or that I don't think there is some truth to the claim, but I do think you should watch how you phrase the argument at least -- i.e., "disabled debaters cannot debate unless you disclose early cause they have to think on their feet" -- this sounds problematic and like you're saying that disabled people can't critically think in the moment, but "it is better to not spread to encourage access for people with certain disabilities" -- this sounds more agreeable. Be very careful when you talk about ableism because I have heard very problematic collapses that I am not happy with.

Topicality:

I read topicality against most K aff’s that I hit my senior year and every time I hit one in college -- including both defend the topic and read a policy action -- and I read spec bad against like every larp aff my senior year too. I love T, despite reading a ton of method/performative K aff's, but I have no biases here and can be persuaded to vote either way.

I have no issues with you going for 1-off T-FW against K aff’s and I’m more than willing to vote on it, but I do think there are ways to win my ballot easier. Having a clear TVA is always persuasive, but what I mean by this is not just like a literal plan text that mentions the identity group the aff talks about — take it further and explicitly explain to me why that TVA is a much better model for debate than the version of the aff that was the 1AC.

I think either having offense on the case page or doing clear interactions between the aff offense and the T flow is persuasive, and also useful when I write my ballot. I’d prefer you tell me a story in the 2NR and really sell your model of debate to me rather than pretending T has nothing to do with the aff. In other words, it is not sufficient to win that debate is solely a competitive game for me, I want you to really explain the implications of that to me because that’s a pretty bold claim considering all that this activity has been for a ton of people. I'll vote on it either way if you win it on a technical level, but this also leaves room for the aff to grandstand on your model being exclusive.

When debating T — have a clear counter-interp and defend your model of debate. I am more than willing to vote on an impact turn and am down for all the drama of various T strategies. Regardless, have a strong and robust defense of whatever model you choose to defend. I have been on and love debating from both sides of the issue (to some extent -- some language y'all be using in both your topicality extensions and your topicality answers are very iffy), and I find these to be some of the best rounds. I am here for it.

Most of the arguments for why I shouldn't vote on independent voting issues are terrible and not persuasive, BUT I still need y'all to answer them. Collapsing to a single DA on T in the 2AR is a great strat for me and I've done this myself in the past, but you have to answer these args. That being said, I've also been on the other side (kicking T) and feel that the easiest strategy is just to explain why the DA doesn't link, why T is a prior question, and/or why something else you're going for (state good, cap K, etc.) disproves the internal link to the impact turns/independent voters ---- (also check my note on impact turns in the theory section since some of this is copied from there/similar).

Quick side note on Nebel -- I have not read much into Nebel, but it's not very persuasive to me cause it sounds like a colonial norm and I'm not American/English was not my first language -- this does not mean I will auto-vote on grammar/textuality is racist, but I can be very strongly persuaded to and I think negatives need to have a robust defense prepared against this -- as in, take it serious and engage the argument by explaining to me why the argument is not racist/answering the aff arguments, but don't assume I will vote on fairness outweighs or semantics first in a scenario where you are losing on English grammar is racist.

That being said, a simple spec bad shell with a limits standard gets the job done and is a very great strat in front of me.

Kritik’s:

Yes. This is what I’m most comfortable evaluating and what I've spent the most time debating, coaching, and also studying academically. However, I will hold you to really knowing your lit -- buzzwords need to make sense. That being said, I'm pretty familiar with almost every area of critical literature that I've heard of or know of in debate. I like seeing how people use K lit to formulate interesting advocacies or methods, I like seeing new K shells and scholarship (like 2023/24 lol), and I also simultaneously like when someone defends a classic K but does it really really well.

I’m most familiar and comfortable with identity based lit -- especially Critical Race Theory and Antiblackness, Queer Theory and Queer of Color Studies, South Asian/South Asian American Studies, Postcolonialism, and Performance Studies. I'm most familiar with antiblackness, postcolonialism, queer theory, biopolitics, and necropolitics -- some of my fav authors: José Esteban Muñoz, Sarah Ahmed, Tiffany Lethabo King, Alexander Weheliye, Jasbir Puar, Achilles Mbembe, Marquis Bey, and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. I'm also comfy with Foucault, Baudrillard, Derrida, Freud, Lacan, Deleuze, etc. -- all the pomo shtuff is fair game. I don't really think there's a K you'd read that I'd be completely unfamiliar with or uncomfortable with, but I also don't care what K it is and am happy to listen -- get creative. :))

Leverage the K against other flows and put offense on different layers — if you’re winning a case turn, implicate it both through the thesis of the K and independently.

Engage the thesis claims and answer the links in the 1AR.

Perms should probably have a text, but I'm open to the 2AR having leeway to explain them. But if you just yell "perm -- do the aff and graffiti the alt" -- I'm not gonna be very inclined to vote aff if I have no explanation of why that does anything. Have a relatively clear warrant and explanation of the perm that you can develop in the 2AR if you collapse to it.

Kicking the alt is fine — win the links and warrant presumption. I’m also fine with all your K tricks, but I’m not gonna stake the round on the 2AR dropping that fiat is illusory ABSENT some clear warranting and judge instruction with it, as well as some comparison between your claim and a 1AR/2AR arg about the value of simulating policymaking or whatnot.

Also, please be aware of your own privilege -- have a strong and robust defense of why you should be able to read the K, what your relationship is to the literature, and how I should evaluate the round given all that. This doesn't mean you need to run from reading the K -- just be able to answer these questions and defend your position. This applies to black studies, indigenous studies, queer theory, etc. -- I can be persuaded to vote either way on these issues.

Update -- you know -- I am slowly getting the ick regarding how people are instrumentalizing literature of specific groups for ballots -- if you are not part of a community and decide to read the literature anyways, but you clearly have a surface level understanding of it, I will be unhappy -- I am tired of cishets using queer pessimism, able-bodied people reading disability pessimism, and white people reading afro-pessimism without any real engagement with the literature -- and I don't think non-indigenous people reading settler colonialism is somehow distinct, nor do I think that non-black people reading other structural criticisms about antiblackness is distinct enough for it to mean that you are somehow using images of suffering more ethically. I am vexed with the inauthentic way that y'all are reading this literature, so I am watching with a very close eye regarding CX answers, the way you structure the K, the authors you read, and the 2N explanations. I won't auto-drop you or anything, but I do reserve the right to drop you on the ick if it's obvious you are not taking the literature seriously. I have had conversations with other judges and coaches who feel similarly, so read things at your own risk from now on. I still think you can read them, but I need you to do it at a level where it is clear you care and know what you're talking about.

Along those lines, since this has become a serious area of discussion on the LD debate circuit -- non-black people reading antiblackness is ok BUT you should be prepared to discuss what your role as a non-black person is, both in reading the K and in relation to antiblackness, and pls do it well. I will vote on arguments for why non-black people shouldn't read antiblackness, but I am also open to voting the other way. I think y'all need to stop running from the challenge of answering the argument because the scholarship is great, BUT be prepared in case the argument is made.

I am also not happy that everyone has just decided to turn to reading (and commodifying) literature about Native American/indigenous peoples instead, especially when debaters actively say they don't pay attention to the authors or only read "X" argument so it's fine -- I am persuaded by arguments that this should not be allowed and find it more persuasive due to this occurrence that literature or images of suffering about a group being used to justify a ballot are instances of detached commodification. You don't need a card, but do need warrants. Bringing up the history of debate and also specific practices in LD is great. Pessimistic claims are somewhat problematic, but more so is using violence against a group as an image to claim you're radically decolonial and using an arbitrary method or alternative to claim you do care about them. I will watch these debates very closely due to the way that debaters are behaving.

On the issue of queer theory -- I am skeptical of whether someone should be able to speak from the closet to read ontological/epistemological, etc., claims about queer people, especially being a queer trans* person of color myself -- if you are reading queer theory, I think you should be prepared to defend whether a cishet person should be allowed to read it, since if you are unwilling to disclose your queerness then that would enable the practice of non-queer people reading queer pess. I don't think outing DA's are that persuasive to me (in these specific circumstances only) if someone asks you whether you are queer while reading this because it should matter whether or not you are and you can choose to say that you are unwilling to disclose that, BUT that still begs the question of whether or not one should be able to do that. That being said, I will vote on an outing DA if it's won, but this is an answer that debaters can make that I believe is a relevant discussion and legitimate answer. I am vexed by openly cisheterosexual people turning to queer theory because they think that they can win every round on an outing DA, so I have decided to add this here to pressure more authentic engagements with the literature base.

Kritikal/performative/planless aff’s:

Yes. These are my favorite aff’s and I find them super interesting. I read them for like 7 years, I've coached them for like 5 years, and I've debated/judged them for longer. I don’t care if you defend the topic or not, but be prepared to defend your aff and all the choices you made in it. I also did read topicality/framework against most non-T aff's I debated lol, so I am happy to vote either way, but I am definitely a good judge for these aff's.

From the moment that I realize the aff is performative and/or critical, I am watching very closely to see how you perform it, defend it, and frame it. I also physically am usually watching you and making eye contact because I know that part of your discussion is also about me and the fact that I am not a passive decision-maker. I know that can make some people uncomfy, so I apologize in advance and promise I'm not like staring at you with bug-eyes or anything, but just noticing the choices you make and the way the aff is presented. I appreciate the fact that you made a lot of intentional choices when writing and formulating the aff, so I am respecting your use of them, especially in CX as well.

Be creative. Have fun. Express yourself. The best kritikal and performative aff’s that I have seen are a result of how they are presented, written, and defended — I think these can be some of the best or some of the worst rounds, but the only thing I’ll hold you to is defending something clear, whether a method, advocacy statement, praxis, or whatnot. Just be clear and tell me how to evaluate the round, considering most of these aff’s ask for a shift in how to evaluate and view debate itself.

Do not read these in front of me just because it’s what I did. Also, feel free to ask me any questions — I’d be more than happy to help you figure out some aspects of how you wanna explore reading this and I know I definitely benefitted from judges who did that for me, so I got you. With that being said, here's some cool things I'd love to see.

Something I loved doing was impact turning presumption args — 1AR’s and 2AR’s that can effectively do this and collapse to it are dope and I’m here for it.

I think CX is a place to perform too -- I love performances that somehow extend beyond just the 1AC because they bring so much more of the drama of debate into question. However, I have also seen many people do this in ways that aren't very tasteful and end up either confusing me or triggering me. On the other hand, I've also found that these can be some of the most brutal and successful CX strategies when done well.

Regardless, don't feel shy about testing the waters in front of me, within reason. However, fire hazards are real and pls warn me about flashing lights (personal medical reason). In other words -- sure, go off, but don't get me (or yourself) in trouble or do anything hazardous/risky. Also, I don't think it's ok for you to infringe on someone else's literal ability to debate, in terms of doing anything to their flows or picking up their computer for whatever reason -- please don't. I won't be happy and coaches/schools won't be happy. Other than that, have fun! I like hearing creative arguments and fun stuff that makes me pay attention and wake up. :))

ANSWERING THESE -- Presumption is fine, but I’m probably not gonna be persuaded by the classic arg that the aff does not affect how I view the world, feel, etc. This is not to say that I will not vote on a ballot presumption argument if it is argued well and won, but don't expect me to bank the round on a 5 second shadow extension that lacks clear warrants or weighing. I prefer presumption arguments to be reasons for why the performance of the aff is inconsistent with the method or other parts of the 1AC somehow, lack of solvency, vagueness, etc., and make sure the turns are impacted out effectively and weighed against affirmative's.

State good is an underused and undervalued strategy, clashes with these aff's so enables you to avoid impact turns on T or other issues that rely on the aff winning internal links for why certain state-oriented procedures are bad, and is a great option (be wary of your language, but hasn't been an issue so far).

I do not like Rickert or other arguments that are like "oh subjectivity is not real in debate, but is elsewhere so please leave" type args -- I think these are actively racist. BUT I think there are certain specific issues you can push on.

What is the advocacy/method past the 1AC? What is the value or impact of the performance? Why is there a binding reason to vote aff? How does the aff resolve skep/induction issues? How does the aff relate to the other debater and/or the judge? Why is debate bad, but also shifted to being good through the aff/voting aff? etc. etc. -- all of these are relevant considerations and valid points of contestation -- i.e., whether or not the ways the aff responds to these questions are good or sufficient.

Also really like K links as case turns against these aff's, skep is fair but be wary of your language and type of skep ofc, counter-K's are fun, T is great, and phil is so interesting and I wish more people did Kant vs. K-aff's (or other frameworks) because these are some of the most interesting rounds I've had or heard.

For Policy/CX Debate:

I'm cool with whatever you read and would prefer you do what you're best at! I'm chill and will follow anything -- I was a college policy debater at NYU and I went to RKS 2018 -- I've also judged and coached high school policy, read every style of debate, and I still currently actively cut both K lit and policy args -- I also read a ton of performative args from cardless aff's about throwing a party to queer bombs, tons of K's (queer theory, gender studies, critical race theory, indigenous studies, disability studies, and pomo), but also read a ton of straight up strats from a Bahrain aff to the classic politics DA + framework/T against almost every non-T aff -- I have been on both sides of most issues, but I don't really care about my opinions and I'm down with whatever you wanna read -- so you do you. Specific sections below might be useful (minus the tricks stuff for LD, etc. -- not gonna vote on tricks, frivolous theory, etc. in policy).

I don't care if you read an aff about great power competition and extinction or a K about settler homonationalism -- I feel comfortable and confident in my ability to render the right decision no matter what you read, but my favorite rounds are when a team reading a plan aff really knows their scenario and evidence super well or when a team reading a K provides really in-depth explanations and examples -- don't adapt your style itself to me, just focus on what you do best and win it. :))

My approach to rounds is typically to vote for the team that I need to do less work for to determine a ballot -- I need warrants for claims that you make and I think these warrants need to be defended in cross-ex, explained in later speeches, and developed with contextualization and examples -- meaning you need to make sure you warrant everything because I will feel uncomfortable voting for something I cannot adequately explain back to y'all without intervention. This kinda just means I wanna hear internal links and their warrants, and/or a strong overview defense of your impacts -- judge instruction, collapsing in later speeches, and framing are your best bets.

I especially think framing specifically is important -- this doesn't mean winning util or a role of the ballot necessarily, but rather please just do weighing, impact comparison, and draw me a ballot story by telling me what matters most in the round in later speeches.

Everything else is pretty straight forward -- tech > truth, judge instruction, and you do you (unless it's overtly discriminatory).

I do really like K's though and this is where most of my background in debate lies -- through debate and my undergrad coursework, I read a ton of Muñoz, Puar, Spivak, Said, Halberstam, Stanley, Ahmed, Lamble, Mbembe, Tinsley, Hartman, Warren, Wilderson, Weheliye, Wynter, Spillers, Gumbs, King, Edelman, Preciado, Bersani, Nash, Bey, Gilmore, Davis, Gillespie, Mignolo, Rodriguez, Morgensen, Eng, Deleuze, Baudrillard, Derrida, Deleuze, Freud, Lacan, and I'm sure I could keep going -- this is mainly to say that I will likely contextually understand what you read, regardless of my familiarity with the literature. I think I am a great judge for any critical arguments and feel super comfortable evaluating these, but also thoroughly enjoy the scholarship and the creativity that debaters employ when reading these arguments. Personally, I also read cardless aff's using original poetry as well as critical aff's that were very close to the topic/resolution -- I don't care how specific or generic your arguments are, I care about how well you go for and explain them!

For policy/plan aff's and teams -- I usually get bored in these debates ngl, but I think I'm a sucker for a really good link story on a DA, straight turns, and strategic advantage counterplans. I think condo is good in policy debate and feel like the condo bad debate is lost on me. Despite everything above, I enjoy the state good or heg good defense and think that I can easily be persuaded to vote on arguments about why we have to focus on policymaking/reform. Do good weighing, impact framing, internal link warranting, evidence comparison, and meta-weighing. I also love T-framework, T-defend the topic, and other topicality arguments -- I also like T or spec bad against non-topical/extra-topical plan aff's -- but I need these arguments to be well impacted out. I think fairness is just an internal link to education really, but I'll vote on either one and I just need the ballot story to be clear. You do need to answer impact turns, TVA's and switch side seem like game over you won T type issues, most T arguments are just about limits or prep and clash, and I am great for T.

Feel free to hit me up and ask me any questions if you have em on either FB or my email.

For PF:

Pls read the TLDR right below this, but I am relatively experienced with debate, so I don't think you need to adapt much. I also went to Quarry Lane for high school till 2019 (QLS was very involved in PF so I'm no stranger to the event) and traveled with the PF debaters everywhere, but also did a bit of PF at smaller tourneys and judged it before. I am down to vote for anything, just don't be racist/homophobic/misogynistic, etc. I also read a lot of performance args and K's as a debater, so that's something I'm comfortable with -- BUT don't read it just to read it, I'm also very chill with policy-esque args and general topic area args + would rather hear what you're good at than a random K that you pulled up.

ALSO -- I have trouble following card names sometimes cause y'all do be paraphrasing and moving past things real quick, so please reference arguments rather than X author name so I can follow you -- I don't expect this to be a big issue, but if you're ramping up the speed and gonna give me one-liners as you move between cards, either send me the doc so I can follow OR reference impacts over last names.

Speaks:

So you want a 30? -- I loved getting speaker awards, so just do you and I got you, but here's some incentives + random things LOL

1. Pls do NOT use my name unless we know each other LOL
2. + speaks for everyone if you have the email chain set up before I walk into the room
3. Clarity and enunciation > speed please
4. If you are able to give a solid speech at a good speed where I can write/type out every word and feel very part of the process, I will be VERY happy
5. Passion and ethos are dope — I don’t care what form this is in, but really sell whatever you read to me
6. I like tasteful references to things -- drag race, anime, Marvel or Disney, sitcoms, etc. -- don't really know much about sports so that might go over my head, but I like creative args that draw on other art forms, whether media/film or otherwise
7. I average a 29.5+ and give higher speaks when you slow down, are very clear, or when you collapse really well
8. If you go on your phone during someone else's speech, you are likely to get the lowest possible speaks I can give without having to talk to tab :))

I have become quite generous with speaks, but humor, creative args, or strong execution is the key! I'm more than willing to give out a 30 and have increasingly done so. Do you and make sure you signpost, warrant, and slow down on important things -- I appreciate passion, strong research and/or analysis, and well-crafted strategies! I also think a smart CX helps with ethos and also definitely will help bump your speaks -- many debates are also lost and won in CX ultimately.

If you slow down to an easily flowable speed and give a good speech, I will be far more likely to be persuaded to vote for you and give you a 30 (or 29.5+). I find that I am also most persuaded by debaters who close doors, slow down and impact things out, and avoid silly args. Go to the bottom for more qualms of mine!

Please give me trigger/content warnings -- go for it, just warn me -- important to me as both a judge and participant in the round — if you’re going to be talking about graphically sensitive topics, please give me (and everyone in the room) a heads up -- this does not mean you don't get to read it tho -- you don't need my permission, just let us all prepare emotionally/mentally

Speed and Off's Rant: I am going to say clear a lot more to ask you to slow down andI think I will need you to go AT LEAST 70% of your top speed. I want to be able to hear every word, but I also think this is important to check for clipping. I think that we should preserve the value of debates through contestation, which I find is less possible when someone spreads through a ton of arguments waiting for something to be dropped, and I also just find myself exhausted listening to those debates because it feels like a waste of everyone's time. I also am just unable to flow some of this most of the time, which is not unique to just me and is a common shared experience of many judges. I believe that the ways that people are spreading through a ton of off case positions at incredibly high speeds is problematic because I find it rather difficult to follow and I should not need to rely on docs to flow you but I cannot hear these words, I find it hard to check if someone is clipping, I don't think I should encourage this practice, I don't think there is or has ever been a need to speak that fast, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, I have found and experienced situations where debaters use speed to get away with performing/reading racist and violent arguments, which I think I have an ethical obligation to correct for by at least making a relevant note here.

SO with that in mind -- please do not spread through analytics -- there is absolutely no way I am going to get all of these down and if you spread through these, it makes me very sad because I do want to get every argument but I just will not be able to.

I also will not be flowing after the 4th off and will dock speaks. If there are more than 4 off's, I also feel comfortable with the 1AR getting up and telling me not to evaluate it since this is on my paradigm. I also think that more than 4 off's will lower my threshold for responses and 2AR spin.

Finally, I have also decided that more than 3 off means I should definitely presume aff under a role of the ballot where I am supposed to vote for the better debater. I think that more than 3 off makes the debate quite structurally difficult for the aff, so I believe the aff did the better debating.

That being said, if you read more than 4 off after seeing me on the pairing, I think we have bad blood from the beginning of the round. Choose your positions with care, defend them, and focus on relevant substantive discussions. If you think you need more than 4 off to beat an aff, you are reading 4 bad off's.

Some qualms of mine (these will affect speaks):

1. I will not give you a 30 if you ask for it.
2. Non-black folx who read anti-blackness specifically against black folx will prolly lose in front of me (I have not yet seen it happen), but I am likely to give you pretty low speaks either way -- however, non-black folx reading anti-blackness generally is fine.
3. I am happy to vote on non-black folx should not read afropess and/or antiblackness, but also to vote for the idea that it's ok -- this is a debatable issue for me -- and I also think that it's debatable whether a non-indigenous person should be reading certain strains of set col (i.e., people who are not Native American reading set col about Native Americans) -- I can be persuaded to vote either way and think this applies to every group-specific strain of literature
4. I will not vote on anything that polices what clothing other debaters are wearing — this is not negotiable sorry and yes, that means I will not vote on shoes theory or formal clothing theory — I don't feel comfortable deciding what children should wear
5. If you are reading a card with more than one color highlighted in it, please remove the highlights of what you're not reading -- it really messes with me and I have issues processing that -- it's not a huge deal, but it will help me adjudicate better
6. Evidence ethics is quite important to me -- just cite stuff and use EasyBib if you are unsure how -- lack of citations is a big issue (the minimum is the author name, name of the book/article, where it was published, and when) and so are clipping, etc.
7. If you do an evidence challenge -- I will stop the round, use NSDA rules standards, and vote -- W 30 and L 0
8. Pronouns are important — misgendering is not cool w me, so try your best — I recommend defaulting to “they” anyways -- I will vote on misgendering
9. If you answer something someone didn't read and skipped, I will not be happy -- you can ask for marked docs tho! -- be prepared for CX and please flow
10. Please send a doc as soon as you stop prep -- putting together the doc is prep time imo (emailing is not, but I will be upset if you spend more than 30 secs before saying "sent")

I am a parent judge. I very much prefer the traditional debate format and appreciate clear and concise arguments. I also find roadmaps and guidelines very helpful.

Spreading: I do not appreciate spreading. I do, however, understand that spreading is sometimes necessary, like, e.g., when rebutting a long list of contentions. I will read the speech document to assist my understanding of the argument but feel strongly that it is contingent on the debater to make a clear and compelling argument during the debate.

Cards/references: I most appreciate debaters citing peer-reviewed publications, less so for media publications. I'm grateful of the debaters who clearly state the legitimacy of their references or the unreliability of their opponent's references.

Coach at Edina HS (LD, speech) and University of Minnesota (policy)

I've judged and coached pretty much all formats and styles of debate. I keep a rigorous flow, usually on paper, and I will evaluate the debate using the judge instruction that the debaters in the round give me. You should be clear and give me pen time when switching between flows. I care a lot about evidence, and my favorite debates are ones that involve well-researched and thought out positions.

I will not vote on an argument pertaining to conduct out of round or the opposing team's character.

I am uninterested in hearing “content warning theory” unless it is for content that is objectively disturbing. There is no reason to present a graphic depiction of violence or SA in a debate, even with a content warning. Reading content warning theory on “feminism” or “mentions of the war on drugs” is unnecessary and trivializing.

College Policy:

I exclusively read Ks when I was competing. Now mostly coaching policy arguments. I see a lot of clash debates, some KvK debates, and a few policy debates. Topic knowledge is medium.

Condo is good, but I can be persuaded either way. Judge kick is a logical extension of condo, unless you win it isn't.

Ks: Framework is where I start my evaluation of the round. You should be explicit about what your interp means for the debate if you win it and compare models. AFF teams defending a plan should read more cards about their AFF and less generic K blocks.

Competition debates for most process CPs should be unwinnable, but NEG teams often end up ahead due to subpar AFF debating.

T-USFG: Fairness is fine, clash makes less sense unless you do a good job of explaining an external impact. 2NRs need to engage with case somehow.

National Circuit LD:

Flow. You must use CX time or prep time to ask questions about what cards were read. If you don't do this, I will start your prep time for you and subtract speaker points.

Decent for philosophy arguments. I think a lot of LD debaters struggle to justify utilitarianism and more NEG debaters should take advantage of this.

Theory arguments: I am likely to conclude that rejecting the argument, not the team solves. Reasonability is underutilized. I have voted on "frivolous theory" before, but it needs to be debated technically and cannot rely on tagline extensions.

Tricks: Probably not the best judge for you. I need to be able to explain back the warrant for your argument to be able to vote on it. Sometimes "tricks" arguments meet this threshold, but often they do not.

Traditional Circuit LD:

I can judge whatever you put in front of me. Impact calculus matters a lot. I don't want to see arguments unrelated to the topic--my litmus test is that your argument must prove the resolution true or false. That means unconventional arguments are fine, but non-topical Ks or theory arguments are something I'd rather not see (unless your opponent also prefers to have a national circuit style debate).

I am a parent judge and a Cyber Threat Detection Engineer. I have a general understanding of LD debate and prefer the quality of an argument over speed. I’m looking for a presentation that is easy to consume with factual evidence.

I'm a non-interventional judge. I like debates with meaningful arguments and don't encourage too much speed or aggressive tactics. I prefer quality over quantity. I'm going to be diligent in taking notes and watching for impact, flow, link, and rebuttal in the debates. I'm not a big fan of definitions as most of the time both sides are similar. I'd expect Cross to be focused on clarifying your opponent's points/cases but not as an opportunity to humiliate. I appreciate the summary at the end to clearly point out why your case is more weighted and why I should vote for you.

I wish you all the best!

Hello,

I am a third-year speech and debate coach. My pronouns are he/him.

I competed in PF between 2009 and 2013.

I prefer a conversational speaking speed. Clarity is more important than speed. I’m OK with speaking fast, but if you’re spreading too fast for me to understand, then I can’t evaluate your arguments and then you can’t win. At your request, I can tap on the desk or otherwise signal you if you're speaking too fast for me to understand.

Don't run tricks. Don't run frivolous arguments full of arcane academic jargon meant to sound intelligent without any context or substance. You are not a sorcerer reading a spellbook.

Generally not a fan of theory shells unless there is a very real apparent violation/abuse in round.

LD - I prefer traditional debate in LD but I have been persuaded to vote for Ks, plans, counterplans etc in the past.

PF - I don't like progressive cases in PF. I believe a key part that distinguishes Public Forum as a debate event is it is meant the be interpreted by the "public", meaning the average person off the street could observe the round and understand what is going on.

General notes:

-extend your frameworks

-quality>quantity. Fewer better quality arguments with better weighing/analysis is better than winning lots of weak arguments

-No ad hominem attacks. If you can't be respectful of your opponents then debate is not for you

-Don’t be smug, arrogant, rude, especially if you think you’re winning

-Disclosure – include me in the email chain/speechdrop for your case/evidence. ESPECIALLY if you spread/read fast. I find that I can judge much more effectively and accurately when I can follow along with your arguments on my computer while I flow.

-Extend all arguments, don’t bring in new arguments in final focus, and weigh your arguments. What are the real world impacts? Why does this matter? I need to know the answers to these questions.

-Cross – It’s always tragic to me when competitors make great points in cross and then don’t bring up those points at all in any of their speeches. If it’s not in a speech I can’t flow it.

-Falsifying evidence/lying in round will lead to an automatic loss. On a related note – I don’t like paraphrasing. if you do so you better have that card in hand ready to show me. I have dropped competitors more than once for “stretching” / “creatively interpreting” evidence.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round.

Email - arthur.kulawik@browardschools.com (but I prefer speechdrop)

Name: Lalit Kumar

Email: lalit.kumar.debate@gmail.com

I am a lay/parent judge. However, I do have knowledge of the LD and how it works. I have judged PF tournaments for over a year and got familiarity with LD debates. I have also researched the current topic in detail online.

I usually join a couple of minutes before the round to take questions about my paradigm. If you have clarity questions, please feel free to ask.

Key notes:

1. Respect - First, and foremost, debate is about having fun and expressing your creativity! Please be respectful to your opponents and your judges.

2. Document sharing - please share your speech/response docs ahead of time so I can follow along. Include me in the email chain (lalit.kumar.debate@gmail.com) Please ensure the subject is not blank and populated with tournament name and round.

3. Clarity - Please do not sacrifice clarity for speed. Your arguments should be clear and well-substantiated with evidence

4. Jargon - Jargon and abbreviations should be avoided and will lead to deductions. They cause a lack of clarity and can lead to misinterpretations. Please explain any technical jargon that you use.

5. Time - Going overtime will lead to deductions. I would recommend timing yourself and your opponents. In case you notice your opponent is overtime, feel free to raise your zoom hand to highlight this.

6. Signposting - I strongly recommend signposting so your opponents understand what you are responding to.

7. Theories and Ks - I have limited understanding of Theories and Ks; but I am okay to proceed as long as you break it down in simple and clear terms. You need to elaborate on how it correlates to the topic.

I do American and British Parliamentary on the Harvard team but have no familiarity with any other formats so you may want to treat me as a lay judge.

I will not (generally) read any cards and will not flow crossfire. If something important comes up, you must mention it during a speech for me to vote on it. I will only check a card if someone points out to me in-round that the card has been misrepresented.

Talking slightly fast is fine but if you spread, I will not follow your arguments well.

You must be respectful during the debate, I will tank your speaks if you make problematic arguments or disrespect others in the room.

FOR LD:

I prefer traditional LD. No Ks or theory.

Tech > truth but if you can explain why your opponent has made a very unlikely argument or has not illustrated a feasible link chain, I will probably be quite receptive to that rebuttal. Likewise, if you can explain why your argument is most reasonable and probable, I will be happy.

FOR PF:

I am probably biased in favor of the most reasonable sounding team in the round. I tend to dislike arguments where the impacts are massively overblown (e.g. world-ending extinction events) unless you've warranted them really well or given me some good weighing as to why I should prioritize magnitude over likelihood.

I care about warrants more than evidence. I also like to hear explicit weighing.

Add me to the chain. My email is roselarsondebate @ gmail . If I'm judging LD, please add lhpsdebate @ gmail as well.

she/her

Assistant Coach at Homestead 2020-2021

Head Coach at Homestead 2021-2022

Currently Assistant Coach at Lake Highland Prep

Currently College Policy at the University of Kansas

CEDA Octofinalist x1, CEDA Quarterfinalist x1, NDT Double Octofinalist x1

If you're interested in college debate, please reach out, I'd love to direct you to some resources. ESPECIALLY if you are interested in debating for/attending KU - we have a wonderful program and I'd love to talk to you about it.

I've judged too many debates to care what you read. I've coached and judged every style, and feel comfortable evaluating anything read in your average debate. DON'T OVERADAPT, do what you do best, make complete, smart arguments, and we'll be fine. I'm studying philosophy and economics at Kansas.

An argument has a claim, a warrant, and an implication. Less than that and you have not made an argument and I will not evaluate it. I don't care if your opponent didn't answer words you said, they haven't "dropped" anything unless those words were complete arguments. If you can't explain something like a paradox or condo logic coherently, don't go for it. If you can, feel free, and I'd love to vote for you.

I will not arbitrarily treat arguments as "silly" or "not engaging with the aff" because they are not an aff-specific disadvantage. I don't share the attitudes of judges who treat process counterplans, skep/determinism, broad critiques with non-specific links, or impact turns like spark as second-tier arguments because they link to other affirmatives. The more generic an argument is, the easier it may be to beat on specificity, but I am not particularly sympathetic to "this is generic, ignore it."

I enjoy in-depth clash and don't enjoy under-warranted blipstorms, so I will likely enjoy your debates more and consequently give you better speaker points if your strategies include specific, complex, and vertical debating as opposed to shallow horizontal debating. I've historically been the best for debaters who understand their arguments very well and are prepared to defend them, whether they be afropessimism, heg good, Kant, or process counterplans, and historically been the worst for debaters who rely on cheap shots to dodge clash.

Topicality should include case lists, preferably both offensive and defensive.

I view counterplan theory as a reason to reject the argument, not the team. I can be persuaded otherwise.

Neutral in framework debates, equally good for impact turn as counterinterp strategies, skew slightly towards clash but totally fine with fairness. I will evaluate the differences between the aff's model and the negative's model unless someone forwards an alternative model for how I should think about framework debates.

Arguments I don't like but will vote on: epistemic modesty, frivolous theory, Mollow

Arguments I don't like and won't vote on: racist/sexist/transphobic/homophobic/ableist positions, theory based on debaters' appearance or dress, eval

Arguments I like and want to see more of: circumvention, skepticism and determinism, specific impact turns, normative justifications for utilitarianism > "extinction outweighs", psychoanalysis, the cap K against policy affs, carded TVAs, advantage counterplans

You will lose .1 speaker point every time you ask a flow clarification question outside of CX time, unless I also did not flow what was said, and if that's the case, don't worry about it, because I won't be evaluating it.

My strong preference is that if one debater is a traditional debater that their opponent make an effort to participate in a way that's accessible for that debater. I would much rather judge a full traditional debate than a circuit debater going for shells or kritiks against an opponent who isn't familiar with that style. If you do this, you will be rewarded with higher speaker points. If you don't, I will likely give low point wins to technical victories that exploit the unfamiliarity of traditional debaters to get easy wins.

Note on speaker points:
29.5+ one of the best speakers at the tournament
29.0-29.5 fantastic speaker
28.5-29.0 above average speaker
28.0-28.5 average speaker
27.5-28.0 below average speaker
27-27.5 very bad speaker

I will not give below a 27 unless something seriously wrong happens in the debate.

I have given two 30s in 300+ rounds of judging, congrats if you get one.

Happy to answer other questions pre round or by email.

2013-2017: Competed at Peninsula HS (CA)

I earned 21 bids to the TOC and was a finalist at the NDCA.

Yes I want to be on the email chain, add me: jlebarillec@gmail.com

I am willing to judge, listen to, and vote for anything. Just explain it well. I am not a fan of strategies which are heavily reliant on blippy arguments and frequently find myself holding the bar for answers to poor uneveloped arguments extremely low.

Speed should not be an issue, but be clear.

Clash debates:

Aff — Strategies that impact turn the Negative’s offense in combination with solid defense and/or a counter-interp (good)

Neg — Fairness, debate is a game (good)

skills (less good)

Topicality + Theory: More debating should be done over what debates look like under your model of the topic, less blippy debating at the standards level. Caselists are good and underutilized. I think some Condo is good. I think the Aff should be less scared to extend theory arguments against counterplans that are the most cheaty.

Kritiks: I find the link debate to be the most important here. Most times I vote aff it’s because I don’t know why the plan/Aff is inconsistent with your criticism. Strategies that are dependent on multiple non sequitur link arguments are unlikely to work in front of me.

I think that evidence comparison is extremely important and tends to heavily reward teams who do it more/earlier in the debate.

I appreciate good sign posting, as it's a proxy for a clearly thought-out argument. I'd like to be able to walk away and remember the 2 or 3 major points on which you constructed your argument. In your final round, I'd appreciate a clear statement of why you should win.

I appreciate off-time roadmaps.

Please try to avoid debate jargon and technical debating...I am a humble parent judge. Here's what I know about:

Circuit: V=IR

Spreading: jam on toast!

K: Atomic number 19, atomic mass 39.098

Shell: oil company

I will do my best to give substantive, constructive feedback to help you in your future rounds.

Have fun!

-------

A few tips for Novice debaters debating before parent judges:

1. State your contentions as full sentences with a subject and a predicate, not just a subject. Instead of saying "Veto power," state a full sentence that tells the judge what to think about Veto power. Think of it as a thesis sentence where you give an overview of the contention. This will help parent judges keep track of your arguments. For example, "Permanent membership on the UN SC preserves veto power which leads to atrocities and nuclear war." Or, even just "Veto power leads to atrocities and nuclear war." Seriously, sometimes parent judges lose track of which side is aff and which side is neg! Help us out by being crystal clear when you state your contention, so we know what you want us to think / believe.
2. Try to avoid using abbreviations unless you first explain them. The parent judge might not be familiar with the topic, and won't be able to follow your arguments as well. For example: P5, SC
3. When reading from cards, some debaters just read whatever they have bolded or highlighted on the card, stringing together highlighted phrases. However, those phrases, strung together, often don't flow out as coherent sentences. This makes it very hard for parent judges to follow the argument. If you're reading highlighted sections from cards, make sure you add in any verbs or nouns or prepositions that are needed to make the phrases flow together smoothly as coherent sentences.
4. Speak more slowly than you might speak before experienced judges :)

Hello, I am a relatively new parent judge. If sharing cases, please send to lwh_1974@yahoo.com

I will judge you based on the quality, strength, and logic of your arguments. Clear enunciation will raise your speaker points. Please fulfill all the time in your speeches.

Good luck in round!

Hello! My name is Zachary Li (he/him), and I'm a student at NYU!

Education:

New York University (B.S. Business + B.A. Mathematics)

Coppell High School --> TAMS '23 (debated 3 years LD as well as some PF and CX)

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain! My email is zcl1578@gmail.com. I will skim the doc but won't intervene on evidence ethics unless it is brought up in the round. I do keep time, but I would love it if you timed and stopped yourself. Feel free to sit or stand, and spectators are fine as long as competitors are okay with it.

General Thoughts:

1. PLEASE TELL ME WHY YOU WIN. You can do this in a couple of ways.

a) First, ballot painting - write my ballot for me by telling me exactly how you win the round.

b) Second, impact calculus - weigh your impacts against theirs and tell me why they are more important (magnitude, probability, scope, reversibility, timeframe, whatever) and why that particular weighing standard is important, as well as why you weigh better under the framework (LD).

c) Thirdly, clash/argument resolution - tell me the most important questions in today's round and why you're winning them - if two cards make competing claims, give me a reason to prefer your card/evidence/analytics, whether it be timeframe, credentials, we take into account something they don't, biased view, whatever - just give me a reason why you win a key argument rather than just extending the card.

d) Fourthly, argument impacting - why does conceding/losing this argument matter to the round? Does it disrupt the CP? DA? Sever the link to the K? Does this mean they have no offense? Does this mean I have to evaluate through sufficiency framing? Does this mean your impact o/w?

2. I'm a 7 out of 10 for speed. Not a huge fan of spreading but I'll survive with a speech doc. Maybe about 275 words with speech doc and 200 otherwise - I will use clear if necessary.

3. I consider myself to be a flow judge. That is, I will look at my flows after the round, adjudicate arguments, and decide on a winner.

4. Generally, I give speaks between 27-30 based not only on your clarity but also your strategy and organization. I try to view it as independent of the ballot - that is, you might get higher speaks but not the ballot - but more often than not, the ballot goes to the debater who is more clear and has better strategy and organization. (for math nerds) Speaks~Norm(28.5, 0.5)

5. (for novices) PLEASE STOP DROPPING MAJOR ARGUMENTS - please respond to important arguments during the 1nc/1ar or I'll be forced to accept them as true :(

Lincoln-Douglas (LD):

1 - LARP/Policy-style arguments

2-3 - Theory/T

2 - Phil

3-4 - K

5 - Tricks

LARP/Policy-style arguments: I ran these almost every round in high school. I am fine with plans, CPs, DAs, and other LARP stuff. LARP debates are almost always hard to resolve, so please tell me why you are winning an argument/the opponent is behind, and then why that argument is important.

Theory/T: I am generally ok with theory/T, but be reasonable.

Phil: I am not the most phil-educated person, but I do really like phil arguments and often find them persuasive. If you go for phil be sure to explain why I should prefer your framework/way of thinking.

K: not the hugest fan of Ks but I'll evaluate them, especially if they are topical. I can understand basic Ks, but chances are I won't understand more complicated ones. In my opinion, Ks function as DAs and CPs - you need to win that the DA (link and impacts) matter and the CP (alt) solves/reduces. You should also probably win framing. I tend to take the side of LARP debaters against the K on issues such as fiat and the state, but you can still win if you show me clear warrants.

Tricks: tricks are for kids

Public Forum:

debated a little public forum (~10 rounds) in high school, so I'm relatively familiar with how the event works. I'm ok with disclosure and counterplans, but other than that I would like to see an actually topical debate on the genuine merits of the resolution. Please read #1 on my general thoughts, because I find that PF, in particular, is very difficult to resolve. Put yourself in my shoes - why should I vote for you?

Congress:

never judged this before but I go off of who was the clearest and had the most insightful arguments/analysis. Be sure to genuinely respond to points brought up by your fellow representatives and senators and advance substantive debate about the topic rather than theatrics and hand-waving. POs start slightly above the middle of the pack and move up based on performance; PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE respect the time limits not only for speeches but for questioning periods as well to create the best experience for your fellow members of Congress.

Hi! I'm Jane (Harvard '26). I debated for Immaculate Heart for three years and qualified to the TOC 2x.

Put me on the email chain – jane.lichtman@gmail.com.

Policy:

- Yes! My favorite strategies center heavily on impact turns. Also a fan of the politics DA and process CPs. Read more 2NR evidence!

- Neg-leaning on condo and most other CP theory arguments. I like competition debates.

- Insert re-highlighting. I'll default to judge kicking the CP (but the 2NR should remind me).

T/Theory:

- Defaults: reasonability, DTA when possible, fairness = education, no RVIs.

- I didn't read frivolous theory, but I'll (ambivalently) vote for these arguments if you win competing interps.

- Re: Nebel – not my favorite, but I understand that it's sometimes necessary against small affs. Blitzing through 6 minutes of scripted plans bad arguments = difficult to flow and not very impressive.

- You should disclose – no exceptions.

Kritiks:

- Not a fan.

- Affs get to weigh the case. In that vein, the 2AR should almost always be framework + extinction outweighs.

- K's become (marginally) more viable when the 2NR wins that extinction is inevitable, the link turns case, and/or the risk of the advantage is very low.

- 2NR framework interpretations are new arguments and will be disregarded.

- Any K that purports to link to the aff's rhetoric must pull lines from 1AC evidence. "Threat inflation"-style link arguments are non-starters without beating the aff's internal links.

- Most alts do nothing; if the alt "solves case" against a policy aff, it should lose to a theory argument. The aff should take up this fight more often.

- Re: K's vs. phil affs – these seem unwinnable for the neg without disproving the aff's syllogism.

Non-T Affs:

- Firmly believe that affs should defend a topical plan.

- Fairness = clash >>> everything else. I also enjoy impact turns (e.g. heg, cap, and liberalism good).

- Most non-T affs seem to rely on implicit (read: unjustified) assumptions about debate’s impact on subject formation and fail to clear the presumption barrier.

- Unfamiliar with K vs. K debate.

Phil:

- I really like these arguments, although I rarely read them. Default comparative worlds and epistemic modesty, but I can be persuaded otherwise. Over-explain if your framework isn't util or Kant.

- The 1AC should have a framework – new 1AR framework justifications are probably illegitimate.

Tricks:

- I never read tricks and I'd prefer not to judge cheap-shot strategies, but I'll hear them out. Theory tricks seem intuitive; substantive tricks probably require more explanation.

As a former LD debater from the previous century, I am only qualified to judge Trad. Strike me if you want to run a progressive case. Read my Reality Check at the end if you'd like to know why.

1. I can't understand spreading and if I can't understand you, I can't judge you. I am OK with fast speakers but you must be comprehensible. I do value eloquent well-paced presentations but generally give the win based on content, not style.

2. I value analytical arguments and logic over cards/evidence while I appreciate that evidence matters in today's LD so I will give it due consideration. While I don't love pure policy arguments in LD, I will not ding debaters for running them since those are the rules of today's debate. I do value when debaters make the analytical contention ("why deterrence is effective") before getting into the specific policy ("US must deter Iran"). Don't worry about this if you are about to step into the round. Just do your thing.

3. I am not trained to judge theory and I am not in favor of K's. If you want to argue structural violence or settler colonialism, you should do so under the resolution. I believe that the rule of debate should be to debate the resolution, not whether the resolution is appropriate.

4. I am not sympathetic to extinction arguments unless there is overwhelming evidence tying the outcome to extinction (climate change brings plenty of harms but risk of extinction is minimal). I am open to probability/impact arguments but within reason.

5. I am open to counter-plans provided that they are an extension of a contention (e.g. "A" is both harmful and unnecessary solution to "X" because there is a better way to solve for "X" with "B" which my counter-plan). To win, you need to convince me that B is better than A at solving X.

6. I consider utilitarianism to be a valid Value Premise that can be effectively defended in a traditional LD round irrespective of whether you run policy arguments.

I am happy to provide feedback after I submit my ballot. So if you are interested, you can wait for me to finish and then I'll go through my flow with you, giving you tips.

Reality Check:

1. If a judge doesn't have Progressive LD or Policy experience, they are completely unqualified to judge a Progressive LD round. So running Progressive in front of such judges just doesn't make sense.
2. To be a top debater in today's LD, your must be effective at both Trad and Progressive. I think it's a shame since the two should be run as separate events but it's just the reality today.
3. Some of the practices you engage in doing Progressive will harm you in your career unless you can unhabituate yourself from them. (A) Fast speaking makes you look inept in corporate presentations. (B) Tricks teach poor ethics, encouraging winning dirty over winning fairly with better arguments. (C) K's suggest you that you can just refuse to debate a topic, claiming its offensive which is just not an option in the real world. (D) Overreliance on quotes from pundits rather than focusing on analysis makes you a great research clerk but not a great thinker. It's puzzling why you would engage in an activity which teaches you things that will harm your success in professional life. It's like playing high school tennis intentionally using the wrong grip and getting to used to it, knowing that you'll get crushed after high school playing with this grip. I get that Progressive Debate is a game with its own fun rules but Trad actually prepares for your future career success while Progressive does the opposite.

For these reasons, I think you should welcome the opportunity to debate Trad as much as possible.

'24 Spring Note: Being at nationals is a huge achievement (and privilege) and I hope you are all incredibly proud of yourselves for having made it through a year of debate as the world falls apart over and over. I take my role as a judge especially seriously now because I know that this competition is incredibly important to the debaters. I also see now as a more critical time than ever to ensure that our research projects in debate are based in facts, not fascism. On a personal level, please remember that this is one weekend out of your whole life, and I hope sincerely that you are taking care of yourself, your mental, and your physical wellbeing during the tournament and after.

Who I am

I (she/her) debated college policy (CEDA/NDT) at The New School, where I started as a college novice. I read Ks that were research projects about things I cared about. I value debate for its educational value, the research skills it builds, and the community it fosters. I have no issue dropping speaks or ballots for people who undermine the educational value of the activity by making people defend their personhood.

**I will be wearing a mask. I don't know y'all or where you've been and I don't want you to breathe on me. It's not personal. Please ask me for any other accessibility accommodations you need before the round and I will do my best to make the round comfortable for you!

For all formats (specifics below)

Email for the chain: newschoolBL@gmail.com

I vote on the flow. Do what you're good at and I will evaluate it: what is below are the biases I will default to without judge instruction, but if I am given instruction, I will take it. If provided them, I follow ROBs and ROJs seriously in framing my decision. I have voted both on the big picture and on technicalities.

I am excited to be in your debate, especially so if you are a novice, and I would love to chat post RFD if you have questions! :)

Policy:

DAs, CPs: Fine, no strong opinions here.

Ks: Yes, fine, good. Explain your links and your impact framing.

T: Hate when blippy, like when thorough & well-explained and have voted on T when it has won the debate many times. I am unlikely to vote on an education impact vs a K aff, though.

High theory for all of the above: Explain yourself. I don't vote on arguments I don't understand.

Likes: Clear spreading, smart debating, impact calculus, well-warranted arguments, case debate, thorough research, debaters from small schools.

Dislikes: Unnecessary hostility, bad evidence, blippy T blocks, strategies that rely on clowning your opponents, mumbling when spreading.

I am by far most comfortable in clash and KvK debates. I don't really care about policy v policy, but will give it the proper attention if put in them.

Public Forum:

If you don't share evidence, strike me. And also re-evaluate your ethical orientations.

Non-negotiables:

1) Email chain. The first speakers should set up the email chain BEFORE the round start time, include everyone debating and me, and share their full cases with evidence in a verbatim or Word document (if you have a chromebook, and in no other instances, a google doc is fine).

2) Evidence. Your evidence must be read and presented in alignment with the intent of whatever source you are citing. I care about evidence quality, and I care about evidence ethics. If you are paraphrasing or clipping, I will vote you down without hesitation. It's cheating and it's unethical.

Debate is a communication activity, but it is also a research activity, and I think that the single most important portable skill we gain from it is our ability to ethically produce argumentation and present it to an audience. I believe that PF has egregious evidence-sharing practices, and I will not participate in them.

I like smart debating, clear impact calculus, and well-warranted arguments.Do what you're good at and I'm with you! This includes your funky arguments.

I am fine with speed, but going fast does not make you a smarter or better debater and will not make me like you more.Debate is above all else a communication activity that is at its best when it's used for education. I can't stand it when more experienced or more resourced teams use a speed strategy to be incomprehensible to the other team so they drop things. It's bad debating and it perpetuates the worst parts of this activity.

Please be as physically comfortable as possible!! I do not care what you are wearing or whether you sit or stand. It will have literally zero impact on my decision.

I am far less grumpy and much more friendly than the PF section of my paradigm might make me seem. I love debate and go to tournaments voluntarily. See you in round!

catherinxliu@gmail.com

Sioux Falls Washington ‘21, Harvard ‘25

Experience: I did LD for 4 years. I now do a lot of APDA/BP. I mostly did traditional debate but am generally familiar with/did some circuit. I was a 2021 NSDA finalist in LD.

update for Harvard:

I do not know any topic-specific jargon. It’s in your best interest to explain things very clearly, no matter what position you run.

Here are my general thoughts about debate. Feel free to ask me other questions before the round starts.

• Tech > truth
• I am fine with evaluating most things, and you should run what you're most comfortable with. I would prefer if the aff is at least vaguely in the direction of the topic—what this looks like is up to you. Realistically, I am probably better at evaluating policy positions and stock Ks/phil than I am at evaluating theory or other Ks/phil, but I also think debaters who are good at explaining how things interact with the round will win anyways.
• Reasonable speed is okay, but my ability to understand spreading is really not very high now, and I will not flow off the doc. Slow down especially on tags and analytics.
• You need to extend the whole argument (warrant + impact).
• I usually find that the 2a/n is more effective when you collapse on fewer things that are well weighed instead of many things. If you don't weigh your arguments, I will have to do it for you, and you may be upset by what I think matters most.
• Most theory is fine, but the more frivolous it is, the lower my threshold for responses. Interpret this how you will.
• I will not evaluate tricks.
• Please compare link strength, especially in util v. util debates :(. If aff reads "US presence causes terror through anti-Western sentiment" and neg reads "actually US counterterrorism efforts decrease terror" and then both of you keep extending these arguments past each other without any further comparison, I have no idea how to evaluate the clash and will not vote on it, even if the impact itself is well weighed.
• I like clear judge instruction.

my email: klil.loeb@gmail.com

I did debate all four years of high school for Lexington. I debated LD for 3 years and PF for 1, so I'm pretty familiar with any type of argument. That being said, I do have some preferences that'll be helpful for me and you in terms of evaluating a round.

SCROLL DOWN FOR LD PARADIGM

PF Paradigm:

- Weigh. Clash is SO important and is too often avoided. All your arguments should be connected and should flow in a way that I can directly compare one to another. If both teams are talking about separate topics that don't interact, that's a pretty unsuccessful round, and I won't know where to vote.

- Extend. If something is dropped in any speech, I won't evaluate it, even if it's brought up again later. Make sure anything you want to factor into the decision is mentioned in every speech, and is especially emphasized in final focus. If its not brought all the way into your last speech, I'll consider it conceded, and won't vote on it.

- Sign post. If I don't know what you're talking about, I won't factor it into my decision.

- Be polite to your opponents. If you're rude, definitely expect me to lower speaks. It doesn't help you in any way to ruin what should otherwise be a good round with a bad attitude. Have fun and be nice and you'll have no problems.

- Most importantly - and what I'll be paying most attention to - use your last two speeches (especially final focus) to CLEARLY tell me why you should win the round over your opponent. The clearer you are, the easier it will be for me to make my decision, and the happier you'll be with the outcome. I vote off both offense and defense so make sure to maximize your voters.

Some little things:

- I'm fine w speed

- Time your own speeches and prep

- I don't flow/vote off cross. Anything you want me to remember should be brought up during speeches

- I love unconventional arguments

- DON'T have a loud conversation while I'm filling out my ballot omg i cannot express how much this irritates me

- Also feel free to make the round fun in any way - whatever that means to you, I love when people make me laugh (when its appropriate)

The debate is about you so have fun! I'm chill with anything as long as you do everything listed above:)

Feel free to ask any other questions before the round!

.

LD Paradigm:

I’d prefer if you didn’t read Israel-Palestine specific colonialism / genocide in front of me.

- do what you want for the most part i don't care if you just tell me why i should vote for you

- Tech > Truth

- I love plans/counterplans/disads etc.

- I like K's. I ran K's.

- I'm not super into phil but I'll vote on it if it's explained well. Make sure you actually understand what you're saying otherwise how am I supposed to figure it out from you.

- I like theory

- WEIGH AND WARRANT. If there's no clash, I won't know where to vote. The easier your arguments are to understand, the easier it is for me to vote

- FOR ONLINE DEBATES: slow down! It's almost impossible to understand when either my or your computer's slow. I'm fine with speed otherwise though if you're CLEAR!! If i can't understand you though, I'll dock your speaks.

Good luck:)

I'm a new parent judge. To me, tone is important, but the better argument and analytical rebuttal win. If you'd like to share your documents and cases with me, please email to clu130@gmail.com. Thank you very much!

Good luck, debaters!

Hi! I am a first-year parent judge for LD. I judged PF last year. I have no prior debating experience, so I hope that you have done plenty of research on your topic and that you will use credible evidence and sound logic to support your arguments!

My expectations for debaters:

--- Speak clearly and calmly in a medium pace when delivering your arguments.

--- Be enthusiastic and confident, but also act natural.

--- Follow the speech and prep time limits strictly and exchange evidence in a timely way.

--- State a clear set of contentions and subpoints in your case.

--- Signpost in your speeches.

--- Try not to interrupt your opponents or talk over each other during cross-examination.

--- Show good sportsmanship and make debate fun and enjoyable!

Thank you!

Coach for Break Debate: Conflict List---Barrington AC, Carnegie Vanguard LH, Durham SA, Flower Mound AM, Garland LA, L C Anderson LS, L C Anderson NW, Lexington MS, Lynbrook BZ, Lynbrook OM, Monta Vista EY, Oak Ridge AA, Sage Oak Charter AK, Scripps Ranch AS, Southlake Carroll AS, St Agnes EH, Seven Lakes VS.

I did LD debate at LHS for four years. I qualified for the TOC twice.

Speech docs are good for numerous reasons, especially evidence ethics, so send them.

Email: vmaan03@gmail.com

General Things:

1) If you are unclear and as a result, I miss arguments it is your fault. I will yell clear when needed - if an argument was half a sentence and unclear in the 1AR/1NC assume it doesn't meet the litmus test for having a warrant... meaning I won't vote for a collapse on it.

2) I am not debating, so I don't have a right to tell you what you read. Please do and read what you like. Just don't be boring.

3) Truth over tech is wack - A complete argument (claim, warrant, impact) if dropped is automatically true.

4) I have a low threshold for 1AR and 2AR extensions for dropped arguments - just mention the tag or interp - but I need explanations for its implications and applications on the flow.

5) Debates a game

6) I do not vote on ad hominems

7) I will boost speaks if you sit down early or/and take no prep only if you can still win.

---Varsity LD---

Quick Prefs

Theory - 1

Phil - 2

Policy - 2

Trick - 3

Kritiks - 5

-

For specifics -

Tricks: I'm well versed - people give this style of debate a bad name by extending every dropped sentence and throwing crap at the wall with no weighing or implication - impact out a few and explain why they justify a ballot. I would much rather prefer you read a few well-thought-out tricks that have a strategy in mind rather than 8 paragraphs of spikes.

Theory/T: No such thing as frivolous theory, reasonability is strategic if well justified, do standard weighing between multiple shells or I'll default substance. 1AR theory makes being aff so easy so read it lol. Yes, RVIs is a good argument.

Stock K's/Topical K's: I read these for most of my career. Please err on the side of heavy LBL rather than reading a 5-minute overview with loads of embedded clash. I view the K as a philosophical argument, so framing is important. I do have a higher threshold for voting on these arguments. Make sure you read warrants!

Non T: I read a lot of these. I enjoy the "debate good-bad" debate. T Framework makes the game work though so have well developed impact turns.

Policy/LARP: I enjoy these debates. Down for whatever.

Philosophy: I'm confident in evaluating this correctly. Please make framework interactions (hijacks are good). Don't shoehorn terrible offense just so you can read the Phil you want; you will probably lose. If you justify epistemic modesty, explain how I resolve the round correctly under it. I have a high threshold for winning extinction o/w against deontic theories - you probably won't win this if you lose util under epistemic confidence.

I am a parent judge, and this is my first national tournament. I discourage progressive argumentation, including theories, Ks, etc. I value arguments based upon sound evidence and logic.

I don't want to be included on an email chain or have your case sent to me via any platform. I strongly believe that debate is a speaking activity, not a writing contest. I will judge the debate based only on what you say in the room (provided, of course, that I can understand it!), not on what is written in your case. The only exception is if there is a dispute in the round over what a piece of evidence actually says. In that particular circumstance, I will ask for the evidence in dispute to be sent to me.

Please speak at a reasonable pace (NO SPREADING!). It is your responsibility as a debater to make sure that your speech is clear and intelligible. The faster your pace, the more clearly you must speak. If I cannot flow what you argue because of your rapid pace, then I won't be able to consider it in determining who won the debate. In other words, if I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Full disclosure -- I prefer a slower debate. I think it allows for an overall better style of speaking with more involved argumentation.

I do not tolerate disrespect for your opponent or your judge.

I wish you the best of luck in the tournament.

I am a parent judge and have been participating in local and national high school LD debates since 2018. I prefer sound evidence, compelling arguments and solid voter issues. I enjoy LD debates and hope we all have fun!

Please don't spread or go deep into theory.

I like strong evidence chains

Former LD Debater from Richmond, VA. Dual degree student at Columbia and Sciences Po Paris (poli/phil major). Work with Richmond Debate Institute, Champion Briefs.

LD:

Likes: LARP/Policy/Trad, Kritik, Phil, Action Plans/Advocacy.

Meh: Aff K's, Theory, specifically Disclosure stuff (I think it's a bad norm, but if you convince me and weigh it, I can vote on it).

Don't run: Tricks.

I don't care about speed, just if it is anything above a moderately fast conversational speed, I will ask for a speech doc just so I don't lose stuff. Send docs to vm2659@columbia.edu.

Generally flexible (except on tricks), so if you feel comfortable running something under the theory category and you're worried that I will treat you unfairly don't be. If your argument makes sense, I will flow it and respect it. You only need to make it clear, if it is anything other than trad, why your argument matters more than debating the resolution. If you try to claim fiat win because your opponent didn't mention topic "x" before you did, I just won't really weigh that impact very highly (or at least, the burden will be on you to prove why I should weigh that highly).

Generally tech>truth, caveat things like racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-semitism, etc. Debate space being safe matters above all else. Should a debater violate that, they will be immediately dropped with low speaks. After that, the only reason I am not fully tech is that if you do not weigh things like the probability of your impact when talking about things like nuclear war, then I will have to do the weighing for you. Don't make me do guesswork, use your 2AR or 2NR to do your job.

Big pet peeve: if there is a significant and noticeable discrepancy in debate ability between you and your opponent or they do not understand your argument because you are doing some complicated prog stuff like a kritik with really big scary words, please try to meet your opponent at their level to some degree such that they can engage. I will still give you a win if your opponent does not understand your argument and the argument itself is well-done and coherent, but I will DEFINITELY give you lower speaks if you are merciless in your pursuit of my ballot. Help novices and younger debaters get better at the sport by giving them the opportunity to respond to your arguments, even if that means narrowing the gap between y'all on a technical level.

If you want me to consider an argument, you better extend it and the relevant evidence clearly in later speeches. Do not just read the name of the author, say something about what is in the card. Don't make it easy to forget why you are winning the round or I might just forget. Things that weren't said in 1AR should also not, for that reason, end up in the 2AR as a voting issue.

Lastly, have fun. I don't like when debates are super stuffy and stressful. Make jokes, treat your opponent cordially (try not to be snarky during cross or uncharitable during the round), and don't be obnoxious. I'll enjoy myself if I see y'all are enjoying yourselves.

PF:

Honestly similar vibes as above.

Run whatever you want, have fun, be respectful, debate evidence well, and extend things. Weigh in later speeches. Be friendly during crossfires. I don't care if you run a K but just make sure you can run it well. Bad kritiks are horrible to watch play out.

Collapsing to specific arguments =/= dropping your entire case. If this turns into a debate where both teams are arguing on a single turn they're applying to each others' contentions, the debate begins to feel pretty stupid.

If you are second-speaking team, do try and frontline against the rebuttals read by first speaker just before your speech. It feels rather ridiculous when someone gets up and gives a four-minute speech and it's like the next person completely ignored them.

I think speech docs should also be a norm in PF because I find evidence sharing upon request takes really long and can just be pre-empted with really zero drawbacks, but if teams prefer to do evidence sharing upon request for whatever reason, let us please find a way that does not require too much time outside of the round. I do not like waiting 10 minutes between speeches when no prep time has been taken.

No typing or doing any prep work when a clock is not running (aka you can prep while your opponent takes prep time but, for example, do not try to prep while your opponent is sending evidence; that's just taking advantage of the system).

Have fun: PF is a fun format when done right, let's have a good time.

I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly and be respectful during the debate.

I care deeply about warrant strength and will intervene against over-claimed impacts. Please avoid theory and be reasonable.

I am a parent judge who has been judging a little over two years now. I am most comfortable with traditional debate but if you want to run theory or a K then you need to explain it extremely well. No spreading please as if I can’t hear your argument I can’t give you points for it.
Please be respectful and good luck to all.

Deena R. McNamara, Esq.

Updated for Harvard 2024

Please include me on the email chain at deena.mcnamara@ahschool.com or create a SpeechDrop before the commencement of the round. If the round starts at x time, then please ensure that the doc is sent or uploaded by x time.

My Background:

I competed in LD and policy debate in high school. In college, I competed in LD and CEDA. College LD and CEDA (back in those days) were very similar to circuit LD. Debaters used T, theory and even Ks back in those dark ages of debate.

I have been a litigation attorney in excess of 26 years. I have judged LD on and off for the last 20 years. Both of my children competed in LD. Even though my kids have already graduated from college, I have remained in the community as a debate coach and judge. I have been coaching LD for American Heritage Palm Beach since 2021. I believe that debate is life changing for students of all backgrounds and abilities. I view my role as the judge not only to adjudicate your round fairly and to the best of my abilities, but to teach you something that you could do better next time to enhance your skills and arguments.

I have judged at high level competitions and in out-rounds at Harvard, Yale, Emory, Princeton, Glenbrooks, Bronx, NFL/NSDA nationals, CFL nationals, Duke, Florida Blue Key, Wake Forest and many others. I always familiarize myself with the topic literature prior to each tournament. I pay attention to every detail in the round. I can flow your case as fast as you can say it… I will keep saying clear if you are not clear. I want to hear every word that you say as it matters in the round. I take the round very seriously and I even flow CX. CX is super-important in the round, so please make sure that you are not sitting in a desk facing away from me during CX. Judges who think that CX does not matter really do not understand the purpose of debate; I will leave it at that. Additionally, I will not view your speech doc unless my hearing fails me or I am reviewing your evidence for context and accuracy. I care about your round and will do my absolute best to judge it as fairly as possible.

I try to be a tabula rasa judge; however, like everyone I do have certain dislikes and preferences.

Important:

Please do not text or message with anyone outside of the round during the round for any reason whatsoever. To be clear, you should not receive any texts, messages, emails, documents or any other form of communication whatsoever from anyone outside of the round during the round.

Case type/argument preferences:

Phil- 1

K -1

Perm with Doublebind arguments- 1

Turns on case and/or FW-1

Line-by-Line -1

Non-T Affs-2

T- 2

Disads- 2

Theory to check abuse- 3

CP- 3

Kicking arguments- 4

Contradictory case positions-5

Collpasing on an argument in last rebuttal when there is offense on other arguments in round- 5

Theory read as time suck- 5

Policy Affs/Plans/LARP- 5

FW/Phil Debate:

I love phil cases, dense phil cases, detailed frameworks with lots of philosphical warrants and well-written analytics that are interspersed in your framework. I am especially familiar with Kant, Ripstein, Korsgaard, Rand, Aristotle, Locke, Rawls, Rousseau, Hobbes, Mill, Bentham, Petit, Christiano, Moore and probably a few others that I cannot think of off the top of my head. I expect detailed frameworks and contention level arguments that link to the framework. You cannot win on FW alone, unless it has offense sufficient to affirm or negate the resolution.

Ks:

I love Ks when they are well-written. I am familiar with Agamben, Butler, Baudrillard, D & G, Foucault, Hedva, Ahmed, Wilderson, Warren, and some other authors that I have come across since I started reading these books. Just ask me and I will let you know my level of familiarity with the arguments. If you decide to run a K, then provide me the link and alternative. It is insufficient to say, "reject Capitalism" and leave me hanging as to what happens after we reject it. On the ROTB/ROTJ args, you have to make them specific; don't just tell me that you win because you minimize oppression of minorities. Who? How? Also, please weigh your arguments against your opponent's FW or ROTB/ROTJ if they provided a different one. Don't tell me things like "they keep biting into my K" as some justification you expect to win on. Seriously- I need analysis of arguments, not just blippy responses that you think qualify as extensions or arguments against your opponent's args. If you make a blippy argument, then that is how I weigh the argument in the round- minimally. I know that your time is limited in round, especially in the 1ar, so I do take that into consideration.

Plans/CPs/DAs/Perms:

I am not a fan of LARP debate. If you want to read a bunch of evidence with heavy stats and nuke war impacts, then maybe you should consider policy debate. Debaters have been reading brink arguments since the beginning of time and we are still here. If you read a Plan or Counterplan in the round, please ensure that it is suffciently developed and there is offense. Please do not read generic DAs- make sure they are relevant and specific to the argument made by your opponent. If you read a Perm then please slow down and explain it because debates get messy when these arguments are not fleshed out. When you are making arguments against a Perm, please slow down and explain your arguments clearly as to why they cannot Perm or why you outweigh on net benefits. I am not going to go back to your speech doc to figure out what you said and make the connections for you. I do love double-bind arguments and I think they are very strategic in policy debate. If you make a double-bind argument, then please slow down so I can truly enjoy the argument as you make it; I aprpeciate it.

Non-T affs, T, theory and misc.:

I am fine with non-T affs, but I think you can figure out some way to make the Aff topical so the Neg can engage in the substance of the debate. I am amenable to reasonable topicality arguments - not BS ones for time suck.I know that everyone wants to uplayer the Neg and read so many positions that the other side cannot answer; however, one of the key purposes of debate is to engage critically with the arguments made by the other debater. When the neg takes no prep time before the 1NC and says that they are sending the doc, I always question what level of engagement will occur in the 1NC if the doc was ready before the Neg even had the opportunity to question the Aff. Please do not just run a generic theory arg because you expect that I will vote on it before your opponent's case. It has to be a legit violation. You have to try to clarify in CX and CX is binding. I am fine with theory ONLY to check abuse. Again, check it in cx. I am fine with flex prep too. I am not a fan of disclosure theory because it is harder for smaller programs/lone wolf debaters to be competitive when they are prepped out by larger programs. However, I do expect varisty debaters at national competitions to email the entire Aff before reading the 1AC and the neg to email the NC that will be read prior to reading it, etc. This does not need to occur a half hour before the round unless the tournament rules say otherwise. I do expect debaters to send cases and evidence in round or to provide hard copies. If your wiki says that you will run disclosure theory if….. (insert made up rule here), then please do not expect me to vote on that. Like I said, theory is supposed to check abuse in the round. I am not voting on what happens outside the round. Also, T is different from theory. If you do not know the difference, then please do not argue with me after the round. I will explain the difference to you, but I won't engage in a lengthy debate with you on it. I get my fill of arguing in Court with pain in the a$$ attorneys. I expect you to address all of your opponent’s arguments and uphold your own in each of your speeches. No new arguments are allowed in rebuttals, but extensions and refutations of ongoing arguments are encouraged (and necessary if you would like to win!) Speaking quickly/spreading is acceptable if you slow down for the tag lines and key arguments; I will yell clear. However, your arguments need to make it onto my flow. I am a flow judge, but if I cannot understand you, then I cannot evaluate your arguments. I will have a copy of your case, but I do not want to rely on it. Communication is critical in the round. If I am reading your document, then I am not listening to you. I can read at home… I want to hear the arguments made in round.

LD as a sport:

LD is a sport. It requires hard work and endurance. You are an LDer because you choose to be. There is no other event like it in debate.

However, LD can also be toxic for some debaters who feel excluded, marginalized or bullied. Please make sure that you are courteous to your opponent. If you are debating a novice or an inexperienced varsity debater, please do not spread like you would in an out round. Try to adapt and win on the arguments. Just be kind to them so that they do not leave the event because they feel they cannot keep up. They may not have the private coaches that you do. It is tough on the circuit when you do not have the circuit experience because your school does not travel, or you do not have the funds to travel. Some debaters are in VLD, but do not have the experience that you do. If you are the better debater and have the better case, then you will win. We want to encourage all LDers because LD is truly the best event.

Please be considerate of triggers and of past experiences that your opponent may have suffered. It is not fun to judge a round where a competitor is crying or losing their cool because of something that is happening in round. No round is worth hurting someone else to win. Plus, if you act like a total d-bag and are so disrespectful that I am angry (which takes a lot to get me angry) then you will lose and be given low speaks.

Voters and what I like to vote on:

Please give me voters. It is helpful to me as the judge to see why you thought you won the round. If I think you are wrong, then I can tell you on the ballot and you will learn from it. If you are right and I agree with you, then I can use your voters in the RFD. I tend to vote on offense and who proves the truth or falsity of the resolution. I do not have a strong preference of aff or neg so do not expect me to default neg. However, the aff's burden of proof is a bit more difficult. Just be clear on why you affirm or negate. Finally, I do not necessarily follow the strict "layers" of debate. So if you are curious as to what I will vote on first (in terms of theory, T, Ks, etc.), please ask me before the round. I always want debaters to be clear as to how I will evaluate the round.

Pet Peeves:

Please do not say "my opponent conceded the argument" when they really did not and please do not ask me if you can use the rest of your CX as prep. The answer is obviously “no.” Also, there are some new acronyms and phrases floating around that I am not familiar with so please ensure that you explain your arguments so I do not miss something important in your case. Lastly, please do not read off of a script. Flow and make arguments in the round; that is the fun part of debate! You do not have to send extempted analytics in the round.

I am a lay judge from Arizona with three years experience judging Public Forum and Lincoln-Douglas debate.

I base my decisions on the cases, cross examinations and rebuttals presented by the competitors. I do not finish cases, refute evidence or drop points for you. I rarely ask for evidence unless I suspect shenanigans. Please make your own, complete, cohesive case and clash with your opponent. Keep in mind, the farther you stretch your links, the more likely you are to lose me. I prefer elegance over cleverness.

I enjoy LD as the best forum to engage value-based debate without a presumed burden or the need for detailed plans. As such, I feel many of the progressive strategies of Policy debate often become unnecessary tricks and gimmicks in LD. I'll accept theory and kritics, but I still expect topical clash. A debater using a K accepts the burden that comes with an a priori discussion, handicapped by the lack of speaking time allowed in Policy. It's a gamble.

I accept speed. However, I find it lacks elegance and it's unpleasant. Please don't speak faster, just speak less. Economize. Using speed won't hurt your case, (unless I miss something), but it will hurt your speaker points.

Updated 1/20/24

Georgetown '24

I did policy debate for 4 years in high school to moderate success, and debated at Georgetown for a couple years.

Add me to the email chain - medeirosb2002@gmail.com

Do what you do and do it well and you will be fine.

DISCLAIMER FOR LD DEBATERS:

- You can read whatever you want and I will adjudicate the debate to the best of my abilities, but I don't have that much experience judging LD, and I have practically no experience judging phil debates and LD theory debates.

Things that are non-negotiable:

- Blatant racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia is an auto loss, and I will give you the lowest speaks possible.

Some things to keep in mind:

- I typically ascribe to the belief that speech times and the structure of the debate are not flexible, but I guess I'm open to being persuaded otherwise here.

- I do not typically feel comfortable making decisions based on issues that occurred outside of the debate round (with exceptions for things like disclosure theory).

- Presumption flips negative by default.

- Beyond the above, my only strong disposition is the negative team gets to do pretty much whatever. I can probably be convinced otherwise. That said, I've included a list of miscellaneous dispositions loosely organized by argument.

Risk Calculus:

- Tech > Truth.

- Frame the debate however you want, but do it well and explain why it matters.

- Author qualifications matter. Debate is a research activity, and debaters should do good research.

- Spark is a terrible argument. This isn't really "risk calculus," but I felt the need to say this and wasn't sure where else I could.

Theory:

- Conditionality is good (usually).

- All theory arguments other than conditionality are (usually) a reason to reject the argument.

- Another disclaimer for LD debaters: I don't really end up judging a lot of friv theory debates, and I'm not sure I know how to judge these debates, but I recognize that LD and policy are pretty different so I'll do my best to put my own biases aside in these kinds of debates.

Topicality v Plans:

- Limits are awesome, but only if they are precise.

- I default to competing interpretations. Reasonability is not an argument if it is not coupled with a reasonable counter-interpretation.

Disadvantages:

- Topic disadvantages are great.

- The disadvantage should probably turn the case.

Counterplans:

- Counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive.

- Process counterplans and consult counterplans probably do not compete.

- Word PICs probably do not compete.

- I will judge kick the counterplan unless I am told not to.

Kritiks/Planless Affs:

- Fairness is an impact.

- I am fine with any and all genres of kritikal literature. That said, I don't have an extensive background with every field of critical literature that debaters like to talk about, so I may not understand what you're saying unless you go out of your way to explain it.

- In K v K debates, make the interactions between different theories of power very clear. I will happily adjudicate these debates, but am likely to end up a little confused.

Hi, I'm Laura (she/her)

I am a parent judge.

I am fine with faster than conversational speed, but make sure I can flow.

Feel free to include me on the email chain: lmeyermd@gmail.com

I will vote off the flow and won't intervene. I am best at evaluating more traditional or slower policy style rounds, and open to more basic kiritiks and philosophy. Whatever you read, make sure you are explaining your links and giving good judge instruction.

Email: timothy.matt.meyer@gmail.com

1/21/23

I am getting back into circuit/progressive debate this year, though the last time I was considerably involved was 2020. When running advanced arguments do your best to make it clear what my role is and why it matters. Speedwise, I'm still a bit rusty, and don't like being overly reliant on docs (self rating of 7.5).

RVI's

My default position is against RVI's, with the only exception being extreme quantity (of legitimate violations) or severity of a single one.

Slightly tech over truth

__________________________________________________

Experience /Qualifications:

I've been a part of forensics for almost 10 years, competed in multiple IE's and both Lincoln Douglas and Parliamentary debate. Qualified and broke at nationals. Coached state and national finalists and extremely competitive PF and Parli teams at the state level.

Preferences

All forms of debate:

Make sure you signpost effectively and clearly convey your arguments. Also clearly illustrate any links and impacts you have.

I have a fair understanding of the active topics (and am always interested to learn more in these rounds) but it is against my principles to make arguments for you. I won't connect your links/impacts to something you haven't said in round, so don't assume that I will.

I'm fine with speed for whatever is reasonable for your event (policy-✓✓✓, LD-✓✓, PF-✓, Parli-why?). Debate is educational, nobody wants to be in a round where they are just being yelled at incomprehensibly. Respect clears and share your docs.

I have a more traditional background; if your impacts are extinction, make sure the link chain in getting there is clear. I strongly prefer impacts grounded in reality that cleanly flow through vs a shoddy push at 5 different extinction scenarios.

My most important personal preference: Manners

This activity is very competitive and confrontational. I understand that sometimes it can get heated. But at any point if anything offensive is done to the other team, I will immediately drop speaker points (and potentially the round based on the severity.) It's important to engage in discourse respectfully.

Lincoln Douglas:

Make sure to clash and subsequently defend your framework. This is the crux of your case, you shouldn't be moving over it.

Be organized, and clearly lay out how your arguments interact with your opponents.

Fairly open to progressive argumentation. I enjoy Kritiks (though I'm a bit rusty on these) and Plans. I'm not a big fan of theory but respect meaningful shells (frivolous theory). Respect the rules of the tournament as well. I really don't want to have to run to tab to figure out if your arguments are legal or not.

Public Forum:

I want clear links and impacts from both sides. Anything you think is important, emphasize. Make sure to be organized and professional.

I accept the use of Kritiks/theory when permissible, but recognize the format of PF is not conducive to the depth of kritiks in my opinion.

I pay attention during cross but won't judge on it. Make sure anything you want to be flowed is said in round.

Parliamentary:

Signpost Signpost Signpost

Signposting is more important here than in any other event. Make sure you are organized, and you are consistently signposting throughout your speeches. If I get lost, there's a good chance a main argument will be missed.

Make your links clear and stay relevant to the resolution for your arguments to flow through.

Argument wise, basically anything goes (frivolous theory).

I am a second-year engineering student at Northeastern University. I participated in my high school speech and debate team in both congressional debate and extemporaneous speaking. I have history judging speech and debate events since attending college, however, I will only be working LD this tournament. I have few strict standards for your theoretical framework- I look for reasonable, introspective, and hopefully unique interpretations of resolutions. I vary per round on value premise and criterion significance, specifically will focus on rounds with less broad philosophical arguments/premises. I value direct and well articulated arguments and clear cut dismantling- quality over quantity debate! I am fine with any speed within reason, simply ask that you emphasize enunciation and volume if you do choose to speak on the faster side- can only flow what I can hear. I find weighing mechanisms helpful and unless you have a strong, evidence-based argument I do not find theory debates a good use of time. Use any technology you would like and I have no preference on standing/sitting, I am also willing to give time signals if needed but please ask for them prior will not assume most of you will need. Please be respectful and keep an appropriate attitude towards your opponent- excited to hear what you all have worked so hard to prepare for !!!

My Paradigm:

Parent Judge

Background: Mechanical Engineering; Marketing Management; Data Architecture in Business/Data Analytics

I Look for these qualities among Debaters:

1. Factual Evidence in Speech, well-supported arguments
2. Mutual Respect for one another;
1. respectful interruption on cross-examination is a skill every debater must have
3. Staying in the context of the resolution
1. if argument seems far-fetched, there must be a clear and defined link between the argument and your side of the resolution.
4. Proper time management
1. line-by-line analysis and extending arguments
2. bring closure for arguments/summarize

Keller Moore

I love to see a debate that clashes repeatedly over a few arguments. Quality of arguments over quantity is preferred. Do not attempt modern debate tactics; I want a clean, clear battle. Define the key terms you will use so you do not equivocate on them. Pick up every argument your opponent makes; I cede the victory to the debater with the fewest dropped arguments.

Do not run k. Do not run theory. I will call you out if you spread too fast.

Stick to the resolution. Arguments presented about different things are irrelevant.

Debate aesthetics matter to me. You should look like you care about your topic. Dress as if you care too; your outfit or ensemble's taste conveys how professional you are trying to be.

And please, speak well, not hurriedly. Fewer sentences spoken more eloquently are more convincing than more sentences spoken less so.

email chains are good in the absence of paper copies - jimi.morales@successacademies.org

if you only read one part of my paradigm, this should be it -i have tinnitus and in spite of this condition will not use the speech doc to flow because you can still be intelligible without me needing to actively read over evidence . good (sp)/(eed)/(reading) with vocal variation and pacing exists and is easy to follow - (poor/unpracticed) spreading will tank your speaks and likely result in the L!!! please strike me if you cannot meet this condition-the conversations are becoming more and more uncomfortable after neither debater reads the paradigm and then both expect me to given an intelligent RFD to resolve an unintelligible debate. quality over quantity typically wins my ballots. id rather you articulate multiple solid links for one argument than run 7 off case positions with vague/weak links.

i often use the speech doc as a reference point if evidence in the debate is disputed or referenced in a rebuttal speeches as something i should look at post round as a key warrant for the decision.

framework is often useful. so is the keeping up the with "the news"

that being said, my job is to be a neutral arbiter for a single debate of which the only usual rules are the speech times. just when i think i've seen it all in the activity, debate has a way of pleasantly surprising me.

i am listening to cross-x and you can/should reference it.

i like well researched positions that don't contradict themselves unless explained in advance or immediately after why those contradictions are ok. if you run ironic performance positions without explaining or looking up from your laptop, i will take your words literally. this will likely make you upset at my decision.

if your coach or another competitor wrote anything you are reading and you haven't re-written it, unless you really understand the argument, you probably don't want me judging.

ask me specific questions about subjects not listed above and i will happily answer them to the best of my ability.

Hi! My name is Elizabeth Murno, I use she/her pronouns

I debated LD for 4 years at Harrison High School and I teach at NSD. I debated natcir but i love trad :)

My email is Lizzie.murno@gmail.com

• If you are able to, please do not read util in front me. If you only read util, please strike me. I hate it. I really don't want to hear about how I am going to die regardless of if we affirm or negate. I have been hearing that extinction will happen in debate for 6 years now and I really do not want to hear it anymore. Obviously if you only have access to util because you are a small team or cut all your own prep I will not hold it against you, but if you are able to read a more nuanced argument then please do because I am tired or pummer.

• Time yourself please I HATE cutting people off but I will not flow any args made after the timer. Finish your sentence but be reasonable.

• Tech and Truth? I will default to whoever is winning the argument, even if I don't agree with it or think it's false it's not up to me if it was dropped. HOWEVER, If the clash is such a wash and there is literally nothing else I can evaluate the debate one, I WILL GO FOR TRUTH. This also makes me inclined to actually read your evidence, especially when it's a hard decision to make. However, DO NOT RELY ON ME TO INTERVENE.

Prefs

Ks - 1

Non-T performance - 1

Soft Left K/K aff - 1

Theory - 2/3

Phil - 4/5

LARP - 5/6

Tricks - Strike

Ks

Even though I was a K debater, do not run it in front of me just because of that - if you don't know it, I won't like it. I read mostly performance Ks, set col, fem Ks, and cap Ks.

If you are reading a K on the neg against a util aff. DONT ASSUME I WILL JUST REJECT UTIL. You need to read a ROB and/or ROJ and tell me why it comes before util and why util is bad. Do not get mad at me for voting for a bad util aff over a good K if you didnt do the work to tell me why your discussion comes first when your opponent tells me why util comes first.

If you have me and aren't a K debater I would love it if you had some soft left K aff (basically implementation of the resolution but impact to structural violence, or a ROB about equality. Just. Not. Util.)

Larp

Larp can be done well, but I will just never get on the Util bandwagon - if you win it I'll vote on it, but I certainly will not be happy.

I will not default to util. Read a framework (I have seen this way too many times).

T/Theory

I read Ks but that doesn't mean that no K is abusive. Give me a good TVA, one that is specific to the K (if you don't have one because they didn't disclose, tell me that). Theory can be really interesting to me if you know what you are doing and I enjoy a good extension of each part.

T against non T affs should be more nuanced. I generally prefer topic theory over T-FW, and I think that if you are reading T-FW there should be a good TVA with a solvency advocate. I also think that you should though some impact turns/critical reasons being non t is bad. in the shell.

Disclosure, PICs bad, condo, rob spec, etc - I think that these arguments need to have a clear abuse story. If you are saying "I can't engage" but are clearly engaging you need to tell me "theory is about norm setting, not what you do it's what you justify". On the other hand, I do appreciate theory and t as an out in a very challenging round substantively.

Phil

I am a philosophy major which means that if you read bad philosophy to me (i.e. you are unable to analytically justify your fw and rely on cards that make no sense) then I will definitely vote you down. I do not understand the way that a lot of people read phil in LD because you don't have a set of premises and a conclusion.

For Novice LD:

- Novice debate is really challenging in the beginning so don't worry! I will try to help as much as a can with my reason for decision (RFD). Ask me any questions you have after the round.

- Feel free to run any argument you are comfortable with as long as it is explained, links to the winning framework, etc, I will probably vote for it.

- Novice rounds are usually messy (It is okay, you are new!), just try to explain all of your arguments, why that means you win, and how you link to the winning framework.

- I want clear voting issues at the end or during your speech.

- I want some big picture arguments explaining what the neg/aff world's would look like (especially in util debates.)

-Overall, have fun with it and try your best!

I am a parent judge, and this is my second year of judging debate rounds.

Do not run theory, phil, Ks, Tricks, etc.

Plans and CPs are fine.

I am familiar with traditional frameworks like util and MSV, and others if explained well.

Do not use technical jargon … if you do -explain it in short. Otherwise, the argument will be lost on me.

Please don't Spread. - Debate is a communication based activity, and I prefer to understand what you are saying with minimal effort. Although my vote will not be solely based on your speed of delivery, it is hard for me to vote for you if I don’t understand the arguments you are making.

I would like both debaters to please be respectful to one another during the round. Please keep the round civil and courteous. My vote will go to the person who convinces me more of their position overall.

Hello there,

As a parent judge with over one year of judging experience, I would like to ask those who are spreading to present their arguments clearly. I pay close attention to the flow of the argument and how well it is presented and clearly communicated. Speak in simple English. Please avoid jargon. If any acronyms are used, it is the debater's responsibility to expand the acronyms.

If one debater has strongly debated their argument, I will look for their opponent's ability to strongly rebut the argument.

I ask debaters not to use K's, theory, or any form of progressive debate.

It is essential to respect your opponent and, most importantly, enjoy the debate. Thank you for your cooperation.

Thank you!

I am a parent judge.

no theory, no K's, no complicated phil, no tricks

Speed:

DO NOT SPREAD, please speak clearly

I'm not a picky judge, but I'm used to a traditional style of debate; Idon'tappreciate spreading and it will make it harder for me to judge you.

Disclaimer: Haven't thought about debate since FRESHMAN YEAR (2020), haven't thought about circuit debate since SENIOR YEAR OF HIGH SCHOOL. I do not know the topic. I would not advise going full speed, but you are free to ignore that advice at your peril (I often did!)

Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, or rude. I will not like you, and if given a reason, will drop you.

I did LD in high school both lay and on the circuit. If you have any questions about the rest of my paradigm just ask me: guacomole13@gmail.com.

Harvard update: Please have clash. Please.

Overall stuff:

- Tech > Truth

- Add me to the email chain. I'll be a bit more lax with the doc-sending times given the online stuff but don't take too long.

- An argument needs claim and a warrant at least please, and I'm being generous with that. Please stop making claims without a warrant.

- Ill vote on pretty much anything that's warranted and impacted both generally and to my ballot. I don't give credence to one lit base over another. Reading something just because you think i'd like it is probably not the way to go but do you I guess.

- Debate can be whatever you want it to be, whether that's a game, a liberation strategy, or an activity you do just cause.

- Decision Calculus = "who's winning framing" "who's winning offense under that framing". I’ll evaluate “layers” and all that jazz but thats work you have to do. If your strategy requires a different evaluative mechanism just make that clear

- Absent framing I'll presume util=trutil

- Don't assume I've read your lit

Rankings (less an 1:1 recommendation of how to pref me and more an order of what I am most familiar with 1 being the highest)

K: 1

"LARP": 1

T: 2

Theory: 2-3

Framework/Phil: 3

Tricks: 4

please don't assume i remember random LD terms; fully explain your args, and have fun!

Overview

Hi, I am Jacob Palmer (he/they). I did 4 years of policy at Emory. I also did 4 years of LD at Durham and have coached at Durham since I graduated. I mostly judge LD but occasionally find myself in a PF or Policy pool, so most of this paradigm is targeted at LDers. Regardless of the event I am judging though, I will do my best to adapt to you and evaluate the round solely off the flow. TDLR: Don’t cheat. Be a good person. Make real arguments. Do those things, and I will adapt to you.

Add me to the chain: jacob.gestypalmer@gmail.com. I won't backflow off the doc, and I will yell clear or slow if needed. Docs should be sent promptly at the round start time.

Feel free to read the arguments that interest you. If you make warranted arguments and tell me why they matter in the broader context of the debate you will do well. I will evaluate any argument that has a warrant, clear implication, and isn't actively exclusionary. I am tech in that I will keep a rigorous flow and evaluate the debate solely off that flow, but there are some limits to my tech-ness as a judge. I will always evaluate every speech in the debate. I will not evaluate arguments made after speech times end. I think arguments must be logically valid and their warranting should be sound. I think lazy warranting is antithetical to technical argumentation. As a logical extension of that, spamming arguments for the sake of spamming arguments is bad. Reading truer arguments will make your job and my job substantially easier. I won't vote on something not explained in round.

Be a good person. Debate often brings out the worst of our competitive habits, but that is not an excuse for being rude or disrespectful. Respect pronouns. Respect accessibility requests. Provide due content warnings.

Since other people do this and I think its nice to respect the people that helped me in my own debate journey, thank you to the all the people that have coached me or shaped who I am as a debater: Jackson DeConcini, Bennett Dombcik, Allison Harper, Brian Klarman, DKP, Ed Lee, Becca Steiner, Gabe Morbeck, Mikaela Malsin, Marshall Thompson, CQ, Nick Smith, and Devane Murphy. Special thanks to Crawford Leavoy for introducing me to this activity.

Specifics

Policy – Advantages and DAs shouldn’t be more complicated than they need to be. Plan and counterplan texts should be specific and have a solvency advocate. Spec is fine against vague positions but the sillier the shell the harder it will be to win an actual internal link to fairness or education. I'm generally fine with condo, but the more condo you read the more receptive I'll be to theory. To win the 2ar on condo the 1ar shell needs to be more than a sentence. Judge kick is fine, but I won't do it unless you tell me to. The 2nr in LD is not a 2nc. If your 2nr strategy relies on reading lots of new impact modules or sandbagging cards that should've been in the 1nc, I am not the judge for you. To an extent, carded 2nr blocks are fine, e.g. when answering a perm, but all the evidence you should need to win the 2nr should just be in the 1nc.

T – Don't be blippy. Weigh between interps and show what Affs, Advantages, DAs, etc. are actually lost or gained. The worst T debates are an abstract competition over ethereal goods like fairness. The best T debates forward a clear vision of what debates on the topic should look like and explains why the debates based on one interpretation of the topic are materially more fair or educational than others. I think affirmatives should generally be predictably limited. I think functional limits can solve a lot of neg offense if correctly explained.

K – These debates are also probably where I care the most about quality over quantity. Specificity matters - Not all Ks are the same and not all plans are the same. If your 1nc shell doesn’t vary based on the 1ac, or your 1ar blocks don’t change based on the kritik I will be very sad. I generally think I should vote for whoever did the better debating, but y'all are free to hash out what that means.

More often than not, it seems like I am judging K debates nowadays. Whether you are the K debater or the Policy/Phil debater in these rounds, judge instruction is essential. The 2nr and 2ar should start with a clear explanation of what arguments need to be won to warrant an aff or neg ballot and why. The rest of the 2nr or 2ar should then just do whatever line-by-line is necessary to win said arguments. I find that in clash debates more than other debates, debaters often get lost in extending their own arguments without giving much round-specific contextualization of said extensions or reasons why the arguments extended are reasons they should win the debate. You need to tell me what to do with the arguments you think you are winning and why those specific arguments are sufficient for my ballot.

Non-T/Planless Affs – I am happy to judge these debates and have no issues with non-t affs. Solvency is important. From the 1ac there should be a very clear picture of how the affirmative resolves whatever harms you have identified. For negatives, T USFG is solid. I’ve read it. I’ve voted on it. Turn strategies (heg good, growth good, humanism good, etc.) are also good. For T, I find topical versions of the aff to be less important than some other judges. Maybe that’s just because I find most TVAs to be largely underdeveloped or not actually based in any real set of literature. Cap and other kritiks can also be good. I no qualms evaluating a K v K or methods debate.

Phil – I love phil debates. I think these debates benefit greatly from more thorough argumentation and significantly less tricks. Explain your syllogism, how to filter offense, and tell me what you're advocating for. If I don't know how impact calc functions under your framework, then I will have a very hard time evaluating the round. If your framework has a bunch of analytics, slow down and number them.

Theory – Theory should be used to check legitimate abuse within the debate. As with blatantly untrue DAs or Advantages, silly theory arguments will be winnable, but my threshold of what constitutes a sufficient response will be significantly lower. Slow down on the analytics and be sure to weigh. I think paragraph theory is fine, but you still need to read warrants. I think fairness and education are both important, and I haven’t really seen good debates on which matters more. Debates where you weigh internal links to fairness and/or education are generally much better. I think most cp theory or theoretical objections to other specific types of arguments are DTA and really don’t warrant an RVI, but you can always convince me otherwise.

Tricks – If this is really your thing, I will listen to your arguments and evaluate them in a way that I feel is fair, granted that may not be the way you feel is most fair. I have found many of the things LDers have historically called tricks to be neither logically valid nor sound. I have no issue with voting on arguments like skep or determinism or paradoxes, but they must have a sufficient level of warranting when they are first introduced. Every argument you make needs to be a complete argument with a warrant that I can flow. All arguments should also be tied to specific framing that tells me how to evaluate them within the larger context of the debate. Also, be upfront about your arguments. Being shady in cx just makes me mad and sacrifices valuable time that you could spend explaining your arguments.

Independent Voters - I think arguments should only generate offense through specific framing mechanisms. Somewhat tied into this I feel incredibly uncomfortable voting on people's character or using my ballot to make moral judgements about debaters. I also don’t want to hear arguments about events outside of the round I am judging. If something your opponent did truly makes you feel unsafe or unable to debate, then you should either contact me, your coach, tab, or the tournament equity office. We can always end the round and figure something out.

i debated in LD and policy in high school, graduating in '13. this is my 6th year coaching @ greenhill, and my second year as a full time debate teacher.

[current/past affiliations:

• i coached independent debaters from: woodlands ('14-'15), dulles ('15-'16), edgemont ('16-'18);
• team coach for: westwood ('14-'18), greenhill ('18-'22);
• program director for dallas urban debate alliance ('21-'22);
• full time teacher - greenhill, ('22-now);
• director of LD @ VBI ('23-now) - as a result of this, I am conflicted from any current competitor who will teach at VBI this summer. you can find the list of those individuals on the vbi website]

i would like there to be an email chain and I would like to be on it: greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com -would love for the chain name to be specific and descriptive - perhaps something like "Tournament Name, Round # - __ vs __"

I have coached debaters whose interests ranged from util + policy args & dense critical literature (anthropocentrism, afropessimism, settler colonialism, psychoanalysis, irigaray, borderlands, the cap + security ks), to trickier args (i-law, polls, monism) & theory heavy strategies.

That said, I am most comfortable evaluating critical and policy debates, and in particular enjoy 6 minutes of topicality 2nrs if delivered at a speed i can flow. I will make it clear if you are going too fast - i am very expressive so if i am lost you should be able to tell.

I am a bad judge for highly evasive tricks debates, and am not a great judge for denser "phil" debates - i do not think about analytic philosophy / tricks outside of debate tournaments, so I need these debates to happen at a much slower pace for me to process and understand all the moving parts. This is true for all styles of debates - the rounds i remember most fondly are one where a cap k or t-fwk were delivered conversationally and i got almost every word down and was able to really think through the arguments.

i think the word "unsafe" means something and I am uncomfortable when it is deployed cavalierly - it is a meaningful accusation to suggest that an opponent has made a space unsafe (vs uncomfortable), and i think students/coaches/judges should be mindful of that distinction. this applies to things like “evidence ethics,” “independent voters,” "psychological violence," etc., though in different ways for each. If you believe that the debate has become unsafe, we should likely pause the round and reach out to tournament officials, as the ballot is an insufficient mechanism with which to resolve issues of safety. similarly, it will take a lot for me to feel comfortable concluding that a round has been psychologically violent and thus decide the round on that conclusion, or to sign a ballot that accuses a student of cheating without robust, clear evidence to support that. i have judged a lot of debates, and it is very difficult for me to think of many that have been *unsafe* in any meaningful way.

A note on the topic - after judging at hwl, i have realized that many of the policy debates I am seeing are too big, have too many moving parts, and are not being clearly synthesized by either the affirmative or the negative debaters. this leaves me liable to confusion in terms of what exactly the world of the aff / neg does, and increases how much i appreciate a comparative speech that explains the stakes of winning each argument clearly, and in relation to the other moving parts of the debate.

8 things to know:

• Evidence Ethics: In previous years, I have seen a lot of miscut evidence. I think that evidence ethics matters regardless of whether an argument/ethics challenge is raised in the debate. If I notice that a piece of evidence is miscut, I will vote against the debater who reads the miscut evidence. My longer thoughts on that are available on the archived version of this paradigm, including what kinds of violations will trigger this, etc. If you are uncertain if your evidence is miscut, perhaps spend some time perusing those standards, or better yet, resolve the miscutting. Similarly, I will vote against debaters clipping if i notice it. If you would like me to vote on evidence ethics, i would prefer that you lay out the challenge, and then stake the round on it. i do not think accusations of evidence ethics should be risk-less for any team, and if you point out a mis-cutting but are not willing to stake the round on it, I am hesitant to entertain that argument in my decision-making process. if an ev ethics challenge occurs, it is drop the debater. do not make them lightly.

• i mark cards at the timer and stop flowing at the timer.

• Complete arguments require a claim warrant and impact when they are made. I will be very comfortable rejecting 1nc/1ar arguments without warrants when they were originally made. I find this is particularly true when the 1ar/1nc version are analytic versions of popular cards that you presume I should be familiar with and fill in for you.
• I do not believe you can "insert" re-highlightings that you do not read verbally.

• please do not split your 2nrs! if any of your 1nc positions are too short to sustain a 6 minute 2nr on it, the 1nc arg is underdeveloped.

• Evidence quality is directly correlated to the amount of credibility I will grant an argument - if a card is underhighlighted, the claim is likely underwarranted. I think you should highlight your evidence to make claims the author has made, and that those claims should make sense if read at conversational speed outside of the context of a high school debate round.

• i do not enjoy being in the back of disclosure debates where the violation is difficult to verify or where a team has taken actions to help a team engage, even if that action does not take the form of open sourcing docs, nor do i enjoy watching disclosure theory be weaponized against less experienced debaters - i will likely not vote on it. if a team refuses to tell you what the aff will be, or is familiar with circuit norms but has nothing on their wiki, I will be more receptive to disclosure, but again, verifiability is key.

• topicality arguments will make interpretive claims about the meaning or proper interpretation of words or phrases in the resolution. interpretations that are not grounded in the text of the resolution are theoretical objections - the same is true for counter-interpretations.i will use this threshold for all topicality/theory arguments.

Finally, I am not particularly good for the following buckets of debates:

• Warming good & other impact turn heavy strategies that play out as a dump on the case page

• IR heavy debates - i encourage you to slow down and be very clear in the claims you want me to evaluate in these debates.

• Bad theory arguments / theory debates w/ very marginal offense (it is unlikely i will vote for theory debates where i can not identify meaningful offense / where the abuse story is very difficult for me to comprehend)

• Identity ks that appropriate the form and language of antiblackness literature

• affs/nc's that have entirely analytic frameworks (even if it is util!) - i think this is often right on the line of plagiarism, and my brain simply cannot process / flow it at high speeds. my discomfort with these positions is growing by the round.

I am a parent judge and fairly new to judging. I am not a fan of spreading and fast speaking. If I can't understand, then it is not going on the flow. This is a verbal activity and therefore I will only flow things that are verbally communicated.

I am traditional judge, and don't have experience with progressive arguments, so I am not a fan of Kritiks, Theory Shells, or ROBs. I am looking for debaters who can presents a strong case with great logic, evidence and effective refutation of their opponent's case. In order for me to weigh your case effectively, you need to show me which framework is best and how you win under that framework. I like to have crystallization and voters in the 2AR and 2NR - this is especially important. The clearer you make to me why your argument is better and outweighs, the easier it will be for me to vote for you.

hpatel8780@gmail.com

MTHS ‘22 | WIT ‘26

Add me to the email chain: nilaypatel245@gmail.com

TL;DR

1- Policy and IDPOL/Common Ks/KAFFs, Traditional

2 - TT/Theory

3 - Baudrillard, Uncommon K’s

Strike - Unfair/Uncoordinated cases (i.e. Friv Theory, Spiked Trix)

Hey! I am Nilay Patel, and I debated in LD for 4 years in high school. I also dabbled in other debate events, but I am primarily an LDer. As for judging, I am typically a tabula rasa judge, but I do have some preferences (mainly for understanding purposes).

I have been out of the circuit ever since I stopped debating, so I may be a rusty judge. So, please spread concisely, and make your docs easy to understand. Also, I have not looked at the literature for this topic at all, so lean towards the side of explaining more than less.

Traditional - If you/your opponent is a traditional debater, I will err on the side of a traditional debate unless it is discussed otherwise. I believe that all tech debaters should learn how to debate traditionally, but not all traditional debaters need to learn how to debate tech. I also am very well versed in traditional debate.

Policy - I can understand all sorts of Policy (CPs, Plans, DAs, etc.). I personally did not read too much Policy in high school, but I don’t have trouble understanding it. Also, the cross-applications are somewhat straightforward, so I’ll be able to follow along. Not

Truth Testing/Trix - I really love Truth Testing frameworks, as it allows for a unique debate style to the debate round. Some unique paradoxes/a unique nailbomb AC really make me happy. However, I do not like arguments such as “Do not evaluate anything past the 1N”. Based on my debating philosophy, I will evaluate it, but a simple theory shell will probably make me err to the shell.

Ks - I read a few Ks in high school (such as Model Minority and Psychoanalysis), so I understand how Ks can be used. However, if you are simply using a K to confuse your opponent, I most likely will be confused as well. So, please keep it clear. Also, typically in the debate rounds I have been in, the 2NR is where the Ks make or break the round. If you have a very clean 2NR, I will be very surprised, and may boost your speaker points. Also, to show me that you have read this, if you attach a picture of a Nilla Wafers box to your speech doc, I will boost your speaker points by 0.2.

Theory - I default to YES RVIs, Competing Interps, and Drop the Debater. This doesn’t mean I wont change the way I evaluate the round if you make arguments for it, but I just start off with granting RVIs. As for the interpretations, they MUST be clear. Even if reasonability wins for the round, interpretations carry a massive weight on the debate round, so you cannot be lazy with your interps. Completely off topic, if you folks would like to play a 10 minute Rapid Chess game instead of doing the debate round, both of you must agree upon it, and the winner will a 29.8 while the loser will receive a 29.5 in speaks.

As always, any sort of intentional bigotry will not be tolerated, and will result in an L25 as well as a report to tab.

30 - You probably are deep elims in the tournament.
29.5 - You probably are breaking/are in early elims.
29 - You probably will have a positive record.
28.5 - You probably will have a negative record.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Include me on the email chain please: jessie.pein@duke.edu. I really prefer speech drop tho.

Hey! I'm Jessie Pein. I debated for Harrison High School in Harrison, New York. I primarily debated on the national TOC circuit, but I am also familiar with traditional debate (attended both NCFL nationals and NSDA nationals '21). I qualified to the TOC junior year and senior year, broke my junior year, and I have 11 career bids. I worked at both NSD Philly and NSD Flagship this past summer. I mostly read topical Ks, soft left affs, and some T/Theory; but I'd strongly prefer if you debated your best layer, the way you'd like to (and will be disappointed if you read something just because you think I'll like it). I will evaluate almost every argument as long as it has a claim, warrant, and an impact. Be kind, show respect to the activity, and most importantly, have fun reading what you want to read! Additionally, feel free to email me after round!

Harvard Update '24: I won't vote on music related theory. If I can't hear you, I can't flow you, so this is more for you then it is for me.

Shortcut:

1. Ks
2. Phil
3. Theory
4. Policy/Tricks

Random:

I have learned to appreciate a good skep/determinism 2NR. This doesn't mean you should auto read this argument; I am just noting that my debating history might lead you to believe I do not evaluate these arguments, which is untrue.

I am definitely the worst judge for a policy vs. policy debate or a heavy tricks round.

Novice rounds:

1. weigh. your. impacts. please. novice rounds get irresolvable super quickly, so using weighing in your speeches is necessary (probability, magnitude, etc.)

2. signpost! please tell me when you're extending your arguments, or when your responding to your opponent's. if you're responding to the AC, tell me that's what you're doing.

3. give voters! write my ballot for me. if you're giving the 2AR, respond to their voters and interact.

4. do not steal prep. if i see you're stealing prep, i will say something.

Basically, just do what you're good at. Keep me entertained. Happy debating!

If you have any questions about anything written here, please don't be afraid to ask! Debating as a novice can be scary, so i'll try to provide as much feedback as possible in my RFDs. also, +.1 speaker points if the email chain/speech drop is ready to be sent ahead of time.

I am a pretty straightforward judge. I do not have hand‘s on forensic experience, however I do understand the core of speech and debate, and have judges multiple rounds of speech and debate divisions.

I am a parent judge, and have been judging for the last three years, mostly congressional debate and most recently public forum.

I value research, strong and creative cases, and expect professionalism and respectful behavior throughout the entire round.

I am open to any arguments as long as burdens are being met.

I value strong evidence ably applied.

Spreading,I am comfortable with some speed however pronunciation must be coherent. In many cases debaters speak so fast that the mumble and almost whisper their words. Making it practically impossible to understand. There truly is not a need to rush, a well though out framework and argument can be done within the given time. A strong debater is one that can make the most of heir given time.

My general preferences are for you to be kind and respectful. If you start yelling or are overly aggressive it will not be to your benefit.

I flow by listening, and do not follow your written speech. Keep that in consideration.

You may send it to me for reference after the round has completed, and before I submit final comments.
Substance is important- defend your points clearly.

Please watch your times, I will only give :30 above time limit.

Also I do not give live feedback, prefer to take my time in providing detailed and useful comments on the ballot.

Good luck!

Vivian Perez
vmestevez@bellsouth.net

Hello Debaters

I am a parent judge; this is my first year as a judging (3rd year being around). I expect good sportsmanship, respect and for you to enjoy your experience.

I prefer regular rate of speech; I can keep up with accelerated fluency, but my feedback will not be as thorough as it will be if your rate of speech of a conversation and not an auctioneer.

I will keep time and my time is final time.

I look for eye contact and appropriate expression that matches your understanding of your position.

Hello, my name is Susan Phelan and I am a lay judge. I have mostly judged at local tournaments.

Prefs: I am a judge best for traditional debates

Please do not spread. I do not need to be added to any email chain. I won't interfere.

Please be kind and respectful, no discrimination will be tolerated in the round.

My contact is swphelan07@gmail.com

I debated Lincoln Douglas in high school. When it comes to judging, I am more traditional. I cannot flow spreading well. I believe the winner of a debate is the person who has clearly communicated their contentions and done the best job at persuasively arguing their side. I enjoy a good rebuttal, but respect is extremely important to me. I do my best to take accurate notes and will notice dropped arguments. I look forward to hearing your cases!

EMAIL: erinlynn.pritchard@ahschool.com (please just use this if you need to include me on a live doc I will not answer paradigm questions without the other team present.)

MY BACKGROUND: I was a public forum debater on the Houston circuit in high school. I found lots of success in this event and would subsequently attend Texas Tech University on a debate scholarship. I competed in and was a top NPDA (policy) debater, and won numerous national tournaments. I was a k debater, and was most well known for running de-col the mind, witchcraft, rhetoric, and fem rage. I have coached LD, PF, and CX (along with various speech events) for years, and am currently the head LD, and PF coach for American Heritage in Florida.

IMPORTANT:

Do not text or message with anyone outside of the round, during the round for any reason whatsoever.

Be mindful of the opponents preferred pronouns, listed on tabroom.

Read trigger warnings prior to your speeches that may obtain sensitive material.

ARGUMENT PREFERENCES (PFers IGNORE, UNLESS YOU GOT IT LIKE THAT):

T - 1

K - 1

LINE BY LINE - 1

TURNS ON CASE AND/OR FW - 1

DISADS - 2

CP - 2

PHIL - 2

PERM WITH DOUBLE BIND ARGUMENTS - 2

THEORY TO CHECK ABUSE - 2

KICKING ARGS - 2

NON-T AFFS - 5

ARGUMENTS READ AS TIME SUCK - 5

LARP - 5

MY JUDGE PHILOSOPHY: You can run ANYTHING you want in front of me. I know this is such a bot thing to say, and I clearly have arguments that prefer over others (as mentioned above) but at the end of the day I am a flow judge who will vote on whichever debater/team is winning on the flow. Tech > Truth. I WILL drop the debater if they engage in any obvious forms of otherization (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc) against their opponent(s).

PET PEEVES:

Bad spreading.

Lying about the flow.

Poorly ran/misunderstood representations of K args.

Parent judge. I’ve judged a decent amount but I’d prefer you not to spread. Keep track of your own time. Please give me voters and weigh well.

I prefer you running a traditional case. Basic counter plans are probably fine.
Good luck.

Houston Memorial ’20

Andrewqin02@gmail.com for sdocs

Note for Harvard: I do not think about debate more than once a year and know very little about the topic.

I have also discovered that my threshold for warranting is way too low, so I will be increasing my threshold for warranting. If you plan to read blips and tricks in front of me, they MUST be warranted in the speech they were read, and I MUST understand the warrant. Saying the words "I am the GCB" is not a warrant, and I will not vote on it even if it goes dropped. Additionally, the sillier the argument (e.g. "Evaluate after the 1AC"), the lower the threshold for responding.

I competed on the national circuit for three years, qualifying to TOC my junior and senior years. I try to be relatively tab – I will attempt to fully consider any argument that has a warrant as long as the argument doesn’t exclude debaters from the activity (No oppression good). However, I have debate preferences, though I will try not to let those preferences influence my decision-making.

Quick Pref Sheet:

Theory – 1

LARP – 2

Phil – 2

K – 3

Tricks – 3

General Notes:

· CX is binding – If you say something is Uncondo in CX and kick out of it in the 2NR, if the 2AR points it out, it’s an auto-loss with few exceptions.

· Evidence Ethics Claims (Clipping, Miscutting, etc.) stop the round and the challenging debater must agree to stake the round on it. Whoever loses the challenge gets an L-0.

· I have a higher threshold of warranting on independent voters. You can’t just say something is an “independent voter” for three seconds and collapse to it for 6 minutes in the 2NR. An independent voter needs clear warrants as well as clear reasons why it’s a reason to drop the debater. I am willing to not vote on a dropped independent voter if it had basically no warrant for why it’s a voter in the last speech.

· Lower threshold for 1AR extensions, though I’m a tad skeptical of straight-up new 2AR weighing. Case outweighs and theory vs K weighing should generally be in the 1AR.

· AD HOMS: I really don’t like ad hominem arguments that call out x debater for being a bad person out of round. If it’s won, I’ll grudgingly vote on it, but speaks WILL suffer, and I have a low threshold for responses.

· High speaks are received for technical efficiency, strategy, and clarity in spreading.

· Be nice to novices and traditional debaters.

· I don’t consider arguments about speaker points or double wins or going beyond the time given. Any argument past the timer is disregarded, and if you keep going, it’s an L-0.

Theory:

· Defaults: C/I, Drop the Arg, Fairness/Education are voters, No RVIs

· Friv theory and theory purely for strategy = 100% fine. I heavily prefer theory centered on round and disclosure abuse (spec status, AFC, CSA, disclose round reports, etc) as opposed to theory on clothing or Zoom styles (shoes theory).

· PLEASE WEIGH BETWEEN THEORY SHELLS AND STANDARDS! If there’s no weighing, I’ll default to evaluating on strength of link. I don’t know what it means for the “theory debate to be a wash” if both sides have offense, which means I do not default to presumption or substance if both sides have theory shells that aren’t weighed between.

LARP:

· I do not default to judge kick if it’s condo (this is just a default though and can be changed with arguments).

Phil:

· Understand most of the traditional LD canon – Rawls, Kant, Hobbes, Locke, Levinas (somewhat), I-Law, Constitution, etc.

· I think I’d be fine in the back of most phil debates, but be sure to explain the phil well. If I don’t understand it, I won’t vote on it.

· Postmodern and critical phil like Semiocap – I probably am not the best at adjudicating these, but I’ll try my best.

· Default epistemic confidence.

Tricks:

· SLOW DOWN ON ANALYTICS AND INFLECT!

· Default: Truth Testing, Presumption/Permiss Negate.

· Explain and weigh the tricks well – The sillier the argument, the lower the threshold for the response. Not a huge fan of blippy aprioris and the like, but if it’s won, I suppose I’ll vote on it.

· Prefer you to be straight-up in CX with tricks.

K:

· I’m familiar with a decent amount of Ks: Queerpess, Afropess, Settcol, some Weheliye, Warren, some Deleuze, etc.

· Overviews are helpful, but please do good line by line work – I won’t cross-apply your overview to every possible argument for you.

K Affs:

· Never really understood these very much but I’ll try my best.

· I prioritize technical ability – This means even if the 1AR and 2AR have good overviews explaining your position, you need to explain how it directly interacts with 2NR arguments.

· If it’s a K v K (anything other than cap) debate, I will probably be lost unless the ballot story is very clear.

I consider myself a generous and open-minded parent judge because I understand how much effort the kids have to spend on each topic. I have gone through several rounds of judging training and judged many times for high school debate. I mostly judge traditional LD, and I am familiar with PF, too. No spreading, no progressive.

I do like debaters to
- be respective to each other.
- clearly present their cases with understandable speed, pauses, and emphasis; I do flow and take notes during debate.
- back up their arguments with solid evidence (data, research, examples, etc) and reasoning. I try my best to judge based on the cases and how well they are delivered, not on my personal opinion.
- approach the topic from a unique perspective but have to logically make sense.
- weigh the debate with clear reasons explaining why your points should be favored.
- track the time well. I encourage every speaker to make the most use of the time including the cross and prep time.

Hi, I'm Dhruv!

I did LD debate for Proof School, cleared at most tournaments, and went to the TOC my junior year. I now study applied math and computer science at Brown University (class of 2027).

I read mostly policy and theory arguments, sometimes read tricks, and dabbled a little with Ks and phil. Read whatever you want.

Update for Harvard: I'm getting a wee bit tired of tricks debates...

Email Chain: dhruv.r.raghavan [at] gmail.com

Prefs Shortcut (based on what I think I'm good at judging)

1. policy, theory

2. tricks

3. phil, Ks

4. k v k

Top-level ideas/opinions:

-I will vote on basically anything that's warranted (no bigotry). Even though I have opinions, I will try my best to be a blank slate.

-Debate is a game. Play the game to win.

-The content of high school debates should probably be PG-13 (sporadic cursing is fine).

-Tech>truth, but to be honest, the tech/truth distinction is kind of silly; if an argument relies on a fact that's blatantly false, i.e. "WW2 ended in 1965" I am probably going to disregard it, but I won't intervene against subjective arguments like "communism good." As a rule of thumb, arguments with better quality warrants are easier to win.

-Please don't make debate the oppression olympics.

-Tell me what impacts matter. Weighing wins debates.

-I'm not gonna vote on arguments pertaining to the identities of you or your opponent (i.e I'm __ so I should win), or arguments about events that occurred out of round (other than disclosure theory).

-Compiling is prep, but sending isn't (unless you're taking a while, in which case I'll get a bit annoyed).

-"Independent voting issues" need to have a warrant, independent weighing/framing mechanism, and an explanation of why they outweigh in the first speech they are read in.

Speaks:

I will try to base speakers points off of strategy only (the exception is when you're a jerk). I've decided to not vote on arguments pertaining to speaker points because you could just say "give us both 30 speaks" and then your opponent would concede it and that defeats the purpose of speaks. Anyways, here's a rough scale:

30: You displayed an astonishingly high level of technical proficiency, argument innovation, and knowledge in the subject matter of the debate.

29.5-29.9: You did something really creative/entertaining and showed an argumentative proficiency that will likely get you to mid-late out-rounds.

29-29.4: Your strategy was great, and you'll probably clear.

28.5-28.9: Barely clearing or even record.

28-28.4: You're below average for this tournament and your strategy wasn't great.

27.5-27.9: Your strategy had significant errors, and you didn't really understand the arguments you read.

27.4 or below: You did something that pissed me off.

Speed:

I will say clear 3 times before I stop flowing. Pause a little between cards, slow down on analytics, and enunciate every word.

Here are some loose opinions I have about specific positions:

Advantages/DAs:

-Do not assume I have any topic knowledge.

-The plan text should be clear and concise.

-Evidence comparison is a must in close debates, so know your evidence well. It's of course fine to read cards that other people cut, but make sure you've read and understood the articles.

Counterplans/CP theory:

-Perms are a test of competition.

-Do impact calc and tell me how I should evaluate the CP (i.e. sufficiency framing, judge kick, etc.)

-I err aff on cheaty counterplan competition. That means I'll have a lower threshold for functionally intrinsic perms.

Ks:

-I know more about cap and set col than other Ks.

-Don't be afraid to impact turn their model of debate.

-Use concrete examples when explaining your alt. Do not assume I know what "traversing the fantasy," "embracing a cartography of refusal," "joining the party," etc. are.

-I went for vague alts bad a lot, simply because most people don't know how to respond to it. That being said, affirmatives that read this shell often violate their own interpretation by reading semi-vague plan texts. So if you're gonna go for it, add specification below your plan text or something like that.

-The fiat distinction is arbitrary.

-I don't understand why people read 1-minute-long, buzzword-filled overviews at top speed. I don't flow them. They are completely useless and are often filled with incomprehensible, heinous run-on sentences. Do actual line-by-line please.

Topicality

-The word "reasonability" without any contextualization is not enough for me to drop the shell.

-Please do weighing between semantics and pragmatics, limits and PICs, etc.

-I enjoy topic specific T debates more than ones about bare plurals.

-Slow down in the 2nr please, especially if it's docced.

Theory

-Paragraph shells are fine, but you still need paradigm issues.

-I default DTD, no RVIs, and competing interps. All of these can easily be changed.

-Weighing is as important in theory debates as it is in other debates.

-Yes, you can read your 7 frivolous shells in front of me, but don't make the debate messy.

-Slow down on analytics please.

Tricks

-Fine with these debates, just slow down so I don't miss "extemped" arguments.

-TBH, I'm getting tired of these debates just because people don't read them well. If you poorly execute a tricks strategy, your speaks will suffer.

-They need a claim, warrant, and impact, just like any other argument. Paradoxes without explicit ballot implications are hard to vote on.

-If you extend a conceded trick, extend the claim, warrant, and impact.

-If they ask for the a prioris in CX, be straight up about them (though asking "What's an a priori?" as a joke is funny).

Philosophy

-While I never really got into this style of debate, I do enjoy reading and discussing philosophy and I'm down to judge these debates, especially if you're reading something new/innovative.

-Most familiar with Kant and Pragmatism, err on the side of over-explanation for other ethical theories.

Non-T/Performance/T-Framework

-If I don't know what the aff does I'm not voting for it.

-The burden is on the aff to prove why debating the topic is undesirable.

-Presumption is an underrated tool in these debates.

-Framework 2NRs should try to be specific to the round.

-I like TVAs and am persuaded by well-written ones.

-If you're going to "perform" in some way, make it clear how I'm supposed to evaluate it. Just randomly playing a song or reading a poem and not bringing it up in the 1ar is sorta useless.

That's all I have to say for now, but if you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask (by email or before the round).

Happy Debating!

For PF:

1. Be respectful of your fellow debaters
2. Be realistic with your impacts
3. Weigh your arguments
4. Be mindful of your speaking speed (more than 200 words/minute is too much)

Couple of key things which I would expect,

• Speak clearly and slowly
• Do not rush through your points
• Be appreciative of your opposite teams and give them fair chance to debate
• Have fun!

I debated policy in high school and college (Pitt), and coached college policy for ten years, but haven’t coached college level in a long time. Started coaching again for my kids in middle and high school. I also teach in a comm program (UMW). I have been working with my son's team for the past few years.

Email chain: rhetorrao@gmail.com

Pronouns: he/him

I am most comfortable with a traditional LD round, and I also like policy debates. The biggest problem I have seen in LD debates is not properly weighing and explaining how positions interact. I am not a fan of most K affs. As long as you are able to explain it with clear links to the resolution then I am open to it. On the neg make it clear.

I really do not like frivolous theory, and never enjoy when a debate ends with messy theory. Definitely not the judge for a tricks debate.

Make sure you are actually flowing, and not just relying on a speech doc. I am fine with speed- just make sure you are clear.

Finally, rude people are not fun to listen to, and I have little tolerance for a more experienced debater bullying or beating up on someone who is learning how to enjoy the activity. Make good arguments, test ideas, and have fun.

quick pref

K-1

larp/policy-2

phil-3

Theory/trix-4

here is my email, Michael.reichle48@gmail.com

TLDR; I will vote on most things if explained well and not bigoted.

Hi, I'm Michael (He/Him). I just got out of high school debate so if you can just refer to me by my name rather than judge. I won't take off speaks but it would make me glad that at least you put in the bare minimum effort of reading my paradigm.

k- I was mainly a K debater in high school and it was what I had the most amount of experience with, I am somewhat knowledgeable in a variety of literature but I am the best with ableism and set col literature. If you are reading like Baudrillard or Deleuze don't just assume that I will know what you are talking about it, it is your role as a debater to communicate your ideas in a way that makes sense. also off hand but I am more susceptible to voting on independent voting issues, if explained well along with proper weighing, even if the violation occurred in there 2nr ill be open to 2ar IVI's.

Larp/policy- my experience with this type of debate mainly comes from the K side, ultimately like most forms of debate it comes down to the strength of link and proper weighing. I think that these debates should come down more to evidence quality rather than power tagged under highlighted cards that barley make a connection.

Phil- I am somewhat knowledgable about Phil debate, I just need an explanation for why your framework is true, why it comes first and then how should I evaluate offense through that.

Trix/theory- Its not like I don't like these types of strategies it is just that when unoriginal it can be very boring and genuinely can be the worst form of debate (I am very suseptibale to IVI's for reading trix for being ableist, also no I will not evaluate the arg that trix has to be defined, you know what you are doing at least be honest).

In terms of theory more generally I'll vote on it but I am not very knowledgeable about the nuances of theory versus theory. Please walk me through the violation/standards and the paradigm issues and why yours come before your opponent.

TFW/ in terms of this I Lean more on the side of K aff's, I think much of the fairness complaints about K offs from debaters are overvblown and less important than the aff. Debate is a game but at the same time that doesn't make it immune from oppression.

If you still have questions, message me before round about a specific issue.

My email is taj@unitingthecrowns.com

2023 NDT Champion

2023 CEDA Champion

I used to read plans and afropess. I used to do LD in high school.

The Black Chorus Sings

Hi y'all! My name is Tilly (she/her), and I'm excited to have the opportunity to judge your debate and/or speech rounds :)

Background: I'm a sophomore at Harvard College and currently debate in the American Parliamentary and British Parliamentary formats. I attended Bloomington High School South in Indiana. During high school, I competed most extensively in LD, Extemp, Impromptu, and Informative.

Lincoln-Douglas: I debated for all 4 years of high school, primarily in LD, and I was competitive on the Indiana circuit, where I attended 5-10 tournaments per year. If your debate experience is in traditional LD, please treat me as a flow judge. If your debate experience is in progressive/national circuit LD, you should probably treat me as a lay judge, at least to the extent that I have little familiarity with progressive debate (aside from what I've read in the debate blogosphere). Here are some notes about how I judge:

General Principles:

Debate encourages us to learn about interesting ideas that interact with each other in interesting ways. For me, the single most important thing you can do in a debate round is to genuinely think about the ideas in play. Why do your arguments make sense — or not? What contexts and assumptions underlie them? I think if you do this, you'll be more likely to win the round — and even if you don't, you will get more out of the debate.

I appreciate good research and well-chosen cards. That said, if you are relying on cards to make an argument, they should contain information that actually proves your point. For example, if I am choosing between argument (a), which relies on an assertion of some fact by a famous professor, and argument (b), which doesn't include a card but does include good analysis that negates argument (a), I will vote for argument (b). However, if I then hear argument (c) which provides sufficient empirical evidence to show that argument (b) is false and argument (a) is true, I will then vote for arguments (c & a).

I appreciate clash — make sure you are doing your best to understand and respond to your opponent's arguments. Especially if you're not going line-by-line, make sure to roadmap (on- or off-time) so I know how to structure my flow.

To vote off a given argument, I need to be able to believe that it's true (which requires warranting and, generally, evidence) as well as why it matters (keep in mind question like: what is the impact? why does it matter under this round's framework? how can I weigh this impact against other impacts in the round?).

I am "tech > truth" to an extent. However, I also consider myself reasonably well-informed about the world. Therefore, while I will try not to intervene in the round, if you are making an argument that contradicts common assumptions I might have drawn from, say, reading the news or taking history classes, you may have to do more argumentative work to persuade me of your argument.

Re: judge intervention, I will intervene less the more clearly you explain your arguments and their implications.

Some Specifics:

Please don't spread. (I'll let you know if I can't understand you — but just in general, assume I can't understand spreading.) I can flow relatively fast "normal" speech (and I understand the desire to fit as much information into the round as possible), but I will flow more accurately and in more detail the closer you are to a normal conversational pace.

Please use theory only as much as necessary to maintain a fair debate. Don't run tricks that are not also actual, good arguments.

That being said, I will evaluate most arguments (including kritiks, counterplans, etc., if in a circuit where those are a norm), as long as you explain them clearly (i.e., you offer warrants for all your arguments instead of simply name-dropping jargon, you explain any cards that aren't self-explanatory, you make it clear why your arguments are relevant to the resolution and my ballot).

Please send me your speech docs if you have them, but understand that I will only open them to check content/evidence if called (or if I'm skeptical about something that's asserted in the round), and that any argument you want me to evaluate should be clearly stated (and warranted, and backed up with any necessary cards) in your actual speeches.

Finally, remember that while I have specified some preferences here, my goal as a judge is to make debaters feel welcome and cast a well-considered ballot based on what happened in the round I judged. Please don't just run the arguments you think I'll "like" — run the arguments that you think are compelling, interesting, or important.

Other Debate Events: In general, my LD paradigm applies to all debate events. I have competed once in PF and once in Congress, and have judged both events. I have never competed in policy, but I've read at least one textbook on how to debate in policy (i.e., my knowledge extends to some familiarity with stock issues and a little bit of policy jargon, but I'm not familiar with technical arguments or current trends in the policy circuit).

PF

I'm fine if you paraphrase evidence, but if you paraphrase, please make sure you also have a document with citations and cut cards corresponding to any evidence you mention in the round.

Congress

Your speeches are short, but please do your best to make them substantive! If you speak early, try to frame major issues in the round so that your speech stays relevant and resonant throughout. If you speak late, try to either (a) weigh arguments that were made earlier in the round and analyze how they interact with one another, (b) introduce new arguments/perspectives/evidence that have not yet been considered, or (c) both. I vote off substance first, but I do appreciate style. :)

Extemp:

I love extemp. Make sure to answer your question. Like in debate, genuinely thinking about the question and its answer(s) will go a long way. Don't make up evidence. Don't freak out. Also, remember to give a speech you are comfortable with and confident in, instead of stressing about what I might like in a speech.

Here are some other things I do appreciate:

Interesting AGDs and transitions (as long as they don't detract from substance or strike a tone inappropriate to your question).

Signposting. Make sure I can clearly track your separate points!

Unified analysis. (This is when you have an umbrella thesis that unifies the separate points in your speech into an answer that is more specific/detailed than "yes" or "no." It's not necessary, and a good speech without unified analysis will beat a less good speech with it — but unified analysis may make your speech more cohesive if you can pull it off.)

Diversity of evidence. If you can cite different types of sources (e.g., an Associated Press article with breaking news, a book laying out an international relations theory, an NBER study on the gender wage gap), each offering a different perspective or type of information to bolster your points, then you will probably be able to put together a very well-rounded speech.

Quality and relevance of evidence. For some topics, recency of evidence matters a lot; for others, older evidence can still be valuable. Make sure to cite reputable news sources (think NPR or the Washington Post, not Fox News) and note biases or perspectives (e.g., the Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank, while The Nation is a left-leaning magazine).

Context. If you can place your arguments in historical context, frame them with academic theories, or understand how seemingly disparate issues influence one another, I think that's really impressive.

Beyond that, of course, Extemp is a speech event, so I do care about style! I won't penalize you for small stumbles, but if one speech is significantly more fluent than another, that is a big point in its favor. Similarly, things like using vocal variation, gesturing naturally, embodying a range of emotions, and sounding like you're having a conversation (not, er, talking to a wall) will all help your speech stand out.

Other Speech Events:

Public Address

Be funny, be passionate, be solemn, be conversational — whatever tone(s) work best for you and your message.

I appreciate speeches that address interesting, arguable topics, rather than simply relying on platitudes or common assumptions. I enjoy clever rhetoric and powerful writing — as well as solid argumentation.

I weigh speaking style, writing style, and content in my decisions; because these factors play into one another, I don't categorically prioritize one over the other.

In Info, I appreciate creative and interesting visual aids (although I am totally willing to vote for a good speech with few or no VAs). Remember, visual aids should help you convey your message, not distract from it. I won't penalize you for small mishaps (e.g., you will be fine if your stand falls over).

Interp Events

I don't have much personal experience with interp, but I really enjoy watching interp and admire interp performers, and I'll judge as best I can.

I appreciate clear pops between characters and precise, creative blocking.

Although you didn't write your speech, you did select and cut it, so I will pay attention to your choices. Does the narrative make sense? Is the piece itself successful (i.e., is it thoughtful? is it funny? are the characters believable?).

If your piece seems to exist for the sole purpose of being maximally traumatic, I will rank you low.

The balances between naturalism and exaggeration, drama and humor, etc., are yours to strike. If I think you chose the right balance for your piece and performance style, I will rank you higher!

Miscellaneous:

Don't be discriminatory.

Please assume (within reason) that others in your round are well-intentioned. People with good intentions can still say harmful things, but usually it's more effective to explain to them why something is harmful than to ice them out of the conversation.

Speech and debate rankings are a zero-sum game, but speech and debate are not! I hope you have the opportunity to learn from your own research, reading, and practice; learn from one another; and find a community through speech and debate. Have fun!

Hey hey I'm Shannon! I competed in Pittsburgh for 3 years in high school in a traditional circuit and have been coaching at Fordham Prep since 2020. I understand most progressive stuff, but if you plan on running high level T's or insane RVI's with wacky interps thought my coffee order is an iced oat vanilla latte and I will need it to dissect what you are saying thank you.

Big believer that debate is a game, I just don't want to have to be the one to determine the rules of the game. Think how the rules of Uno change based on who you're playing with, I don't want to have to decide the rules of the round, every round.

please put me on the email chain, esp if you're spreading: scrodgers22@gmail.com

First time LD Judge

-Clear enunciation and effective communication

-Use typical conversational speed

-No use of jargon

-I will be keeping notes throughout

-I am looking for the side that presents a very clear position that demonstrates its superiority to the opposing side, make your argument very specific ensuring zero deviation from the subject.

-Provide a clear analysis of why you should win in the final summary

I'm a PhD (Philosophy) and want to hear a coherent and compelling case. Here are some things that I'm looking for:

• Give me sound and cogent arguments
• Refute your opponent’s arguments and objections
• Defend your framework
• Make your case clear and easy to follow
• Don't give me flimsy premises or invalid arguments. Don't build your case on unjustified assumptions, simply assume the correct framework, or commit informal fallacies
• DON'T SPREAD! Instead, I’d rather hear fewer arguments developed at a deeper level
• DON'T RUN Ks!

If you enjoy progressive debating, please strike me. Lastly, I don't disclose my decision in person so don't ask.

May the odds be ever in your favor!

gsangal@gmail.com- Please doc share to ensure I don't miss anything.

Hello, my name is Gorav. In a round, feel free to address me as judge. I am your normal Flay judge. I hope to see you all present good, well-structured arguments, and rebuttals.

I am very inclined to logic-based arguments but have nothing against emotion-based arguments.

My main tip for you to be able to win me over is to signpost and clearly weigh your arguments. Tell me why I NEED to vote for you. Again I can't stress this enough, WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH. I need to know why Aff/Neg is better. Another tip to win my point is the level of eye contact and emotion.

I heavily will draw the most points from the 2NR and 1AR, but that doesn't mean you can fall behind on your other speeches.

Speed - keep it at a little faster than talking speed at most for constructives. On rebuttals, you can go a bit faster.

For circuit - I don't know what it is, but I am open to the new experience. The only issue I may have with it is I might not be able to follow.

Overall, I see debate as a fun and inclusionary activity.

Email for cards, cases and what you need to send me: emma.sasser9@gmail.com

This makes it very easy for me to follow along in your case! Please send me your stuff!

I don't know prog debate, so if you choose a prog case run at your own risk. I am a trad judge.

I never did debate in High school or college.

Do not spread, its hard for me to follow.

Be passionate!! If you disagree with your position in your debate I should not be able to tell. Please make sure that there is clash in your debates.

You are able to time yourself, I will be timing you as well.

I do not care if you sit or stand, do what is comfortable for you.

Please be respectful during the debate, only use your phone when it is pertinent to the debate/timing, and then just use your common sense and be respectful in general.

This is my second year judging. In order to judge you fairly, I must be able to hear and understand you. Please don't speak too fast and be sure to enunciate. More is not necessarily better when it is redundant. I want to give you full credit for the work that you've prepared so being able to follow your arguments is key. Any arguments that depend on justification of discriminatory ideas will impact my assessment of your performance. I take more of a traditionalist approach, expecting to see the format followed as faithfully as possible.

I have been assisting in coaching and judging for both LD and PF for a year at Fenwick High School. I will be evaluating each team based on clarity, logical coherence, evidence, rebuttal, delivery, cross-examination, thoroughness, and respect. I will be looking for the team that presents the strongest argument overall, based on these criteria.

I am open to a variety of arguments, conventional and unconventional, and look for the following:

1) Speed of delivery can be brisk, but must be clear enough so argument can be appropriately heard, processed, and flowed.

2) I prefer our second rebuttal for PF to hit more big picture themes and flaws

3) Voting issues are essential - please include them

4) A lack of extension of an argument will not hurt your score, but successfully extending an argument is certainly a sign of a well-constructed debate

5) Argument is valued over style

6) Debates can be won using an opponent’s framework, but must be as well-constructed and multifaceted as if they used their own.

7) Evidence is CRUCIAL. No evidence = no basis for argument

(she/her)

Edina LD 2019-2023

Add me to any email chains with this email: dschmitt@smith.edu.

+0.1 speaks if you send the email chain before round start time.

I have the skills necessary to judge the debate that you would like to have, but not necessarily the topic knowledge since I am currently proximately involved in coaching, so I would recommend taking some extra care to explain ur args bc I'm not up with the meta on the circuit presently.

I will only vote on complete arguments. An argument entails a claim and a warrant – not an assertion. I will not vote on anything that I cannot explain to your opponent after the round.

Speed is fine, lack of clarity is not. I need to be able to hear the text of your cards – even if you read it quickly, or I will not evaluate that card. I will not read speech docs to fill in gaps on my flow; that would be an inequitable practice. I will call clear THREE times before I give up and put my hands in the air to demonstrate that I am unable to flow because I am unable to understand the words that you’re saying.

Stealing prep is unbecoming. You’re needlessly wasting everyone’s time and making the tournament run later. I will notice, and you will notice too, because it will be reflected in your speaks.

tech > truth. I will vote on almost* anything, but I will have the easiest time evaluating the kind of debates that I was in; most of my knowledge is in policy and K stuff (K lit I know best is Set Col and cap bc that's what I ran in HS).

*I will not vote on any args that actively undermine the safety of the activity or harms community members (ie: anything racist, sexist, transphobic etc).

kschwab@pinescharter.net

I've been coaching and teaching Debate (as well as the AICE courses Global Perspectives & Thinking Skills) for the past 14 years.

For LD/PF/Policy

Even though I have experience on the circuit and enjoy different types of cases, I am not a buyer of the belief that the technical should rule because sometimes format is not as important as content & understanding what you are running. I would consider myself a truth over tech although it will come to the clash provided not my own opinion on the truth. I will stick to the flow unless someone gives me a good reason to vote for them that is true and benefits the debate/educational event. I believe that kritiks, theory, LARP, etc... are all beneficial to learning and play into strategy, so I will vote in favor of anything IF you are able to prove the link is logically clear and strong enough in regards to what your opponent says is the reason for why I should not accept.

I do NOT have a preference for framework/cases - I've heard almost every kind by now and all types have won and lost my vote. Extinction impacts bore me without link work done, so I'd appreciate you at least have some linked harm impacts before extinction level even if final impact is extinction.

I can handle speed (even spreading) pretty well by now - if there is an issue with understanding or hearing I will say "clear" and will also check cards at the end for anything I missed...but please keep in mind that there are certain aspects in a construction that maintains well with speed and other areas that don't (i.e. - if you need me to understand how a philosophy or theory applies then allow me to absorb each part before rushing to the next because those are building block arguments, so missing one part can make the whole thing fall).

Congress:

This is a role playing event - I would like you to act better than our current congress :) I'm big on arguments... not on summation evidence (the kind that is just a quote that someone said the same thing as your claim). I like you to talk to us...be charming or intelligent or both if you really want my top scores. I love this event because when it's good it's so good. Have fun, be smart, and don't leave the chamber during session unless an emergency - there are plenty of breaks and I appreciate when students that don't take extra ones.

I coach at American Heritage and have been coaching privately for 6 years now. My email for speech docs is: Stevescopa23@gmail.com.

Conflicts for TOC external to my school: Cary Academy, David Huang

Shortcut:

Philosophy - 1

Theory - 1

Non-Identity Ks - 1/2

T - 2

Identity K's - 2-4 depending how you read them

Policy - 5/Strike

General: I'm tech > truth, read whatever you want. I have a low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments but they need to be extended in each speech. Also, if I don't think an argument has a warrant I won't vote on it. Speaks are inflated by good strategy and execution and capped by how bad i think your arguments are. If you're reading a bunch of unserious nonsense you might win but most likely won't get good speaks.

- I default to truth testing if no other RoB is read.

- I don’t evaluate embedded clash unless there is an argument as to why I should or the round is irresolvable without it.

- I do not believe you get new 2n responses to AC arguments unless an argument is made for why you get those arguments in the NC.

- I will vote on disclosure theory. Just don’t read it against novices or people who clearly don’t know what it is. I also won’t evaluate it if it becomes clear/verifiable the debater’s team won’t allow it or other similar circumstances.

- Don’t need to flash analytics to your opponent but I would like them

- Even if something is labeled an independent voter, if there is no warrant for why it is one, I won’t evaluate it as such. I also don’t really think “x author is sexist/racist/etc so you should lose” makes much sense. I’ll vote on it if you win it but it’s an uphill battle.

Theory: Go for it - this is probably one of the easier things for me to judge, and I really enjoy judging nuanced theory debates. Slow down on the interpretation a bit if it’s something more nuanced. I don’t “gut check” frivolous shells but obviously if you are winning reasonability then I will evaluate through whatever your brightline is. Also, for counter interps “converse of the interp” is not sufficient, if your opponent says “idk what the converse is so I can’t be held to the norm” I will buy that argument, just actually come up with a counter interp.

I really like RVIs and think they are underutilized so if you successfully go for one I will be happy.

T: T debates weren’t nearly as nuanced when I debated so you may have to explain some of the particulars more than you may be used to. I am also a sucker for semantics.

T “framework”: To be honest I am agnostic on whether affs should be T. I probably lean yes, but I also find non-T affs pretty interesting and fun to judge at times. I don’t consider an aff that doesn’t defend fiat but does defend the principle of the resolution non-T, and I am less persuaded by T in that sense.

Tricks: Sure, but speaks might suffer depending how they're executed and how dumb I think they are.

Ks: I really enjoy a good K debate. Especially psycho, baudrillard, nietzsche, and cap. The more specific the links the better. In a relatively equal debate i dont think i've ever voted for deleuze.

Larp: Probably the worst for this but will listen to it, just need to explain things a little more than you normally would. It is probably an uphill battle to win util vs other phil or Ks but possible if that's your thing.

Framework: This is my favorite type of debate and really want it to make a comeback. Great speaks if you can execute this well and/or read something that interests me.

Speaks: I average probably a 28.5. I assign them based on mostly strategy/execution with a little bit of content, but content can only improve your speaks not make them worse really (with the exception of disclosure probably). I like unique and clever arguments and well executed strategy - I would not advise you to go for a tricks aff if you are a larp debater just because I am judging you, do what you do well to get good speaks. I am also somewhat expressive when I think about how arguments interact so be mindful of that i guess. Also, if I can tell your 1ar/2n/2ar is pre-written your speaks will probably suffer.

How do I get a 30?

I won’t guarantee a 30 based on these strategies but it will definitely increase your chances of getting one if you can successfully pull off any of the following:

1) Going NC, AC really well with a phil NC

2) A good analytic PIC

3) Any unique fwk/K/RoB that I haven’t heard before or think is really interesting

4) A true theory shell or one I haven’t heard before

5) Execute a Skep trigger/contingent standard well

6) Successfully going for an RVI

Lay debates: If you are clearly better than your opponent and it is obvious that you are winning the round, please, dear lord, do not use all of your speech time just because you have the time - win the round and sit down so we can have a discussion and make it more educational than just you repeating conceded arguments for 13 minutes.

I'm a first-time parent judge. I'll try and evaluate the round based on the flow as much as possible. I prefer traditional style or light policy rounds without spreading. Make sure to explain your arguments, weigh impacts, and do lots of judge instruction.

Strake Jesuit '23

Harvard '27

Finaled TOC and Won Dukes and Bailey

Add me to the email chain:kashah0615@gmail.com AND lhpsdebate@gmail.com

LD debate should stay like LD debate! The 2NR is not a 2NC. Spamming 15 cards in the 2N to overpower the 2AR or just reading off a doc for 6 minutes straight willloseyou rounds. I want the 2NR to be reactive not pre-scripted, especially at TOC, because that showcases who's a good debater or not. If you can't answer a simple cross question about the 1NC and then suddenly can beat back every argument in the 2NR - I am innately disappointed and suspicious. I also want clash - I'm tired of seeing random process CPs from NDT or college policy writ large make into speeches that are not tied to the topic at all.

I'll vote on literally anything that isn't explicitly racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/etc. Actually nah, I'm like just not evaluating nebulous tricks debate anymore. It is terrible for the activity- learn how to debate again. That being said, all I ask of you is to be clear when you extend stuff and extend a warrant. For real though - 90% of the circuit is unflowable, makes blippy arguments, and have one word "warrants". I will be completely comfortable not voting for someone because I don't know what they said. I'm not going to flow off the doc completely.

As a debater I read policy or kant affirming, and everything from psychoanalysis to log con negating. I think I can adjudicate every argument, but I am predispositioned against some more than others.

I'm probably on the harsher side of speaks for the LD circuit but I just dislike inflation. If you give a great speech don't worry your speaks will be quite good. Bad arguments, bad strategy, lack of clarity, no pen time, no differentiation between tags and cards and pre-written analytics, all will lower speaks! I will be pretty harsh for TOC - I want good debaters to win awards not docs.

Larp:

• Do whatever you want. I want good weighing and good evidence.
• Slow down on analytics in the 1AR and 2NR.
• Impact turns are cool but don't just soley read huge amounts of evidence and call it day - there needs to be quite good 2NR explanation of complex things, like economic concepts in a cap good/bad debate.
• Case debate should probably always make it into the 2NR, and a good aff that can beat it back will be rewarded.
• DA + Case 2NRs are my favorite

Theory:

• Slow down when you're docbotting theory analytics, if I can't flow it I won't evaluate it
• I don't like judging frivolous theory that is ridiculous (something like shoes or sleds), but other theory arguments that policy judges might find "frivolous" I would be receptive to (Unified solvency advocate, spec, PICs bad) for 1AR theory
• Please weigh some in the 1AR, 2AR weighing is very new most times and not that persuasive

T:

• Nebel T is perfectly fine, case lists on both sides are very persuasive.
• More policy T shells about words in the resolution are also great, and I need good 2nr vs 2ar judge instruction and evidence comparison.

K:

• I'm more familiar with these kritiks as read in debate (in no particular order): Afro Pessimism, Psychoanalysis,, Settler Colonialism, Capitalism.
• I really don't understand super high theory Ks and probably will not make a great decision on them.
• You still need to warrant and explain your arguments very well. I will not use prior knowledge to fill in gaps for you.
• Impact turning/Straight turning Ks are super cool as well (Humanism, Heg Good, Cap Good etc)
• Flag K tricks
• No biases but K debaters should be very technical, and 2ARs should collapse effectively and need defense to the TOP no matter the 2AR
• Please have specific links or do very specific link analysis to the aff with generic links

K Affs:

• Lean neg on TFW but can be persuaded by good case extrapolations and persuasive defense
• 2NRs need to do interaction with case whether it be explicit or work on the shell itself

Phil:

• Read Kant a lot as a debater, didn't care enough for the lit
• Contention level debates get muddled very easy, and as straight refs become the norm I need a lot of judge instruction
• Err on the side of explanation for non Kant Util debates

Tricks:

• Going to stop voting on one line tricks like eval and condo logic
• Answer CX questions
• Collapses need good weighing and interactions with the rest of the flow - otherwise bad speaks
• I won't do work for you
• Be organized
• If I couldn't catch it, so couldn't your opponent
• Like less tricky strats like Log Con
• I really don't want to judge these debates

Evidence ethics:

• I really dislike debaters who stake rounds on really tiny violations- I think staking should be middle in the paragraph, clipping, strawpersonning, and more egregious offenses.
• If you do stake it though, no takebacks, and the loser gets a L20.
• Challenges being presented in a shell format will be adjudicated as such.

This is my first ever speech debate tournament. Explain the resolution, NO SPREADING. I am super lay. Don’t be aggressive and make sure to signpost well. Keep track of your own time!

I am a parent judge. Do not spread. Please be clear, concise and respectful of your opponent in the debate. My email address is psharm9@gmail.com. Add me to your chain. Have fun!

Hello! I am Jharick Shields. I am a speech and debate coach at St. Andrew's Episcopal School. I have been coaching for about 20 years and have coached debaters into late elimination rounds in a number of national circuit and NSDA/NCFL tournaments. I have also been fortunate to watch them win a few. Debate allows us the ability to critique the world and to substantively engage with those criticisms. It is a forum in which we communicate those ideas. How you communicate in front of me will directly correlate to the ballot I write. I am truth with tech. I think that you should be able to create a cohesive ballot story while also understanding the fundamentals of LD argumentation. You need to show me that you are reading the sources you are citing. You need to prove that you understand the context behind the arguments you run. You should engage with the arguments of your opponent. Is T engagement with an aff that is nontopical? I would say yes. However, the debater that will earn higher speaks from me will also critically think and engage the affirmative.

Speed is an part of the game of debate. Judge adaptation is also part of the game. I have no problem saying that I missed something on my flow. If the argument is super important, signpost and weigh it. Don't assume that an extension through ink is enough for me to pull the trigger. A lot of times in great debates, amazing weighing tends to win out on cold concessions. Great debaters explain why the argument was conceded. I think that the best debaters figure that out, and close the door on them. I prefer few, well developed arguments to many. However, its your world. I tend to get excited when I am asked to bring out a lot of paper. Just don't assume I got everything you said if you aren't utilizing good communication skills.

I am an old fashioned policy kid, who was fortunate enough to do LD as well. Policy arguments are my heart. I like great plan texts, plan flaws are a thing, CPs with net benefits, strong case debates, Ks(bonus for Ks with policy alts). If thats what you do, I am a really good judge in those rounds. You still have obligations to communicate...

If you are a traditional debater, I still have plenty of love to share. Some of the best rounds I have seen on the national circuit are kids reading a traditional aff. I watch as their opponent gets ready to run 5 off and case. The 1ar gets up, extends their conceded criterion/case evidence, no links the DAs/Ks, perms the CP/Alt and sits down. And maybe the debater doesn't use those terms, but if you make the argument clearly and labeled, I will bridge the educational gap in debate jargon. I am also a very good judge for you.

If you caught me during high school, maybe I could have gotten into tricks/skep stuff. Basically, I can evaluate it, and if both debaters are going down that road together, I won't be as upset going there. I think HEAVY weighing is the only way that I won't gut check for anything else in that debate. Maybe not the best for you, but maybe you just need a somewhat tech judge in a small pool then I am good.

Honestly, I just am really excited to see debates. Run what you want, be respectful, have fun! If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me prior to the round.

For MS Local Touraments:

Everything above applies. There are some things that students do in front of me that don't really help them win the ballot. Here are a few:

1.) Rules Lawyering: I get it, you want to show the judge that you know more about LD or at the very least have a lot of ethos. I must say, through my experience, these cases only end up with that debater losing some ethos. Telling me that something is an NSDA rule when we abide by MSHAA rules is sort of a bad argument. Telling me that a student must have a value, can't run a plan/CP, can't have a criterion, etc is just wrong. In theory, a student can run a case with just 1 contention and nothing else and it is fine. They don't lose the debate, they aren't disqualified, they live to debate another round. Win on the flow.

2.) New arguments: I don't flow these. If the new argument transcends the debate: a student has done something harmful in round, then its fine(but I will most likely intervene, since that is my duty). New evidence that supports arguments already made are fair game. A lot of debaters think that new evidence is the same as a new argument. It isn't.

3.) Mismanaging Drops: Debaters will tell me that an argument was dropped, but it wasn't. They will tell me that they have responded to an argument. They have not. Make sure that you are flowing. After the round, if you show me a quality flow of the debate(and if I have them on me). I will give you a candy/treat or something.

Okay, thanks!!

TOC Conflicts 2024: Anika Ganesh, Yesh Rao, Tanya Wei, David Xu, Mason Cheng, Spencer Swickle, Derek Han, Riley Ro

New Updates:

• Feel free to reach out if you have any questions about studying computer science or philosophy in college or if you're interested in computer science research, especially in artificial intelligence or natural language processing!

• Debate is an educational activity, and I feel completely comfortable ignoring arguments that add no value (or negative value) to the activity. Here is my brightline: if you would not feel comfortable extending an argument unless it were completely conceded, you should not read it.Arguments like evaluate the debate after X speech, Zeno's paradox, Meno's Paradox, etc. (at least the way they're read as one-liners) all fall into this category. You have been warned. On the other hand, I would certainly vote on other types of 'tricks' that are interesting and have good warrants (if your argument is carded from a philosophical journal, for instance, it is probably legitimate). If you can execute this kind of a strategy well, I will likely be impressed and reward your speaks.

• I strongly prefer the type of rounds where debaters extemp smart, intuitive arguments, and make high-level strategy decisions about what to do. On the other hand, if your strategy relies on reading mainly off the doc without any original thinking, I am not the judge for you and your speaks will almost certainly be capped. Essentially, your speaks are a function of how strategic your decisions were and how much original thinking you put into the round.

• Check out the Circuit Debater Library wiki for explanations on all of the most common LD arguments!

---

Hey, I'm Zach, and I debated for Scarsdale High School '21 in LD, where I broke at the TOC twice. I now coach LD at Scarsdale and attend Princeton '25, pursuing a major in computer science and minors in philosophy and mathematics.

Email: zachary@siegel.com

I have the most experience judging theory and philosophical framework debates. I have less experience judging policy and K debates, although I will do my best to evaluate all rounds in a non-interventionist manner. I feel fine judging clash debates (e.g. policy v K) but you DO NOT want me in the back of the room if the round comes down to a technical policy debate.

Some musings:

• Arguments must have a claim, warrant, and impact. If I do not understand the warrant of an argument or do not believe it to justify the claim, I will not vote on it. I won't vote on extended arguments if I don't catch them in previous speeches.

• I will attempt to default to the assumptions made by debaters in the round. However, if this seems unclear, on theory, I will default to fairness, education, competing interps, no RVIs, and drop the debater, and on substance, truth testing with presumption and permissibility negating.

• I will not vote on out of round violations that, if contested, provide no clear way to resolve who is correct. That means I will not check the wiki or any other source external to the debate round, and in many cases, I will drop the violation in question if I feel there is no objective way to determine who is correct.

• I will follow the NSDA guide when evaluating evidence ethics concerns. If you want to stake the round on an issue, you may, but know that A. I strongly prefer you debate the concern in round, and B. If you stake the round, win, but I feel the violation is frivolous (e.g. ellipses, brackets that don't change the meaning of the card, etc.), your speaks will be capped.

• I will not vote on argument extensions that logically prevent the opponent from responding by being reliant upon the truth value of the original argument (e.g. extending no neg arguments by saying the neg's responses don't apply because they are neg arguments) because the original argument could only be true if the original argument could take out responses to itself, which is circular.

• Try to have some fun! Debate can become monotonous, and I'm sure everyone would benefit from having a more entertaining round (including your speaks).

Experience: High school ELA teacher and assistant debate coach (2nd year) - LD/PF/SC

Education: B.A. History, English Minor. Assume that I have prior knowledge on content; I will ask for clarification if I do not. I enjoy connections you make to your learning in history/gov/econ classes.

- If you are reading this, tell me! I appreciate when students take time to read paradigms.

- If I look stoic or disgruntled, it's only my poker face. I am enjoying the round, and I will break character on occasion if something that I find funny/odd is said... : )

Debate (Judge/Coach)

General: I flow on paper and leave detailed comments on the ballot based on my flows. Anything I don't catch on the flow is on you, so slow down and ID anything you want to make sure I get. I also take time to think through decisions, which is why I do not disclose verbally (except on the very rare occasion that I do/must).

• The stronger argument is the one which presents a clear framework, supports it logically through an objective criterion, and adequately addresses the opponent's position. The best arguments may use a combination of philosophy and real-world/evidential application. Contentions should always be numbered, and voters with weighing should be done at the end.
• Some rounds can get very technical. I don't love when rounds devolve into aggressive spreading and theory wars, but I understand that is part of the sport. If it's after breaks, send me your case. The most "spreading" I follow/appreciate should sound like an excited friend telling a story; you don't have to be the fastest reader in the world.

CASES: I will evaluate all cases but do prefer traditional discussion of topic and impacts. However (LD), I am comfortable with phil (if you explain slowly and clearly), "soft-left" Ks and other common Ks (such as: cap, set col, anthropocentrism), CPs, and disads. No issues if you run those. Anything beyond that you want to run that's "progressive" I will struggle to adjudicate effectively. Running theory when merited is legitimate, but do it respectfully and help me significantly on ROB/ROJ to vote in those rounds, as I have a hard time evaluating. I do want to learn, so please adjust or ease me into any heavy progressive stuff pre- or post-round so that I can improve judging it in the future.

Type: Policymaker, but flexible; I judge trad rounds in a techy fashion / I judge tech rounds in a lay fashion (due to my current abilities and experience). "Flay" sounds demeaning to me for some reason, so I wouldn't label myself that, but it is what it is.

Likes: Unusual frameworks and contentions ("variety is the spice of life"); clear weighing; analyzing your or the opponent's evidence (i.e., that you actually know the cards beyond the tagline or stats and can explain its relevance in-round); good clash (not talking past or beyond opponent); consistent extensions; clean rounds.

Dislikes: Running cases you are clearly unfamiliar with; saying "turn X" when it is not evidently a turn; relying too much on a single "trump card" without contextualizing it in-round; not using the full allotted time or going over time (I will not count anything you attempt to say after time); "giving up" when you feel outclassed (and its inverse: steamrolling less-prepared opponents).

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

Speech (Judge if necessary)

All categories: Presentation is key. Even the best prepared speeches will not resonate with the audience if the delivery is lacking. I will be looking for PVLEGS and a confident demeanor. Follow the rhetorical triangle and incorporate ethos, pathos, and logos as necessary for your purpose. At the same time, your speech should be equally developed, with an organization, vocabulary, and evidence appropriate to your event.

I favor hearing arguments that have enthusiasm backed up with valid data. I enjoy seeing debaters that have respect for one another and belief in their ideas.

The debater should not be trying to throw out as many facts as possible…in short a time as possible. I would like a balanced with reasonable time frame, with appropriate pauses between statements.

Finally, someone speaking should have a flow. Make me follow your argument with valid points and summaries. Try to be natural, relaxed and clearly share your argument with appropriate facts. Enjoy your time presenting and give it your all.

Hello! I am a parent judge with under a year of judging experience. I am a Legal Compliance professional with law background.

I give lot of weightage to presentation skills and body language of the candidate. The candidate should have clarity in his speech and should be able to convince me with evidentiary support. Also, being courteous to your opponents before /during and after the debate rounds is always noted.

Time is of essence. Do try to finish your speech well within allotted time. Abrupt ending is not very impressive.

Last but not the least, have fun! All of you are doing a great job!!

Parent judge, with experience in judging competitions. I like logical arguments, not arguments with facts that don't connect. Bring all your evidence, and make it connect back to your framework.

Hi, I’m Aran Sonnad-Joshi. I use he/him pronouns. I’d say at least read the first part of my paradigm.

Midtown '23

Harvard '27

Email: a.sonnadjoshi@gmail.com

General Stuff

I’m fine with both progressive and traditional LD. I've competed on both the national and local Georgia circuits. I'll listen to almost anything, just warrant it.

Tech over truth but sketchy arguments have a lower threshold for response

Give a roadmap before your speech. Signpost if you deviate from that, but you should signpost anyway

Speed: I’m good with spreading but send the doc. My email is a.sonnadjoshi@gmail.com but I prefer SpeechDrop if possible.

Prog vs. Trad: I prefer trad, but I'm comfortable with prog. Generally, I would say don't change your style too much for your opponent but also don't beat up on trad debaters with jargon and norms. I think a good trad debater should be able to effectively counter progressive argumentation without compromising their style.

CX: CX is binding, but you have to bring it up in round if you want it on the flow. Also, being somewhat slippery is fine, but answer the question.

Pref sheet

Trad - 1

K - 2

Larp - 2/3

T/Theory, Phil - 3/4

Tricks, Frivolous theory - 5/Strike

Specific arguments:

Framework: Framework is how you weigh the round. Explain how your arguments fall under your framework. If you want to use your opponent’s framework, that’s fine but you have to show how your arguments flow under it.

Plans: I’m ok with plan affs but make sure you can explain how they’re topical.

DAs: Impact calc is key for me to weigh your DA. Sketchy link chains have a lower threshold for response. Make sure you have links, I’m not going to do it for you.

CPs: Counterplans are valid. Weigh the net benefits of the cp against the aff.

Ks: Ks are great. I’m most familiar with standard Ks and some postmodern stuff. My favorites are postcolonialism (but no one runs it), biopower (very underrated), Virilio (no one runs this either), and Baudrillard. Deleuze still confuses me. Pre-fiat impacts are cool if you do them properly.

K Affs: K affs are fine, just warrant them. I've run them before.

Phil (actual phil, not just phil tricks) : I'm familiar with a decent amount of phil. I should be able to evaluate almost any phil argument if it's explained well.

Theory: Theory should have a proper abuse story. I don’t like frivolous theory and it has a much lower threshold for response. I default to reasonability, drop the argument, and no RVIs (but RVIs can definitely be good). Fairness and Education are not default voters. I'm not a fan of disclosure theory, especially against small schools.

T: I prefer whole-res debates in trad LD but I can go both ways on Nebel.

Tricks: I don’t like them. I'll vote if I have to but please don’t make me vote off of them.

More specific stuff

I like a really good trad debate as much if not more than a good prog debate.

I think more than two condo offs becomes hard to justify.

I don't like disclosure theory, especially against small schools.

Debate is a game but rhetoric and conversations are important too

Nonnegotiable

I'll evaluate anything that's not in this section if I really must. These are things you have to do.

Use trigger warnings if you're discussing sensitive stuff (on this, I'll evaluate arguments like neg util/death good and I've run them before but make sure to do it appropriately)

Don't violate accommodations

Don't be exclusionary/ad hominem/discriminatory (no sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.; I'll give you the lowest speaks, drop you, and if necessary let your coach and/or the tournament know)

Speaks

I don't listen to requests for speaks generally. If it's a good reason I might be persuaded.

I try and average a 28.5 with a scale of 27 to 30 for most normal rounds. I adjust my speaks based on the pool. Things that I'll give high speaks for:

• Well executed trad debate, especially against prog.
• If you run unique arguments and explain them well

Theo Soukup

I am relatively new to judging, but within my limited experience I've learned that I appreciate interesting rebuttals and good manners. I like clear spoken and well reasoned points, and loath ad hominem attacks. I tend to be generous with time, but please keep your brief off time road map brief.

please do not use these tactics:

Spreading- "the act of speaking extremely fast during a competitive debating event, with the intent that one's opponent will be penalized for failing to respond to all arguments raised. The tactic relies on the fact that "failing to answer all opposing arguments" is an easy criterion for judges to award a win on, and that speaking fast and fielding an overwhelming number of distinct arguments can be a viable strategy." Debate is not an audition for the fine-print at the end of a medicine ad, I need to be able to hear your points. Spreading does injustice to your points, and my sanity.

(I'm sure more will be added)

I am a parent judge with some experience judging traditional LD. Please talk slowly. I am looking forward to hearing your debate!

I debated PF for four years at Delbarton. I currently coach for Charlotte Latin.

my email for the chain is alexsun6804@gmail.com

Tech over truth

go as fast as you want, but if there isn't clarity then none of the content within the speech will matter.

You should weigh and collapse on whatever arguments you think are the most important within the round.

Tell me where you are on the flow (signpost) for speeches after constructive, otherwise I'm going to be really confused.

For Rebuttal

Provide warrants (reasoning and explanation) and implications to your responses
First rebuttal should address your opponent's case and you can do weighing if you want

Second rebuttal should respond to your opponent's case and you should frontline your own case.

For Summary

Collapse on the most important arguments in the round

This is the latest you can start weighing, if you start weighing for the first time in final focus I'm not going to evaluate that.

Rebuttal responses are not sticky so extend them if they are conceded

General structure for summary can be your case, weighing, their case, but you can do whatever you want in terms of the structure as long as it makes sense

Always extend or explain your case in summary

For Final Focus

Should be very similar to summary with exception to front lining and comparative weighing

Other stuff

Have cut cards ready if something is called

Extend offense in the back half, otherwise, I'll be forced to intervene or presume

I've done some stuff with theory and Ks, but don't be really trigger-happy with either. I'll do my best to evaluate them if it goes down in round.

Don't be rude or say something problematic in round. It could cost you the round.

Good luck in round

Hello debaters,

I am a parent judge. I prefer traditional debate. I am not very good at flowing, and would appreciate that if you speak slowly and clearly. Spreading is highly disencouraged. I will judge based on the evidence presented in front of me.

One more thing, please respect the time limits and other rules.

Have fun.

I am Judging LD Varsity and LD Junior Varsity

If you want my vote, here are my do's and don'ts.

Do's

1. Speaking well and confidently (eye contact and good posture)
2. Constructive speech needs to be well-constructed and persuasive
3. Rebuttal needs to cover all of the opponent’s critical points (don't forget to respond to an argument)
4. State evidence and facts to build up and support your argument
5. Respecting your opponents without shouting.
6. Speaking Clearly (clear & cogent narrative)

Don'ts

1. Include personal opinions
2. Go off topic - don't leave the subject
3. Talk over and not let the other person speak (show respect!)
4. Repeat the same thing over and over again
5. Make gestures

Most importantly, remember to enjoy the experience and have fun.

Background: 1 year High School Debate and Speech (Policy, Poetry Interp, Extempt). 1 year debate at Hawaii Pacific University (World Schools and British Parliament). 2 Years Debate at Middle Tennessee State University (IPDA/NPDA). 5 years teaching and developing high school and middle school curriculum for Metro Memphis Urban Debate League (Policy), 2 years as assistant debate coach at Wichita East High (Policy, LD, Speech), currently Head Debate Coach at Boston Latin School (Congress, LD, PF & Speech)

Go ahead and add me to the email chain: MEswauncy@gmail.com

Quick Prefs:

Phil/Trad - 1

K - 2 or 3

LARP/Theory- 4

Tricks - 5/Strike

Overall Philosophy: I do not believe "debate is a game". I believe in quality over quantity. Clear argumentation and analysis are key to winning the round. Narratives are important. I like hearing clear voters in rebuttals. While I don't mind a nice technical debate, I love common sense arguments more. This is DEBATE. It isn't "who can read evidence better". Why does your evidence matter? How does it link? How does it outweigh? These things matter in the round, regardless of the style of debate. Pay attention to your opponent's case. Recognize interactions between different arguments and flows and bring it up in CX and in speeches. Exploit contradictions and double-turns. Look for clear flaws, don't be afraid to use your opponent's evidence against them. Be smart. You need to weigh arguments.

I am typically a "truth over tech" judge. I think tech is important in debate and I pay attention to it but tech is simply not everything. Meaning unless the tech violation is AGGREGIOUS, you won't win obviously questionable or untrue arguments just because you out teched your opponent. Arguments need to make sense and be grounded in some sort of reality and logic.

I am one of those old school coaches/competitors that believes each debate event is fundamentally different for good reason. That means, I am not interested in seeing "I wish I was policy" in LD or PF. Policy is meant to advocate for/negate a policy within the resolution that changes something in the SQ; LD is meant to advocate for/negate the resolution based on the premise that doing so advances something we should/do value as a society; PF is meant to effectively communicate the impacts of whatever the resolution proposes. This is not in flux. I do not change my stance on this. You will not convince me that I should. If you choose to turn an LD or PF round into a policy round, it will a) reflect in your speaks b) probably harm your chances of winning because the likelihood that you can cram what policy does in 1.5 hours of spreading into 1 hour of LD/PF while ALSO doing a good job doing what LD/PF is SUPPOSED TO DO (even if you spread) is very low.

Theory I will not vote on:
Disclosure theory, Paraphrasing Theory, Formal Clothes Theory, Dates Theory. All of these are whack and bad for debate. If your opponent runs any of the above: you can literally ignore it. Do not waste valuable time on the flow. I will not vote on it.

Spreading theory: Feel free to run it in LD or PF. It is the only theory I really consider. Do not run it if you are spreading yourself, that is contradictory.

I "may" evaluate a trigger warning theory IF your opponents' argument actually has some triggering components. Tread VERY carefully with this and only use it if there is legitimate cause.

Kritieks:
I am not amused by attempts to push a judge to vote for you on the vague notion that doing so will stop anti-blackness, settler colonialism, etc etc. As a black woman in the speech and debate space, IMO, this approach minimizes real world issues for cheap Ws in debate which I find to be performative at best and exploitative at worst. That being said, I am not Anti-K. A K that clearly links and has a strong (and feasible) alt is welcome and appreciated. I LOVE GOOD, WELL DEVELOPED Ks. I am more likely to harshly judge a bad K in LD as LD is supposed to be about values and cheapening oppression and exploiting marginalized people for debate wins is probably the worst thing for society.

Tricks: No.

Conditionality: I believe "Condo Bad" 89% of the time. Do not tell me "Capitalism Bad" in K and then give me a Capitalism centered CP. Pick one.

Decorum: Be respectful, stay away from personal attacks. Rudeness to your opponent will guarantee you lowest speaks out of all speakers in the round, personal attacks will net you the lowest speak I can give you. I recognize that being snarky and speaking over your opponent and cutting them off in CX is the "cool" thing to do, particularly in PF. It is not cool with me. It will reflect incredibly poorly on your speaker points. Do not constantly cut your opponent off in CX. It's rude and unprofessional. WORDS MATTER, using racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic or any other type of biased phrases unintentionally will reflect on your speaks. We need to learn to communicate and part of learning is learning what is offensive. Using it intentionally will have me in front of tab explaining why you got a 0.

Lastly, there is no reason to yell during the round, regardless of the format. I love passion, but do not love being yelled at.

Public Forum Debate

Speed/Spreading: While I accept spreading in Policy rounds; I DO NOT ENTERTAIN SPREADING IN PF. I will absolutely wreck you in speaks for trying to spread in PF, and I will stop flowing you if it is excessive and you don't bother to share the case. That is not the purpose of this format.

Weighing: You must weigh. I need to know why I should care about your argument and why it matters. If you do not do this, you might lose no matter how great the evidence.

Impacts: If your argument has no impact it is irrelevant. Make sure your impact makes logistical sense.

I will ignore any new arguments presented in second summary (unless it is to answer a new argument made in first summary), first final focus or second final focus.

Lincoln Douglas Debate

I am somewhat annoyed by the trend in LD to become "We want to be policy". LD cannot do policy well due to time constraints and things LD is actually supposed to do. That being said if you choose to present a plan: I will judge that plan as I would judge a policy debate plan. You must have inherency, you must have solvency for your harms, etc etc. If your opponent shows me you have no inherency or solvency and you can't really counter within your four minute rebuttal, you lose by default. If you choose to run a K: I will judge you like I would judge a K in a policy debate. Your link must be clear, your alt must be well developed and concise. If your opponent obliterates your alt or links and you cannot defend them well and did not have time to get to strong A2s to their case, you most likely will lose. I am well aware that you probably do not have "time" to do any of this well within LD speech constraints. But so are you before you make the decision to attempt to do so anyway. So, if you opt to be a policy debater in an LD round; do know that you will be judged accordingly. :)

LD is meant to be about values, failure to pull through your value, link to your value, etc will likely cost you the round

Speed/Spreading: Spreading in LD will reflect in your speaker points but I can flow it and won't drop you over it.

Value/Criterion: Even if I do not buy a particular side's value/criterion, their opponent MUST point out what is wrong with it. I do not interventionist judge. I base my decision on the value and/criterion presented; make sure you connect your arguments back to your criterion.

Framework: UNDERSTAND YOUR FRAMEWORK. I cannot stress this enough. If your framework is absolutely terribly put together, you will lose. If you blatantly misrepresent or misunderstand your framework, you will lose.

I will ignore all new arguments after the first AR.

Policy Debate

Solvency: THE AFF PLAN MUST SOLVE

Topicality: I am VERY broad in my interpretation of topicality. Thus, only use Topicality if you truly have a truly legitimate cause to do so. I am not a fan of hearing T just to take up time or for the sake of throwing it on the flow. I will only vote for T if is truly blatant or if the aff does not defend.

Ks: If you are unsure how to run a K, then don't do it. I expect solid links to case, and a strong alternative. "Reject Aff" is not a strong alternative. Again, use if you have legitimate cause, not just to take up time or to have something extra on the flow.

Critical Affs: If you are unsure how to run a K, then don't do it.

DAs: Make sure you link and make your impact clear.

CPs: Your CP MUST be clearly mutually exclusive and can NOT just piggy back off of your opponent's plan. Generic CPs rarely win with me. (Basically, "We should have all 50 states do my opponent's exact plan instead of the Federal Government doing it" is just a silly argument to me)

Speed/Spreading: I don't mind speed as long as you're speaking clearly.

Fiat: I don't mind fiats AS LONG AS THEY MAKE SENSE. Please don't fiat something that is highly improbable (IE: All 50 states doing a 50 state counterplan on a issue several states disagree with). "Cost" is almost always fiated for me. Everything costs money and we won't figure out where to come up with that money in an hour and a half debate round.

Tag Team Debate/ Open CX: For me personally, both partners may answer but only one may ask. UNLESS tournament rules state something different. Then we will abide by tournament rules.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me before the round begins.

The things:

Npiredebate@gmail.com

Affil: Baylor, Georgetown University, American Heritage and Walt Whitman High School.

If you think it matters, err on the side of sending a relevant card doc immediately after your 2nr/2ar.

**New things for College 2023-24(Harvard):

Weird relevant insight: Irrespective of the resolution- I am somewhat of a weapons enthusiast and national security nerd.

Yes, I am one of those weirdos that find pleasure in studying weapon systems, war/combat strategy and nuclear posture absent debate. Feel free to flex your topic knowledge, call out logical inconsistencies, break wild and nuanced positions etc. THESE WILL MAKE ME HAPPY(and generous with speaks).

In an equally debated round, the art of persuasion becomes increasingly important. I hate judge intervention and actively try to avoid it, but if you fail to shore up the debate in the 2nr/2ar its inevitable.

Please understand, you will not actually change my mind on things like Cap, Israel, Heg, and the necessity of national security or military resolve in the real world...and its NOT YOUR JOB TO; your job is to convince me that you have sufficiently met the burden set forth to win the round.

Internal link debates and 2nr scenario explanation on DAs have gotten more and more sparse...please do better. I personally dont study China-Taiwan and various other Asian ptx scenarios so I will be less familiar with the litany of acronyms and jargon.

***

TLDR:

Tech>Truth (default). I judge the debate in front of me. Debate is a game so learn to play it better or bring an emotional support blanket.

Yes, I will likely understand whatever K you're reading.

Framing, judge instruction and impact work are essential, do it or risk losing to an opponent that does.

There should be an audible transition cue/signal when going from end of card to next argument and/or tag. e.g. "next", "and", or even just a fractional millisecond pause. **Aside from this point, honestly, you can comfortably ignore everything else below. As long as I can flow you, I will follow the debate on your terms.

Additional thoughts:

-My first cx question as a 2N/debater has now become my first question when deciding debates--Why vote aff?

-My ballot is nothing more than a referendum on the AFF and will go to whichever team did the better debating. You decide what that means.

-Your ego should not exceed your skill but cowardice and beta energy are just as cringe.

-Topicality is a question of definitions, Framework is a question of models.

-If I don't have a reason why specifically the aff is net bad at the end of the debate, I will vote aff.

-CASE DEBATE, it's a thing...you should do it...it will make me happy and if done correctly, you will be rewarded heavily with speaks.

-Too many people (affs mainly) get away with blindly asserting cap is bad. Negatives that can take up this debate and do it well can expect favorable speaks.

More category specific stuff below, if you care.

Ks

From low theory to high theory I don't have any negative predispositions.

I do enjoy postmodernism, existentialism and psychoanalysis for casual reading so my familiarity with that literature will be deeper than other works.

Top-level stuff

1. You don't necessarily need to win an alt. Just make it clear you're going for presumption and/or linear disad.

2. Tell me why I care. Framing is uber important.

My major qualm with K debates, as of late, mainly centers around the link debate.

1. I would obvi prefer unique and hyper-spec links in the 1nc but block contextualization is sufficient.

2. Links to the status quo are links to the status quo and do not prove why the aff is net bad. Put differently, if your criticism makes claims about the current state of affairs/the world you need to win why the aff uniquely does something to change or exacerbate said claim or state of the world. Otherwise, I become extremely sympathetic to "Their links are to the status quo not the aff".

Security Ks are underrated. If you're reading a Cap K and cant articulate basic tenets or how your "party" deals with dissent...you can trust I will be annoyed.

CP

- vs policy affs I like "sneaky" CPs and process CPs if you can defend them.

- I think CPs are underrated against K affs and should be pursued more.

- Solvency comparison is rather important.

T

Good Topicality debates around policy affs are underappreciated.

Reasonability claims need a brightline

FWK

Perhaps contrary to popular assumption, I'm rather even on this front.

I think debate is a game...cause it is. So either learn to play it better or learn to accept disappointment.

Framework debates, imo, are a question of models and impact relevance.

Just because I personally like something or think its true, doesn't mean you have done the necessary work to win the argument in a debate.

Neg teams, you lose these debates when your opponent is able to exploit a substantial disconnect between your interp and your standards.

Aff teams, you should answer FW in a way most consistent with the story of your aff. If your aff straight up impact turns FW or topicality norms in debate, a 2AC that is mainly definitions and fairness based would certainly raise an eyebrow.

I am a lay judge. I keep up with the news so please do not make up scenarios or evidence that is clearly not true.

truth >tech

DO NOT SPREAD. Don’t even speak fast. If you want me to flow, let me hear you. If I stop flowing, you are talking too much/fast. Your goal is to persuade me, that is how I will vote. Additionally, keep framework in mind - convince me why it’s important.

cross-ex is fun. Utilize it.

Be nice. I have yet to see a rude/bad round, don’t be my first.

edit from daughter - his ballots sometimes are a lot. Think of what you said in round that would correspond to his rfd. Good luck :)

Updated Paradigm:

When I judge the congressional debate, I consider the following points to give my vote in favor of the debater.

1. Debater who provides new arguments that furthered the debate rather than repeating previous speakers arguments.
2. Debater who asks best questions, answers appropriately and accurately to the questions.
3. Debater who participates throughout the session.
4. Debater who offers highly organized speeches and clear transition.
5. Debater who provides evidence based examples that were collected from credible sources to support their arguments.
6. Debater who speaks great analysis of the issues through their points.
7. Debater who rebuts the arguments with strong and valid points.

Please add me to the email chain:

thodugulin@gmail.com

Topshelf:

- Debate for Greenhill for five years (4 years of LD, 1 year of CX) (2018-2023), 4 career bid rounds

- I'm fine with speed but slow down on interps and analytics (It's been about a year since I judged/competed)

LARP:

- read these a lot myself, familiar with CPs, DAs, PICs, etc. and would be willing to vote on any of them

- weigh clearly between impacts, especially between the net benefit and the DA

- strong evidence comparison and warranting is key

Ks:

- read these a lot my junior and senior year (familiar with the literature of Afropessimism, Settler Colonialism, Capitalism, IR, Security -- but still do the explanatory work for these theories when reading these args in front of me)

- highly prefer plan-specific links and tangible alts that actually solve for something

- somewhat familiar with high theory kritiks like Baudrillard, but these will require more explanation for me

- prefer more line-by-line rather than the lengthy overviews, but do what works best -- just signpost!!

T/Theory:

- won't vote on dumb theory arguments (no tricks, if you think what you're reading is remotely a trick, please don't read it)

- went for topicality frequently my junior and senior year, make sure to flush out the standards and have a case list of topical and non-topical affs under your interp

- conditionality is great, that said I will vote on condo (generally think 2-3 condo is fine)

- defaults: drop the debater, competing interps, no RVI's (if friv theory, I'll lean the other way)

Phil:

- didn't really go for phil but can evaluate these debates

- prefer carded warrants over a bunch of blippy analytics

- somewhat familiar with Kant, frequently read util

Tricks:

- probably wouldn't vote on these

Debated both Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas for Brookings High School (South Dakota, so traditional circuit) - also competed in FX, Congress, and Inform

Public Forum: Please clash. Please. I beg. I want real clash and solid, logical reasoning supported by quality extensions of advice that comprise the case. I don't consider K's and counterplans in PF. Also, please signpost well, not just case but rebuttal, summary, and final focus as well. Weigh all of your impacts and tell me the reasons why I should vote for your side.

Don't lie/falsify/make up/bs/misconstrue etc. evidence. It doesn't help you and you'll just lose the round. If you think your opponent did something shady, explain well what they did and why it's really bad. If you falsely accuse someone of lying, things will not end well for you either :)

Speak well and have good-quality arguments. Quality over quantity always. I will always weigh 1 really good argument over 10 horrible ones.

Lincoln Douglas: Have a reasonable Value and Criterion--value debate is pretty inconsequential in most cases (sometimes it matters but not often), so make sure you have a clear criterion. Just make sure that if it is really unique, it isn't abusive and can be understood well. Reluctantly, you can run K's, counterplans, disads, etc. but make sure you explain them really clearly and well. Explain philosophical arguments/connections well and clearly.

May be controversial, but if you're a good debater, I don't think you need to spread. I can handle decent speed, however, but I would always lean toward quality over quantity. On a scale of 1-10 for speed, I'm probably around 7ish.

__________________________________________

Other I.e's: If I'm judging you in IX, Congress, or even inform, then you're in luck! I actually pay attention to your arguments, so even if you talk like Obama or something but you make horrible points, you're not winning.

If I have to judge you in something else, may God help you.

"Tout ce qui se conçoit bien s'énonce clairement, et les mots pour le dire arrivent aisément." ~Boileau

I vote on the clarity of the arguments and on the clarity of their articulation, so it is wise to avoid spreading.

I am looking for proof of your argument - make sure you cite cards throughout, and be clear about what point you are drawing from the evidence you're quoting.

Language matters! Don't assume that speaking faster / louder = making a stronger point. If the words you're using are not clear, or if your syntax / grammar is obscuring what you're trying to say, then it doesn't really matter how loudly you shout it or how fast you say it. There are plenty of examples of overemphasis in the world; be different. You should aim to stun your opponent & judge with an argument (or speech) that is worded with precision, starting from a solid framework, methodically laid out with a logical progression, and reinforced throughout with sound and airtight research / data that you have thoroughly cited.

Finally, but perhaps most importantly, be respectful of your opponent(s). You can and will lose your argument if you resort to incivility. Again, there are plenty of examples of rudeness in the world; be different. And please, keep your own time.

Ph.D., Emory. I've judged on the regional and national circuit, mainly LD and PF, although I've also judged speech a bit and quite enjoyed it. ;)

Email: lupadhyay@chapin.edu

Josie von Fischer (she/her/hers)

Graduate student at American University working on a master's in Terrorism & Homeland Security Policy

Feel free to email me any questions at josiekvf@gmail.com

Policy Paradigm

If I can tell your coach wrote it for you or that you found it online, you haven’t spent enough time learning about it. In life you should be informed about the things you talk about. The same goes for debate.

Speed- I’m fine with speed as long as it actually benefits you. If I can’t understand or write down the args you’re making, then they won’t be on the flow. I’ll say clear twice if I can’t understand you, and if I still can’t I’ll stop trying.

Aff

I don’t have a lot to say here. I don’t love performance affs. I’ll judge a K aff fairly if it is run well. If it's a traditional Aff don’t let your opponent drop your case args.

Neg

DAs- I think DAs are key to a good neg strat and when paired properly with some offense, will win rounds. Because the wiki gives you access to so many DAs, most if not all of yours should link pretty directly to your opponents’ case. I am willing to listen to something that is a little more out there. I’ve been the kid running a DA that lost on judge intervention and then had key parts of the impact scenario actually happen. I won’t do that to you if you’re running it right.

CPs- I hated running them and I think a lot aren't helpful, but if you have a good one that’s great. If you decide to go for a CP, make sure your DAs aren’t triggered by it because otherwise there isn’t a point in running it.

Ks- I have read a lot of the literature surrounding most of the common Ks, but if you aren’t running it correctly or don’t understand it, I won’t fill in what you missed for you. Equally important is having a good alt. It needs to stand up to logic. You can fiat the alt, but if aff pushes you on it, you need to be able to explain why.

T- I will vote on T when there is clear abuse. I don’t care if you run it as a time suck in the 1NC but please don’t carry it into the block if they answered it and there isn’t real abuse. Even if they didn’t answer it super well, you should only rely on T as your voter if you don’t have any options.I won't vote if I think you're using it as an easy out or if it's against a predictable aff.

Procedurals- I hate it when the debate becomes centered around prefiat issues. It’s so boring, uneducational, and feels like a waste of time. If you actually have a reason to run something, please make it concise. I don’t want to flow bullet points a-s if you could have listed a-d and called it good. I hate disclosure theory because I am convinced that 90% of the time the team reading it can win by just debating the case at hand. If it's clear to me that the team reading disclosure is a big school against a team that has limited resources I will definitely not be impressed.

LD Paradigm

Traditional v Traditional- Core Value and Value Criterion clash are key to this debate. By the end of the round it will be clear to me how to evaluate the impacts based on the results of the framework debate, but the sooner in the round framework is established, the easier it is for me to weigh the case arguments. JUST BECAUSE YOU CONCEDE FRAMEWORK DOES NOT MEAN YOU LOST THE DEBATE. I applaud strategic concessions. As long as you can show that you achieve the core value more fully/better in your world than in your opponent’s, you win. I don’t care whose core value it was to begin with.

Traditional v Circuit- Generally a traditional debater going against a K debater is out of their element. Kritiks are new to LD, so I feel that it is the K debater’s job to make sure that the Traditional debater understands how to interact with the K. As an LD debater, you should be familiar with the history of LD and how traditional LD works. If you are the K debater, you need to have explained your framework as clashing with theirs(preferably in CX somehow so that they know they need to interact with it), make clear to me that you understand the kritik and how it links to the resolution, have solvency for your K, make sure you are avoiding spreading, and not being rude to someone going outside their comfort zone. If you try to run T, disclosure theory, or any other pre-fiat args against someone who clearly doesn’t know how CX arguments work, I will vote you down. That’s cruel and uncalled for.

Circuit v Circuit- These debates inevitably turn into mini policy rounds where Ks need alts. Make sure the sign posting is clear, especially if you’re switching between flows. You still need framework so that I know how to evaluate the impacts, the earlier the framework for the round is established, the cleaner the debate is all around. If you spread, make sure it benefits you because I can’t flow what I can’t understand.

PF

PF shouldn’t need a paradigm, it’s supposed to be the lay man’s debate. The only thing I will say is that I don’t see a point to framework in PF unless it’s an onbalance framework which I view as default anyways. So please, please do not make this a framework debate and instead focus on the pros and cons of the issue/resolution.

Note: Please don't debate me on my RFD; it makes my blood boil. I don't know when this became a thing but it isn't cute. If you think I made a mistake because I missed one of your points, you need to make my decision easier by being more clear.

I coach on the DebateDrills Club Team - please click here to access incident reporting forms, roster, and info regarding MJP’s and conflicts.

I debated for Walt Whitman for 5 years. I accumulated 10 career bids in LD and 1 in PF and qualified to the TOC in '19, '20 and '21. I currently attend the University of Chicago. I am most familiar with framework and theory positions. My pronouns are he/him.

Send docs to: bmwaldman0918@gmail.com

Note for Harvard: I have not attempted to flow a real debate round in over a year. I still coach, so I shouldn't be totally lost when judging, but I would not pref myself very highly! If you do get me in the back, please do not go top speed, please enunciate, and please do not read one sentence analytic tricks that I will be unable to flow. Best of luck!

Unconditional Rules

Speech times are absolute. If you clip, you lose. I will evaluate every speech. Arguments need warrants and implications in the speech they're read, or I won't evaluate them. I won't evaluate out of round arguments except for disclosure. The more unintuitive your argument is, the higher bar for explanation it has. I will drop you for evidence ethics violations if the round is stopped or if I notice it on my own.

General preferences

I like strategies that contain fewer, well-developed positions. I dislike strategies that are designed to avoid clash, whether that is due to intentional obfuscation about the content of a position or due to spamming of many underdeveloped positions in the hope one is dropped. I tend to dislike theory and tricks debates but am willing to listen to them. I think 1NCs should rarely contain more than 3 off, and I think they should devote a substantial portion of the 1N to answering the case.

I do not judge or think about debate very much now. This means that you should slow down in hyper technical debates and do more impact calc and overview work. If you do not do these things, I will still try my best but the odds you will be frustrated with my decision increase substantially.

Philosophy

Framework positions should be comprehensible in the speech in which they're introduced. I think many frameworks are consequentialist (and thus turned by extinction impacts) or are absolute nonsense or both. I've probably read some of your literature but that doesn't make explanation less important. I think I am best at judging framework debates and also enjoy them most.

Tricks

I'm not good for any argument that you wouldn't feel comfortable going for if it was competently contested. I'm not great at flowing (especially now), and I don't flow off the doc. I'm happy to judge creative philosophical or logical positions as long as they're meant to be defended against meaningful contestation. I think triggering skep can be fun if done well. I have no problem refusing to vote on theory spikes/tricks because they lack a warrant and have done so on many occasions.

Theory

I'm good for reasonability (without a bright line), drop the argument, and the RVI (though probably not in conjunction). I'm bad for any theory argument concerning a debaters clothing or appearance. Paragraph theory is fine. I wish people would read less spec but I'm willing to vote on it. 1AR theory is usually strategic even if it makes me sad to judge.

I have noticed that I seem to be worse for frivolous theory positions than many people expect when they pref me. I have also noticed people seem to get the most annoyed with my decisions in theory debates.

Policy

I have no ideological bias against policy debates, but I didn't have them particularly frequently and I don't usually coach them. I'm pretty sympathetic to many policy pushes against other styles of debate. I won't judge kick unless I'm told to. I'm sympathetic to the aff in most CP competition debates. I like impact turns (including death good).

K

I'm good for Ks that are well-explained and implicated clearly. Good K debate is techy K debate. Being sketchy in the 1NC is bad and will make new 2NR spin less viable. I think T-Framework is probably true, but I won't hack for it. I'm bad for poorly developed independent voter arguments that become entire rebuttals.

Miscellaneous

I tend not to give very high speaker points.

I will pay up to 500 dogecoin for information leading to the arrest of Zara Chapple.

Hello All,

I am a first year debate judge associated with Admiral Farragut. I have a Bachelors degree in Chemistry with a minor in Psychology. While I do not have a background in debate, I am familiar with speech and presentations from Student Government Associations. At the end of all final speeches please make sure to include a transparent voter/impact analysis. In general, I do not recommend spreading. If I cannot understand or hear you, I cannot judge you. Lastly, I prefer thorough definitions, references, and defined argumentative points. Good luck to all competitors, I look forward to hearing from you.

I am a communications teacher (I was never a debater) therefore I focus more on the educational aspect of the debate. Please do not assume that I understand all debate terminology and techniques. I need you to educate and persuade me through organized speeches and clear explanations.

Enjoy the journey and learn from each other. Good luck!

My name is Zi Wang (Zee).

I'm a parent judge. I'd prefer traditional debates over progressive and normally don't vote on tricks, Ks, theory, etc. Please don't go too fast and make your arguments clear. Make sure that you weigh and give clear voters.

Tech>Truth

Email: ziwangdebate@gmail.com

TL;DR: Tech > truth. Theoretically will be comfortable voting for any argument you present to me, so run whatever you're best at, and don't over-adapt too much. Comfortable with speed, just include me on the email chain. My email is webb@muhs.edu.

Background: I debated policy and LD at Marquette High in WI before studying philosophy and economics at Yale, and am currently the LD coach at Marquette.

Random Argument Thoughts:

Phil: If running phil cases is your thing, great - I really enjoy philosophy as a subject, and love rounds in which a debater is clearly passionate about a thinker and knows their thought well. If, on the other hand, you're unable to coherently explain your framework in CX, I will likely tank your speaks. FWIW, I wrote my undergrad thesis on Heidegger and plan to write my master's thesis on Nietzsche.

LARP: Probably my favorite kind of arguments to judge because they provide the easiest means to substantively engage with the topic, which I think is a good thing. CPs should be competitive and have net benefits, DAs should have uniqueness, affs should have inherency, etc.

Ks: Go for it. Please just make sure you're able to explain what the links are and how they're contextual to the aff. Ideally, there will be an ROB or some framing work done to explain why the K comes first. I prefer when K affs are at least tangentially related to the topic.

Theory/T: Honestly, I get kinda bored during theory debates and am not great at flowing them if the shells/responses aren't in the doc. My least favorite debate rounds to judge are those in which one side blows up a 5 second blip that their opponent didn't flow. I have a pretty low threshold for buying responses to friv theory.

Tricks: A conceded argument is a conceded argument, so long as it is sufficiently warranted. However, this is the area of debate that I am least familiar with, so these will require you to hold my hand a little bit.

Speech - Strong analysis and organization is key. MAKE SURE YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION! I evaluate heavily on the use of evidence to back up clear, logical analysis. Communication is key - it is your job to communicate with me, not my job to work to understand you - keep this in mind and consider what structure to provide in your speech to make sure your concept and analysis can be easily followed.

Interp - I judge interp based on storytelling, characterization, and performance technique. In dramatic selections - I am looking for depth of character, honesty, realism, and believable character relationships. Make sure you have moments and aren't just presenting dialogue. Character arcs are also important and should be part of your storytelling. In humorous selections - I am looking for strong, committed acting choices with strong polish and technique. Storytelling is still hugely important - the story should be easy to understand and clearly focused. Characters are the most important. I am looking for strong characters that feel realistic and react in the moment. The comedy should drive largely from character reactions. Popping technique is also very important - should be polished and clean with distinct physical and vocal choices.

add me to the email chain: djwisniew@gmail.com

I am a fifth year parent judge and a former competitor in Policy in the late 80s. Currently, I judge for my daughter who is a small school LD debater. Pref me high if you want a FLAY judge

No spreading - I do NOT appreciate spreading. Skimming through a document trying to figure out where you are is NOT debate. I need to be able to follow and understand your arguments and responses. Dazzle me with your intellect, not your speed. I will not be relying on the docs - they're only good for reference.

For LD circuit debate - It’s in your best interest to give me signposts (a lot of them, and be clear) - policy, case, K, disad, counter plan, etc. I will evaluate the flow per your direction. If T comes before case, tell me why and we're good. I like K when done well, but it's not an automatic win. I enter the round tabula-rasa, if you're running something complex please explain it well. Make sure I know where you are in the flow!

For Parliamentary Debate - I judge you based on what you tell me, not what I know. There’s never a bad side of the motion. I will be flowing all your arguments, and I make my decisions based on who convinces me their arguments are the strongest. Don’t forget to weigh, this is crucial to how I make my decisions! Any impacts are welcome. The extra 30 seconds are intended to complete a thought, not start a new one. Ties are awarded to the Opposition. Please rise when you want to interrupt with a question. Time pauses for POCs and POs, not POIs. Please be respectful to your opponents and have fun!

For all other debate most of the same points go - run whatever you’re comfortable with and I’ll judge the way you tell me to. A list of preferences:

1. Contentions should be based on quality, not quantity. I’m not going to vote for you if you fly through 12 contentions and tell me your opponent dropped half of them.

2. In circuit debate you should slow down and literally write the ballot for me. I don't like tricks, but for everything else tell me what weighs and I will vote for the most convincing.

3. I will weigh all arguments carried through, and consider the impact of dropped arguments per your direction. (please don't drop your opponent's entire case). In LD, please weigh your argument against your framework.Framework is crucial in LD, and you should always have impacts. In all others, please clearly state how your impacts outweigh your opponent's.

4. I don't consider any new arguments in final speeches.

5. In your final speeches, please number or letter your voting points so we are all on the same page. I’ll flow you regardless, but it’s in your best interest.

Debate should be educational and fair. Good luck and have fun!

I am a parent judge. I prefer traditional over progressive approaches to debate. If you are going to speak fast, please send me your case.

Please be respectful to your opponents. Have a great debate!

Email: abigpandor1@gmail.com

I am a parent judge of a debater.

I prefer calm and logical debates with believable arguments.

Dont like over exaggeration to extinction

Dont really care about framework but you cab read it if you want.

Good luck and have fun!

I am an old-school judge. In LD I want to see very clear values and a criterion that weighs them so I can judge whether you've tied your impacts in support of your case. I am going to judge your arguments on quality not quantity, so please don't throw out a bunch of statistics and cards without putting them in perspective for their impacts.
Most crucially, I do not like speed or spreading. Make your best arguments and support them. If you go too fast and I can't understand your argument because of how fast you're speaking, I can't score it.

email: qian.xia.nj@gmail.com

I am a traditional Lincoln-Douglas parent judge, preferring it over the circuit debate. Please do weighing and clear signposts. Please present arguments at reasonable speed. I evaluate all arguments extended through to rebuttals. I do not understand tricks, ks, non-topicals.

Things that can get you higher speaks:

• AUTO 30: Bringing me a celsius, low-calorie energy drink, diet coke, protein bar/shake, food (something not too unhealthy but lowkey boba)
• +0.5:Tell me who your favorite Strake alumni debater is and text them thanking them for their lasting impact on the activity
• +0.5: Show me screenshot evidence that you followed LaMelo Ball or Niki Zefanya on Instagram and reshared his or her most recent post on your story
• +0.5: Winning while ending speeches early and using less prep (let me know)
• +0.3: Guess my favorite twice member
• +0.3:Innovative funny arguments
• +0.2: Making fun of your opponent in a non-obnoxious manner
• +0.2: Making references to goated shows in your speeches
• +0.2: Being funny
• +0.2: Drip
• +1.0/-1.0:If you and your opponent both agree, you can have a push-up competition and the winner gets +1 and loser gets -1

Notes:

• I haven't thought about debate in like a year
• I don't enjoy tricks rounds that much and lowkey my mood at the time affects speaks

I debated for 3 years at Strake and got 12 bids. Add me to the email chain:jarvisxie03@gmail.com

Shortcut:

T/Theory/Reps: 1

Normal Phil: 1

Normal K: 2

Tricks: 2

LARP: 3

Weird Phil: 4

Weird K: 4

Non-negotiables:

One winner and one loser

Normal speech times - 6-3-7-3-4-6-3

Defaults:

~I can be convinced to go the other way very easily.

No judgekick

Truth testing

How to Win:

You do you – just do it well.Tell me very clearly how to evaluate the round and why you’re winning compared to your opponent, and that’ll probably be what I decide on. I liked to read a little of everything in my rounds, so don’t be afraid to try out some obscure strategy in front of me – just know how to explain it well enough for the win. I will say, though, I am more than fine evaluating these rounds, of course, but my least favorite types of rounds are LARP vs. LARP rounds.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Winning & Boost Speaks:

-Weigh:Do it as much as you possibly can manage. It doesn't matter to me if you're winning 99% of the arguments on the flow; if your opponent wins just that 1% and does a better job at explaining WHY that 1% matters more in terms of the entire debate, you will probably lose that debate. Weighing + meta weighing + meta-meta weighing and so on is music to my ears. Also, doing risk analysis is excellent and very persuasive for weighing.

-Crystallize + Judge Instruction:You really don't need to go for every possible argument that you're winning. You should take the time to provide me with a very clear ballot story so that I know why I should vote for you. It might even behoove you to explicitly say: "Look. Here's the thesis of the aff/neg: (insert story of the aff/neg). Here's what we do that they can't solve for: (insert reason(s) to vote aff/neg). Insofar as I'm winning this/these argument(s), you vote aff/neg."

-Warrant your Arguments:When making arguments, be sure to provide clear WARRANTS that prove WHY your argument is true. Highlight these warrants for me andmake sure to extend themfor the arguments that you're going for in later speeches - if done strategically and well, I will probably vote for you. Also, pointing out the concession of warrants is just generally good for strength of link weighing, which I absolutely love. Please don't claim that stuff that isn't conceded is conceded, though; that is annoying to myself and your opponent.

-Signpost:Make very clear to me where you are on the flow and where you want me to put your responses. This will help to prevent any ambiguities that might affect my decision.

-Creatively Interpret/Implicate Your Arguments:Feel free (in fact, I encourage you) to provide your own unique spin to your arguments by providing implications that may not be explicit at first glance. Just make sure your original argument is open-ended enough to allow for your new interpretation. Truth claims are truth claims, so I don't care if you go for extinction outweighs theory, the kritik link turns fairness, or anything of the like, as long as you warrant the argument and win it.

Speed:

I’m fine with it– make sure to start off slow and ramp up to your higher speeds so that I can get used to it. I flow on my computer and will say slow or clear several times if necessary – that being said, if you still continue to be incoherent, I will not get your arguments on my flow and will not be able to evaluate them.

That being said, there are things I will DEFINITELY want you to slow down for to make sure that I catch them.

Slow down on:

1. Advocacy/CP Texts

2. Text of Evaluative Mechanism(This can include the text of your ROB, your standard/value criterion, etc.)

3. Theory Interps

4. After Signposting(Just pause for a second so that I can navigate to that part of my flow)

Speaks:

I will assign speaks based on your strategic decisions in round, but being clear definitely doesn’t hurt.

Random Notes:

-Tech > Truth:Technical proficiency outweighs the actual truth value of an argument. Even if I do not personally agree with your argument, the onus is on the opponent to prove why the argument is false or shouldn't be evaluated. If your opponent fails to do this, then I will view the argument as legitimate and will evaluate the argument accordingly.

-Talk to me prior to the round if you need any accommodations.If you have a legitimate problem with a specific argument that impedes you from debating at your best, then please, by all means, let me know before the round starts.

-Have Fun with the Activity:feel free to make jokes/references/meme (a bit) in round. Debate is admittedly a stressful activity, and so is school and basically the rest of life, so feel free to relax. Make sure that your humor is in good taste. However, there is a very fine line between humor and arrogance/insults, and I do not want to have to deal with a situation where "fun goes wrong."

Further notes:

- IF YOU'RE GIVING A 2AR VERSUS T OR THEORY, EXTEND CASE. I will negate on presumption if it's just a 3-minute PICs 2AR with nothing on case

- AGAINST NOVICES/NON-PROGRESSIVE DEBATERS: If this is a bid tournament, just don't be rude. You can read whatever position you want, but if you don't spread and read like a good phil NC or something so that the round is educational, you'll get good speaks. otherwise, read whatever you want. Idc ill give u normal speaks -- just try to make the round educational. the only time I will rly have to dock ur speaks is if you're being mean straight up. if it's elims, do whatever you need to win.

- I will not vote on an argument I don't understand or didn't hear in the initial speech, obviously, so even if you're crushing it on the flow, make sure you're flowable and explain things well.

- Prep time ends when you're done prepping, you don't need to take prep to send out the doc by email, but you do for compiling a doc.

- I will vote on non-T positions; just tell me why I should and explain the ballot story.

- Don't steal prep or miscut. u can call ev ethics by staking the round or reading it as a shell/making it an in-round argument - whatever u want.

Paradigms I ideologically agree with/took inspiration from:

Neville Tom (took the majority of his paradigm), Chris Castillo, Tom Evnen, Matthew Chen

Non-negotiables:

One winner and one loser

Normal speech times - 6-3-7-3-4-6-3

Defaults:

~I can be convinced to go the other way very easily.

No judgekick

Truth testing

How to Win:

You do you – just do it well.Tell me very clearly how to evaluate the round and why you’re winning compared to your opponent, and that’ll probably be what I decide on. I liked to read a little of everything in my rounds, so don’t be afraid to try out some obscure strategy in front of me – just know how to explain it well enough for the win. I will say, though, I am more than fine evaluating these rounds, of course, but my least favorite types of rounds are LARP vs. LARP rounds.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Winning & Boost Speaks:

-Weigh:Do it as much as you possibly can manage. It doesn't matter to me if you're winning 99% of the arguments on the flow; if your opponent wins just that 1% and does a better job at explaining WHY that 1% matters more in terms of the entire debate, you will probably lose that debate. Weighing + meta weighing + meta-meta weighing and so on is music to my ears. Also, doing risk analysis is excellent and very persuasive for weighing.

-Crystallize + Judge Instruction:You really don't need to go for every possible argument that you're winning. You should take the time to provide me with a very clear ballot story so that I know why I should vote for you. It might even behoove you to explicitly say: "Look. Here's the thesis of the aff/neg: (insert story of the aff/neg). Here's what we do that they can't solve for: (insert reason(s) to vote aff/neg). Insofar as I'm winning this/these argument(s), you vote aff/neg."

-Warrant your Arguments:When making arguments, be sure to provide clear WARRANTS that prove WHY your argument is true. Highlight these warrants for me andmake sure to extend themfor the arguments that you're going for in later speeches - if done strategically and well, I will probably vote for you. Also, pointing out the concession of warrants is just generally good for strength of link weighing, which I absolutely love. Please don't claim that stuff that isn't conceded is conceded, though; that is annoying to myself and your opponent.

-Signpost:Make very clear to me where you are on the flow and where you want me to put your responses. This will help to prevent any ambiguities that might affect my decision.

-Creatively Interpret/Implicate Your Arguments:Feel free (in fact, I encourage you) to provide your own unique spin to your arguments by providing implications that may not be explicit at first glance. Just make sure your original argument is open-ended enough to allow for your new interpretation. Truth claims are truth claims, so I don't care if you go for extinction outweighs theory, the kritik link turns fairness, or anything of the like, as long as you warrant the argument and win it.

Speed:

I’m fine with it– make sure to start off slow and ramp up to your higher speeds so that I can get used to it. I flow on my computer and will say slow or clear several times if necessary – that being said, if you still continue to be incoherent, I will not get your arguments on my flow and will not be able to evaluate them.

That being said, there are things I will DEFINITELY want you to slow down for to make sure that I catch them.

Slow down on:

1. Advocacy/CP Texts

2. Text of Evaluative Mechanism(This can include the text of your ROB, your standard/value criterion, etc.)

3. Theory Interps

4. After Signposting(Just pause for a second so that I can navigate to that part of my flow)

Speaks:

I will assign speaks based on your strategic decisions in round, but being clear definitely doesn’t hurt.

Random Notes:

-Tech > Truth:Technical proficiency outweighs the actual truth value of an argument. Even if I do not personally agree with your argument, the onus is on the opponent to prove why the argument is false or shouldn't be evaluated. If your opponent fails to do this, then I will view the argument as legitimate and will evaluate the argument accordingly.

-Talk to me prior to the round if you need any accommodations.If you have a legitimate problem with a specific argument that impedes you from debating at your best, then please, by all means, let me know before the round starts.

-Have Fun with the Activity:feel free to make jokes/references/meme (a bit) in round. Debate is admittedly a stressful activity, and so is school and basically the rest of life, so feel free to relax. Make sure that your humor is in good taste. However, there is a very fine line between humor and arrogance/insults, and I do not want to have to deal with a situation where "fun goes wrong."

Further notes:

- IF YOU'RE GIVING A 2AR VERSUS T OR THEORY, EXTEND CASE. I will negate on presumption if it's just a 3-minute PICs 2AR with nothing on case

- AGAINST NOVICES/NON-PROGRESSIVE DEBATERS: If this is a bid tournament, just don't be rude. You can read whatever position you want, but if you don't spread and read like a good phil NC or something so that the round is educational, you'll get good speaks. otherwise, read whatever you want. Idc ill give u normal speaks -- just try to make the round educational. the only time I will rly have to dock ur speaks is if you're being mean straight up. if it's elims, do whatever you need to win.

- I will not vote on an argument I don't understand or didn't hear in the initial speech, obviously, so even if you're crushing it on the flow, make sure you're flowable and explain things well.

- Prep time ends when you're done prepping, you don't need to take prep to send out the doc by email, but you do for compiling a doc.

- I will vote on non-T positions; just tell me why I should and explain the ballot story.

- Don't steal prep or miscut. u can call ev ethics by staking the round or reading it as a shell/making it an in-round argument - whatever u want.

Paradigms I ideologically agree with/took inspiration from:

Joseph Georges (took the majority of his paradigm), Neville Tom, Chris Castillo, Tom Evnen, Matthew Chen

danxu2004[at]gmail[dot]com

Houston Memorial ‘22

I am basically Sebastian Cho if he didn’t keep up with the topic or understand policy debate.

I am most comfortable evaluating skep.

I am pretty comfortable evaluating theory, phil, and trix.

I am somewhat comfortable evaluating T and K.

I am least comfortable evaluating policy.

These preferences aren't based on some inherent bias against these styles of debate, just my past experience with different styles. Check my wiki for specifics.

Please weigh and collapse. I get confused a lot when judging. Especially if you are a tricky little goblin.

I’m out of debate – please don’t make me minesweep UVs or flow “extempted” trix.

Speed is fine but I’m not great at flowing so slow down on analytics.

As I am removed from debate, I would request that you do not speak at all. See Andrew Garber's paradigm for talking points.

Arguments about skepticism’s repugnancy are not only inadmissible, they are reverse voting issues. Not only was I not there to observe them, but debate is not a trial. I am not a judge, but if you introduce these arguments, I will be your executioner.

With all that said, here are a few other things to note:

I am extremely strict when assessing new arguments and more than willing to disallow new responses entirely.

I do not share the debate community’s disdain for permissibility triggers. Every FW has a trigger.

‘Extinction outweighs’ eliminates all generic NCs, an impossible burden against new affs that destroys fairness.

Perms are a shift of advocacy. Nothing more.

Most util justifications are easily mitigated by analytics. The Darwinian Dilemma does not justify util.

Intentions must come first. We can always omit culpability. The only exception to this is if one side reads skepticism.

Lastly, here are some things people say in debates that have left me genuinely confused:

“Skep is not educational.” Debate is not about education.

“Skep triggers are cowardice.” The goal of debate is to beat your opponent, not demonstrate your bravery.

“Affirming is harder so presume aff to break the tie.” The negative is not saying that skep means debate is a tie. They are saying that the aff has failed to fulfill their win condition because skep proves the resolution is false.

“Winning competing interps requires proving that a solely norms-based model would be better than the status quo mix.” This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of theory. If competing interps is removed from the neg arsenal, there is no longer the ‘status quo mix.’ There is only arbitrary intervention.

“Reading NIBs is about the practice, not the number of a priori’s.” Is your claim that 7 a priori’s are no worse than 2?

“What happens when two policy teams debate each other in front of me?” Incorrect RFD percentage skyrockets.

“A ballot can’t remedy fairness.” That is the only thing a ballot can do. It remedies what was unfair to begin with---the other team’s chance of victory.

“They’re just going to go for some east coast junk.” And you’ll likely be defeated.

“Extinction turns the NC.” Extinction is not an intention-focused argument. That is deontology.

“Default to truth over tech.” When said by a policy team and conceded by a skep team, this ensures a ballot for the latter.

Finally, externalism is not intuitively preferable to Cartesian skepticism.

Hello my name is Esther and I am parent judge. I do not know much on this topic so please explain why certain countries will do certain things, historical examples are appreciated. Do not use debater terms I will not know what you mean by “turns” or “dropping”. Explain what you are doing instead.

Please really crystallize the round for me. I do not flow so I want to know what arguments are important and the reason you are winning on them. I want clear framing in your last speeches and preempting if you are on neg.

I appreciate strong speaking skills. Personally, I like professional speaking, but I do not mind other styles. However I will struggle to understand arguments if you spread/circuit arguments and will be less likely to vote for you.

Above all, give me clarity in arguments.

Please send your cases to me before round so I can follow along. You do not have to send cases to your opponent if it is a traditional round. My email is: esthersyoo@gmail.com

Yo I'm Philimon. I debated in Az and I did LD. I got 6 bids and a couple of speaker awards over my career. Tech>truth, I'm not gonna intervene unless someone does something problematic. I am good for a lot of things and I don't have any predispositions against or for certain arguments, nor do I have any opinion on what a debate should look like. I hated judges who were like that so I'm open to pretty much anything.

email: pyosafat23@gmail.com

Quick Pref Sheet

(Note: I'm fine at evaluating anything and will vote on anything with a warrant and an implication, these are just my familiarity with certain arguments/debates)

K/K-aff: 1

K-aff v T: 1

Policy v K: 1

K v K: 1

Tricks: 2

theory: 2

Policy v Policy: 2

Phil: 3

Extra Info

K

My A strat is the K, but don't read it just cuz I'm judging. I read antiblackness Ks through my entire debate career and know a bit about a few other lit bases but don't think I will do any work for you on the thesis level. Read stuff you're comfortable with, not stuff that you think I'll like. I like any type of links, but I want a crystalized explanation of the link. The alt has to do something, whether it be destroying the world or refusing something. You don't need to win the alt to win the k, but if u kick the alt and go for the links, you'll have to do a lot more work on the link debate. Also, I love fire 2nr overviews that explain the thesis link and alt very efficiently.

Phil

I'm fine with phil, but I don't want your syllogism or framing to be straight buzzwords. I want an explanation of what your framing means and how i should use that to evaluate the round. Also, I'm prolly not familiar with your lit base so don't just extend without a simplified explanation of it.

Tricks

I've always appreciated tricks and i read them myself here and there. Don't be dodgy or your speaks will suffer. I will gladly pull the trigger on tricky arguments but if you're gonna go for them, explain them well.

Theory

I'm great for theory. Default DTD, competing interps, and yes RVIs. I want you to weigh your standards and explain exactly how their model is bad for fairness or education. I'll vote on frivolous theory but I'll have a low threshold for responses. If you win the abuse story and WEIGH IT properly, you'll have my ballot.

Policy

I always enjoyed debating against a policy aff. I'm great for policy too, just don't make the round irresolvable. Give me a framing mechanism to evaluate the round and then weigh under that framing. I like simpler link chains, but please explain your link chain clearly, and tie that to the impact.

CP

I don't judge kick. Always include a net benefit to the cp. If you're affirming, win the perm or put disads on the counterplan and you're set. The 2NR should always weigh the net ben above the aff.

T

I debated T a lot and I was fine on both sides of it. I mainly read a K aff, but trust me, I am great for a T debate and don't have any bias. I am prolly better for a education 2NR than a fairness 2NR but am willing to vote for either. You don't have to win a TVA but it will help a lot.

Misc

I'll gladly vote on disclosure if you win your shell.

Don't spam independent voters without warrants.

Use cx effectively. What that looks like means either asking clarification questions or executing a strategic sequence of questions. Don't just use it to let them speak while you get 3 extra minutes of prep.

Tbvnkz references will be receive +0.5 speaks

hi, my name is Fei. please just refer to me as judge

**for harvard: if you plan to spread or run something highly progressive, dont pref me high.

send me your cases - yufeiyan294@gmail.com

I am a flay judge, I have judged ld before but please speak slowly and clearly, 50% of ur top speed should be ok - I can only judge you if I understand you

im not very familiar with ld jargon (fiat, disads, etc) but i can understand basic ones (magnitude, scope, etc)

please remember to weigh, give voters, and collapse

be nice to each other, don't be overly aggressive or speaks will be lowered

do not ask me to disclose after rounds.

have a good debate!

Hi, I'm Kathy and I competed in LD for one year, but the bulk of my experience is in Moot Court and Mock Trial. I would consider myself a traditional/lay judge. With that in mind, here are my preferences:

1) Be respectful in CX

2) Please have a clearly organized roadmap and signpost

3) A little speed is okay as long as I can clearly understand you

4) I'm not familiar with this topic or core arguments, so please explain everything extremely well

5) I appreciate good presentation style (good eye contact and volume, not glued to your notes)

6) Please be systematic and organized when refuting

7) Higher speaker points awarded for being respectful, methodical, and organized

Be nice and have fun!

I did traditional LD throughout high school, and I weigh framework heavily. Spreading is okay, but I should be able to hear and flow your arguments in order to judge them. Warrant and impact your arguments. Most importantly, have fun :)

email: zzarnish@college.harvard.edu

Stuyvesant '22 (debated circuit LD for four years)

Email: maxwell.zen@gmail.com

I haven't touched tech debate in a year! So try not to go at top speed and especially at the end make sure to explain the round a little bit better than you normally might.

For context: I was mainly a phil+theory debater, so I'm more familiar with those debates. Other than that, I'll vote on anything as long as I understand it, and I don't have any strong ideological preferences.

Update: I've gotten some emails asking what my preferences are with tricks - don't go overboard if your opponent is clearly inexperienced, and make sure all tricks are in the doc at the same level as an analytic (but feel free to hide them in larger analytics if you really want to). If they're not in the doc I probably won't vote on it. Other than that, I'll vote on pretty much anything as long as the explanation in the 2n/2a is clear.

Hey goofs, I'm Charles

I debated LD at Harrison High School for two years, and I'm attending Brandeis University. I've won a few tournaments in JV and varsity divisions, so feel free to run a slew of argument types (see Shortcut). I don't care if you sit, or stand, or lay down. Above all, this is an educational activity, so be kind, informative, and clear. I want to be on the email chain even if no one else is ... zenhausernc@gmail.com

NCFL UPDATE

I know a thing or two about the NCFL, so let’s have fun! Lowkey I’m not in the mood to hear circuit prep if you have it, but you do you. Let’s remember that trad isn’t the same as lay: in front of me feel free to use any jargon, and what have you, but understand your panel as a whole. I like being on the email chain and I like seeing evidence even if the round is trad, so please send docs to, at least, me. I expect you all to time yourselves. Since we're in a cubicle'd room, and there's AC going, you'll need to speak twice as loud than usual for us to hear (of course, if you know you're already a thunderous voice, then use your discretion...I'll let you know if I can't hear). If you're a school that cuts cards, please don't make the round all about evidence ethics if you're hitting a school that doesn't have cards. I'll vote on your arguments, but at least respond substantively as well. NORMALLY……I give out what some might consider "good" speaks. I’ve been told by the higher ups that I must adhere to a very strict speaker scale, which looks a little something like this!

29.5-30: I wish I could frame your speeches – hard to imagine a better speaker
29.1-29.4: you were consistently excellent
28.8-29.0: you were effective and strategic, and made only minor mistakes
28.3-28.7: you hit all the right notes, but could improve (e.g. depth or efficiency)
27.8-28.2: you mainly did the right thing, but left something to be desired
27.3-27.7: you missed major things and were hard to follow
27.0-27.2: you advanced little in the debate or cost your team the round
26.0-26.9: you are not ready for this division/tournament
Below 26: you were offensive, ignorant, rude, or tried to cheat (MUST come to tab)

A couple problems with this: 1. This is not a scale for speaks, just general quality. E.g, 27-27.7 involves judging debaters based on if they’re winning or losing the round (you advanced little…or cost your team the round; you missed major things…). This is bad because YOU are getting lower speaks even though your speaking ability may be top tier, so the scale is inaccurate and deflating your speaks. The scale is also bad because multiple categories involve both speaking ability and debating ability, which is bad because the judge doesn't know if they're awarding the speaks based on speaking or argumentation (it should be speaking!). The 29.1-29.4 and 29.5-30 categories are not mutually exclusive...you can be consistently excellent and want to frame someone's speech. Additionally, since there's no low point wins the tournament encourages handing out speaks parallel to winning and loses, which isn't fair for small schools or talented speakers. If you are a terrific speaker but you hit someone who can outpace you by spreading like crazy or reading positions that are unfamiliar then you would lose and get worse speaks, even though your fluency and clarity may have been outshined your opponent.

2. As you’re probably aware, the average speaks on the circuit tend to be around the 28.5-.8 range, and if you received 27s you must of either been quite offensive or had a very unfortunate round. This scale is mainly made for parent judges, which by itself isn’t bad at all. However, when you are TRAINING your judges to use a scale that is inaccurate to the speaker and rest of debate culture around speaks, you create an unrealistic mindset for the judge that devalues the ability of the speaker, and creates psychological harms to the debaters.

3. There’s no variation. If a circuit judge knows that a debater gave a round that was worth a solid 28.9, to a parent listening to the same round (even if it’s completely trad or lay) would give you an epic 27.5. If I wanted to give everyone higher speaks than the scale allows it would throw off the pool, because some debaters would get consistently high speaks and others would get consistently low speaks. This allows for an unfair competitive advantage, which ruins the integrity of the tournament, and allows for the possibility of sending some of the least qualified to nationals based on the breakers.

4. As paying debaters (kids), yall deserve a better, accurate, and specific scale that allows for variations in winning/losing and speaks quality.

5. The speaker scale sent in the live doc isn't even the same as what's shown to judges in Tabroom on the ballot. This is bad because judges who aren't aware of the difference will assign speaks using different metrics, so the whole thing isn't consistent either way....AND the debaters don't know why they recieved certain speaks because judges may be using different justifications which impedes educational benefits from debate.

I would personally not want to use this scale. BUT, that’s neither here nor there, as I’m being forced to. So just know that if your speaks seem low, you probably got higher speaks in my book. Now, if I suddenly die under suspicious circumstances for disclosing this information, know that it was the elite upper crust of the NYCFL…don’t let me die in vain; live your life, have fun, let’s have a good tournament!

LD:

YOU (average LARP debater) DON'T WANT TO PREF ME! I WOULD CONSIDER MYSELF A TRAD FLOW JUDGE. Even though I know stuff, a lot of the "stuff" is not stuff I want to evaluate, or can keep up with. LD circuit debate is kinda stinky at times, so I encourage you to be the different round that I hear. That being said, I have experience in most of the circuit. Just know that while I can keep up with some spreading, I have a quite low threshold for super speed and will clear you. To quote Thomas Berg's paradigm (in the context of tricks, but I'm applying it to spreading), if you lose the round because "I don’t understand the third sub point of your 22nd underview don’t post round me and say i didn’t warn you." Just make sure that what you spread through is on the doc, sign post with all your heart, and it should be peachy keen, Avril Lavigne. I'm ALWAYS ready for CX, I love CX :)

Shortcut:

TraK - HIGH SUPREME 1

Ks/K Affs/Non-T Affs - 1

Trad - 1

Interesting Phil - 2 (Pragmatism, some deont, burdens NCs, etc.)

LARP/T - 3/4 **READ THE BREAKDOWN**

Theory - 4 minus

Whitey Phil - 4/5 (Your typical Kant business)

Tricks - nah, strike

Extinction impacts - boring, overplayed

TraK: You've probably stumbled upon this thinking 'What in the heck is even that?" TraK is the mixture of Trad and K debate. I was above all a TraK debater. It's all about reading kritikal arguments with a trad approach. If you pull up in a round and do this effectively you win at life.

Kritiks: I freaking love Ks etc, I'm more than comfortable evaluating almost any K position as long as the links and alt are well explained. Performance is epic (please do perform!), but not without its faults. I used to run a non-topical Aff, so I can vote on yours, and will be less lenient towards T against one.

Trad: I prefer trad over most styles of debate. However, I think it can be sucky if it's not creative. So please, feel free to have fun, goof a little, but remain clear. I think my favorite style of debate is a mixture of kritikal arguments in a trad format (or TraK, as the cool kids call it nowadays).

Interesting Phil: Complicated stuff, always wished I ran more interesting phil. I see this stuff as more fun than anything else. A not so fine line between things like burdens NCs and Kant or Baudrillard, so don't confuse these. That being said, I am not an expert in many phil positions, so run these at your own discretion, and thoroughly explain the philosophy, especially if it's dense.

LARP/T: Big fan of the CP-DA game, PICs can be very clever as well. What I do NOT enjoy are long link chains that impact out to util extinction scenarios, especially since util is like kinda freaking racist. BUT, I will evaluate them, just know it's not my favorite thing by far. T is interesting, if there are real warrants for a violation, of course run it and I will evaluate. I'm even somewhat tolerant of clever T shells that aren't frivolous when I'm in a silly goofy mood. But, if you're reading T against a non-T Aff, it's kinda like slapping someone who said they are being slapped. Granted, if the shell is completely dropped, I will evaluate. There's tons of great ways to respond to non-T Affs that I'd be happy to share if you chuck me an email!

Theory: You know when you're reading a shell just to waste time, and so do I, so basic theory shells like disclosure are fine, but once you start getting into frivolous theory shells (or friv th) like shoelace theory, I become less tolerant. While I understand the basics of theory and how it functions on the flow, I do NOT necessarily enjoy hearing rounds that devolve to theory...my brain feels sticky, and I get worried I’m evaluating the round incorrectly. I believe that theory debate is a question of reasonability, that is to say, the burden heavily lies on the person reading the shell to justify why the violation reasonably warrants DTD or whatever you go for. In this way, I have a preference for reasonability over competing interps, and rounds that devolve to theory tend to do so over what the interp is, which is the definition of irresolvable because no one gives a reasonable warrant for which one is better. I also love the RVI! Naturally, only go for it if you think you're winning the shell, but I have little apprehension to vote on it. Theory debate in the squo is heavily focused on setting the norm, so much so that it can justify the most extreme punishment for minimal harm of a violation, which is why I err on the side of reasonability and the RVI.

Whitey Phil: I will evaluate any argument I can understand (please pick up on the staleness of this sentence). I had experience hitting these positions, but I never ran them myself, so my understanding is limited. I'm not a fan of a priori knowledge, I don't particularly like evaluating it. I think Kant was racist (probably because he was) and hearing the words of a racist spread throughout debate rounds is yucky to me.

Tricks: Strike me. While I understand and can appreciate how goofy some tricks are, they are uneducational and I will not tolerate them. Additionally, many tricks are ableist or racist, some (if you're lucky) are both! I would hate if this ages well, and you think, "Looking back on my life, I see I was surrounded by foolishness. - 2023" If tricks manage to sneak their way into the round, I will not evaluate them. I won't tank your speaks, but you won't win from them.

PF:

I'm pretty new to Public Forum (or PoFo, as my west coast friends like to call it), but I have a lot of experience and success in traditional LD debate, which I've been told has some similarities. I've judged one tournament of middle schoolers, so that's my experience. I suppose be clear, persuasive, sign post, and give a clear ballot story!

As a brief underview: I love a good silly, goofy, quirky kinda round, so have lots of fun with your cases and your speeches! That being said, be nice, and be kind to all.