Jayden Sampat

they/them

yes, put me on the email chain: jsamdebate@gmail.com

email chain >> speech drop (but do what you must)

Barstow '24 (immigration, arms sales, criminal justice, water, nato, econ inequality)

Wake Forest '28

if you have any accommodation requests email me or ask me before the round. also email me abt any questions you have before the round

TLDR

you do you. I enjoy all arguments and styles and i will evaluate everything evenly as long as it isn't a harmful arg (i will give u a loss and tank your speaks for any intentional misgendering, racism, queerphobia, misogyny, etc). have fun, don't stress- ik that’s easier said than done but do your best and lmk if there's any way I can help make debate a good learning experience for you.

basic things

-most of what I've learned is from Lucia Scott, Alaina Walberg, and Maeve Ella

-speed is good, but clarity is better. if you can spread really fast, go for it, but make sure you are clear. i will clear you 3x before I give up flowing. and I have auditory processing issues so I may clear you more than a different judge

-open cx is fine, but I don't want you to not let your partner ask any questions during their cx

-JUDGE INSTRUCTION. please spend a few seconds in your rebuttal speeches writing out my ballot for me. what impact should i put first in this debate and why? if u don’t do this then idk what i should evaluate first so even if it’s just a little bit, pls do it.

-ask questions after the round. i want to help you understand things. also feel free to email me after the round for any questions

Preferences:

The biggest thing is have fun and learn something. I would rather watch a round where you all are enjoying yourselves than one where it looks like everyone is about to lose their temper, and in general you will take a lot more from the round if you’re enjoying it. also, respect others and yourself- debate is an educative space where we all can learn, pls don’t ruin that for some by being disrespectful, misogynistic, homophobic, etc (i will fill out my ballot then and there and give u lowest possible speaks)

Topicality:

I am an insufferable T debater. I love topicality. especially against clearly untopical affs. its so fun. do what you want to do here and ill sit back and enjoy the show. also love t substantial

DA

Love a good disad debate. Also love when an aff straight turns it. any da is fun to judge

CP

Love counterplans too, especially ones with a case turn as the net benefit. dont forget sufficiency framing and make sure you impact turn the other adv if going for an adv cp. not the best for a bunch of process cps, i get lost in theory debates pretty easily esp if you are spreading theory blocks.

Kritiks:

my favorite part of debate but also probably means i hold you to a higher threshold of explanation than i do on other off case positions. am most familiar with cap, queer theory, Baudrillard, and biopolitics, but as long as u explain ur worldview im good. if you are going to go for the k in the last speech, please know what your alternative does - unless ur going for fw. Im also down to judge a good framework debate, as this is what my partner and I often go for. make sure you do impact calc on here because that will factor greatly into my decision (if your impact is structural violence, i need you to tell me why i should weigh that over the aff’s nebulous extinction impacts. usually something along lines of “aff isn’t probable now and our constant desire to avoid their extinction claims results in the worsening of structural violence”)

Case:

i know this is on everyone’s paradigm but case is underrated, and i think all teams should do more work here. i love watching impact turn debates on case, and will definitely vote on them. i also will vote neg on presumption, assuming the neg successfully constructs those args out in the 2nr. my 1nr is usually only case, so id love to see a good case analysis, even if its only a couple minutes

Speaker Points

I start with a 28.5 for speaks and move up or down from there. 29 means I think you should break, 29.5+ means I think you should be in late elims.

I have given one 30 before, and it was to the best middle school debater I've ever seen

Hafsa Amin (she/her)

northside '24

add me to the email chain:

hamin1@cps.edu

Novices:

- run whatever you like, just be sure to explain the argument

- don't be rude to anyone in the room during speeches or cross-x (this goes without saying)

Barstow debater for 6 years

MS Congress : Arms Sales and Criminal Reform

HS Policy : Water resources, NATO, Income Inequality, and Intellectual Property Law

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

Add me to the E-mail chain : tylerthedebater1984@gmail.com

They/Them

To make this short, have fun. I really don't care what you run, as long as you explain it then that is good.

I usually end up being a little more Truth over Tech. Although I try to not allow this to affect my decisions, it is still something that will inform how I evaluate arguments despite my efforts.

don't be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic etc.

I'm a K hack, but I don't mind policy.

Act like I don't know what any of your arguments are and explain it to me using this framework. This will really help you improve on giving your rebuttals and explaining your arguments.

I stop flowing after the 6th off, so don't bother. Read a few good arguments instead of a lot of shitty arguments.

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

Policy Aff - I'm good with both soft left and hard right, do what you do best.

K Affs - I like K Affs, but I assume since you are running a K Aff you know your lit base. I'm a material action fiend, I love revolution.

T - If you want to win on T you need to have an interp that is not absolute BS. T is one of those args that I won't vote on unless an aff is genuinely off topic (PERA is on topic so don't waste my time with T. If the aff is manufacturing more water bottles in Nevada, run T).

DA - Don't really have a strong positive or negative opinion on these.

CP - For the love of god read something that is actually mutually exclusive with the aff.

Theory - Like T, I will really only vote on it if the opponent's strategy is genuinely abusive.

K - I like Ks a lot, as long as you are able to explain your K in a way that display's your understanding of it you will be good. I am most familiar with Queer Theory, Cap, Deleuze, Fem, Blackness, and Semiotics/Baudrillard, but really any K is fine. Death good Ks are cringe, and I will not be too happy if you run one.

Case - Just engage with the opponents, the worst thing a debate can fall into is just two arguments that don't clash one another. As long as you engage on case you are all good.

T USfg/FW/whatever you call it - Long story short, I will try my best to evaluate these debates fairly. I run a K aff, so I am likely to lean aff due to having to deal with this arg almost every aff round. That does not mean I am unwilling to vote neg, but the threshold for a neg ballot on FW is going to probably end up being slightly higher than other policy judge's.

KvK - If you are going for Cap K (like most people do), show that you know what you are talking about. I will be expecting hardened Marxist-Leninist-Maoist level display of knowledge and intricate explanations of the most nuanced differences between the aff and the alt (I'm joking... partially). For any other K, IDK have a link and a mutually exclusive alt.

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

Remember that your opponents are people, treat them as such; don't be a jackass.

Don't misgender your opponents. If it was a mistake, apologize, but I will still evaluate it as a voting issue if it is extended. I've seen how this effects people first hand, and I have no problem voting against anyone who misgenders their opponent.

Ethic violations result in an immediate loss, no matter what.

I accept bribes, but that doesn't mean I will vote for you.

If you are reading this: hey, hope you are having a good day, and if you are not, I'm sorry and let me know if I can help in any way.

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

Clarity>Speed

Friendly reminders:

• Give pen time between flows
• Slowdown on tags and analytics
• differentiate between cards and tags

+ 0.5 speaker points if you are funny without forcing it

pls time ur own speeches and prep pls pls pls

she/they

niles north 25

ADD THIS EMAIL PLEASE:

alebur3@nilesk12.org

----

call me "alex", not "judge" pls!

tech>truth

clarity>speed

FOR ONLINE: i would strongly prefer if cameras were on, but no worries if not

DONT

• isms (racism/sexism/etc)
• steal prep
• take forever for the email chain (its j a pet peeve of mine pls i understand tech stuggles but pls try and be efficent when sending out stuff)

DO

• time your own speeches (i probs am not and it is the debater not judges responsibility anyway)
• FLOW.
• be respectful!
• give a roadmap/signpost ("i am going to be responding to what my opponents said" is NOT a real roadmap!)
• keep the debate intresting! debates are long, attention spans are short, have some ethos and confidence, it will go a long way! (esp for speaks...)
• impact calc. <3
• pretend im not flowing, if your opponent dropped something, tell me (but u should be flowin!)
• line by line in rebuttal speeches
• judge instruction in the 2NR/2AR goes a LONG way, it helps yall, helps me, tell me how i should write my ballot

MISC:

- i have learned i have very prominent facial reactions, if i look confused i probs am, etc

- be nice, have fun, novice year is all about learning feel free to ask questions after the round :)

- im cool with tag-teaming in CX, but please don't talk over/down to ur partner. if that happens, I will probs dock speaks. there is no reason to be rude in CX, it's obnoxious and embarrassing!

- please overexplain rather than underexplain args- assume i know nothing, overexplain everything

+ 0.1 speaks if you make me laugh or make a FUNNY joke about: anybody from Niles North, New Trier, Lane Tech, GBN, Maine East, or Cali Stoga

+ 0.1 speaks if you show me flows after the round

LASTLYYYY: have fun! debate is all about education and getting better, so don't get too stressed, it is truly never that serious and feel free to email any questions after the round :))))

Please add me to the email chain for all evidence: ndunn26@pembrokehill.org

IMPORTANT THINGS:

I would prefer it if you send theory and analytics as well, especially if you are going for it in final speeches.

Prep time: Please don’t steal prep time. If you stop prep, please stop typing and whispering. That is what prep is for. This goes for both teams regardless of whose prep time it is.

PLEASE DO NOT CARD DUMP. I WILL GIVE YOU LOW SPEAKS! IT IS SO BORING. GIVE ME ANALYTICS. EXPLAIN STUFF. I will give you high speaks if your explain everything and give me judge instructions.

If you want high speaks:

Read impact turns, theory, impact calculus, funny kritiks (that are extremely well explained), and judge instruction.

Less important things:

I am a high school debater with 2 years of experience. I did one year of public forum debate in middle school and 1 year of policy debate.

You can call me judge if you want. Your honor also works.

Dropped arguments: If a team brings back an argument that they dropped, all the other team has to say is “they dropped it already so they can’t bring it back up. Don’t listen to them”. If you don’t say that, I might evaluate it. Depends on how well you extend the argument.

This is a quick summary especially if I am judging Public Forum or Lincoln-Douglas. Make what ever arguments you want as long as there is no hate involved. As long as you explain the argument thourougly, your good. Just explain why your arguments are better than your opponents and why you should win the debate.

THE FOLLOWING IS FOR POLICY DEBATE:

I am alright with all arguments as long as there is no hate involved toward specific groups of people. Run wipeout, spark, etc if you want.

I will give you better speaks if you read a good impact turn. :)

Kritiks: If you run a K, please be slow and explain your arguments thoroughly. Tell me a story. Don't expect card dumping with no explanations to be effective.

Theory: If you can adequately explain why your opponents link, I will consider voting for it. However, if you just say something like Condo Bad with no explanation and move on, I won’t vote for it UNLESS the opponents drop it. If your opponents read theory as a voter and you drop it…sorry. Not sorry:)

Please fully extend your arguments and read enough information to have a complete argument.

Impact calculus: Impact calculus is what will make a difference between winning and losing a debate. Explain WHY you should win the debate.

Clipping: If you clip, you lose. Obviously, accidentally skipping one word is fine but a whole card is a whole different story.

Stock issues: I believe that it is the obligation of the aff to uphold all 7 stock issues: Disadvantages, Advantages, Solvency, Harms, Inherency, Topicality, and Significance. I will vote neg on one of these if you can explain to me why the aff failed to uphold one of these. If you want to run T as an RVI, go ahead. I’ll think its funny but unless the neg drops it, don’t have high hopes.

Have a good debate! Good luck!

Hey y'all! I'm Jen and I’m currently a Senior at New Trier (c/o of '24). Please make sure to include me on the email chains. My email is: hjenn8109@gmail.com. When sending out docs, send them as word docs. Include all your cards in your speech—make sure you read what’s highlighted. If it's not highlighted, but it is bolded/underlined, etc then tell me beforehand, so I can follow along.

I do not have any predispositions or preferences for any arguments, just please make sure that your arguments are well extended and links, impacts, etc. are explained thoroughly. If you're going to spread, slow down when you're moving onto different arguments, and I'll do my best to follow along. That being said, I ask that all rhetoric used in round is kept in check and that we’re not making any racist, xenophobic, homophobic comments, etc. Please also be respectful to/of everyone in the room. No disrespect towards anyone will be tolerated. Finally, make sure you speak clearly, indicate when you're moving on to a different topic, and have fun!

AFF teams-- please, please flow so you're not dropping all NEG off case positions in the 2AC.

Everyone please use all your speech time and CX time!!

Justin Stanley - Johnson County Community College

I debated at Missouri State and have been coaching for about 10 years.  I would like you to debate using the arguments that you feel will win you the debate without putting too much stock in my own personal preferences.  I try to eliminate those preferences when judging and evaluate each argument outside of any feelings I have towards particular arguments.  With that being said,

I am a better counterplan/disad/Case judge than kritik judge because I have more experience debating, coaching, and researching these positions.  I certainly understand kritik literature more than I used to, but I am still probably not as well read on these issues as other judges. 

I have a strong preference that the affirmative have a topical plan and defend its passage.  However, I can be persuaded otherwise.  This is an issue in which I try to eliminate my preferences and judge the debate based on what I see in the round. I often find that your defense of why you have chosen to be anti-topical is not as persuasive to me as it is to you.  I haven't ever thought that topicality was genocidal.  If there is a topical version of your affirmative that solves all of your "impact" turns then you are likely in a bad position.  If there is not a topical version of your affirmative then that is likely more of a reason to vote against you then to vote for you.

I don't think conditionality is always the best approach for debate.  This is especially true in rounds in which multiple conditional options are used to try and "Spread out" the IIAC and not necessarily to test the merits of the affirmative.  I have not voted on conditionality bad very often, but I often find that has more to do with the debates then my own personal preferences. 

I think PICs are often very good strategies, but I am not the best judge for obscure word PICs that claim a minute net-beneft.

A few other things...

1) Clarity - go as fast as you would like, but don't underestimate the importance of clarity in my decision.  If I can't understand your argument then I am highly unlikely to vote for it.

2) Strong cross-examination will earn you additional speaker points.  Being humorous and kind will also help you with speaker points.  If you are a team that ranks based on speaker points then I am probably average to slightly below average in the speaker points that I give.  I rarely give a 29+.  Most debaters will fall in the 27 - 28.7 range for me.

3) Paperless debate is a great thing and I am relatively patient with tech problems.  However, at some point my patience runs out and I get frustrated.  Please do your best to eliminate delays between speeches. 

4) One person should not ask and answer all of the cross-examination questions. 

5)  If you want me to call for a card then you should extend author, claim and warrant for the piece of evidence.  Listing 20 authors in a row with no real explanation will likely result in not calling for any cards.

6)  If I catch you clipping cards then you will automatically lose with zero peaker points.  This is true even if the other team did not make a complaint about it.