I consider myself a novice judge, but I do have a PhD in Communication Studies from USC, and a daughter who has competed in various forms of debate for the last three years. Please discuss your frameworks, include road maps, and explain terms and jargon for me clearly. I absolutely hate spreading, but understand it is a part of the competition (especially for many of you in policy). I am good at weighing the strength of arguments, looking carefully at citations, and I do consider if an argument goes unaddressed when flowing. Respect towards your competitors is important, but feel free to attack their evidence or arguments. Let's have fun!

My email is michelle@gradis.us

Francis Jayaratne

Head-Royce School '23 | Claremont Mckenna College '27

MS Parli debate (2017-2019, 2 years)

Policy debate (2019-2023, 4 years) Topics: Arm sales, Criminal Justice Reform, Water Resources, NATO emerging tech

TOC (2023)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo3OM2_E7FU

Emails (add both):

mtglord123@gmail.com

hrsdebatedocs@gmail.com

For Policy Debate:

• Have fun with debate
• Please format email chain subject lines as "Tournament Round Aff Entry vs Neg Entry"
• My flowing wasn't the best when I debated, but I still had some success so make of that what you will
• I read a Policy Aff for 1.5 years and a K Aff for 2.5, wrote a policy Aff
• In my last year I went a ton for death good and other whacky arguments --> love it, if you read these types of args I'll be with you 100%
• Disclosure is good+important
• I'll assume nobody in the round is trying to be actively malicious, and I think apologies remedy most in round conflict
• Don't call me judge, feel free to say my name
• Make me laugh --> I'm often expressive so feel free to take that into account
• CPs and Ks absolutely need to beat the perm or win FW
• T is great if you can prove real abuse, especially if they're shifty in round. Affs are too shifty nowadays and defend too little with their plan texts
• DAs with good links are cool
• Silly/contrived/generic/most process CPs aren't that cool
• Don't use CX as prep
• If a plan text is vague/the Aff is being shifty I'm 100% willing to vote neg on vagueness/parametrics type args
• I 100% will vote for a substantiated and harmful instance of evidence manipulation/ethics violation. Even if not done purposefully policy debate needs good evidence standards, however I'll also weigh reasonability, don't make frivolous ethics violations.
• For the K:

- Love them, especially with post fiat links and explanations like circumvention etc.

- Winning FW makes the K debate super easy, I think if it comes down to it I won't do a middle of the road approach

- When I debated I read racial cap, Deleuze, Tech Ks, and Security Ks

• In the K Aff debate:

- You need to prove that your education o/w some level of clash+fairness loss

- Fairness is kinda an impact but my mom told me life ain't fair so...

- Beat SSD/TVA

- I'm very unsympathetic towards K affs that say the topic as a whole is bad/should be ignored, each year's new topic brings a new valuable topic to learn about imo

- I'm absolutely willing to vote for the Neg off FW, you just need to win it

For Middle School Debate:

- I'm a high school debater, so as long as I can actually hear you, I probably can follow you

- I am flowing, probably on my computer otherwise on paper

- Don't spread in MS debate or misuse high school debate terms

- Make me laugh, it'll help your speaks and make your pathos better

- While I miss heckles, over zoom no heckling

- Debate is all about making connections --> Connections between contradicting points, your own assertions, pieces of evidence etc. In many ways it's a web

- I love good POIs and will keep track of them. They can and should be a key part of clash and interacting with the opponents and clash. However, don't abusively overuse POIs. While I'll appreciate the effort behind a bad POI, it doesn't automatically help your side

- Be confident, doesn't matter if you're an introvert or extrovert, everyone can at a minimum look confident and that really goes a long way

- I'm probably a mixture of tech and truth (meaning I evaluate debates both off of my flow/exactly what was said, and also with some level of common sense)

- Not a fan of Plans/counterplans, instead frame them as potential alternatives that the Pro/Con/Aff/Neg precludes

- In the rebuttal speeches I really want to see good impact calculus/comparison. More often than not the other team has some impact, what you need to do is tell me why yours comes first

- Weighing mechanisms are cool but misused. If it's too broad I don't care about it. If it's not explained why it comes first, it probably doesn't come first. If it's not tied back to your own points/assertions, then your overall story is less convincing. Honestly saying your weighing mechanism is utilitarianism (doing the most amount of good for the most amount of people), is probably the best W/M in MS debate imo

- I really like good refutations and answers. A weird way I viewed debate was as a knife throwing competition. Each knife is an assertion, and each thrower is the speaker. Instead of throwing a bunch of knives at the target and hoping some stick, it's better to have a few highly accurate throws. Even better is "catching" your opponent's knife and throwing it back at them. In my eyes that's a really good refutation that either turns their own point against them or that stops it from ever hitting the target

- Compare compare compare. Comparing points wins you debates --> More than that, Answer Questions. Most debates come down to your side answering a question, and their side answering that question with the complete opposite answer. Tell me why your answer is right while theirs is wrong. If that doesn't happen, I'm left having to just use common sense.

- Some impacts need to be explained more while others don't until the last speech. Saying the economy will collapse doesn't need to be impacted out to people losing their jobs and becoming poor until the last speech. On the other hand, climate change probably requires less of an explanation since talking about polar bears isn't really crucial.

- If the debate comes down to a piece of evidence I will probably look at it

- Don't read a definition unless it'll help your side

- Wrap up what you're saying when time goes off, I highly recommend you time yourself when giving your speech

add me to the chain - stephenlewisdebate@gmail.com

damien '23, msu '27

whether new arguments are allowed in the last rebuttals is for the debaters to point out and decide. unless its the 2AR. then you get no new arguments.

tag team cx is fine for answering but not for asking - more geared towards novices, if you're varsity do what you want (if you are constantly talking over your partner/opponent and being rude your speaks will suffer dramatically.) be aware that the less able you are to ask/answer cx questions will impact my ability to give you speaker points.

tech > truth

generally feel comfortable evaluating and keeping up with any style of debate whether it be a KvK debate or a very detailed and probably monotonous counterplan competition debate. obviously i have argumentative preferences, but i would never insert those into a debate i was judging and would consider myself incredibly flow centric which means if you think there is an argument that you think will win you the debate, you should ensure i have it on my flow by balancing clarity with speed.

i don't really feel the need to give some long explanation about how I feel about every little thing in debate, simply because I feel debates should purely be judged and decided by what was communicated to me. chances are i understand what's going on, and if you have sufficiently explained why you should win in the context of most debate arguments, you will win. so, if you're trying to pref me and decide not to because I didn't give you a paragraph explanation about whether or not i think fairness is an impact, sorry I guess.

LD addendum

not familiar with anything in LD that doesn't resemble policy debate. this includes tricks, phil, or whatever. i'll evaluate anything, but the likelihood i give a decision that makes sense starts to severely decline the farther away you go from traditional policy/k debate.

don't be annoying. that includes being overly aggressive/rude (there's a pretty clear bright line between being assertive/confident and being annoying), racist, sexist, or what have you. in the event that something of this nature occurs, i will nuke your speaks or intervene with tab if i feel it's necessary.

above all else, have fun. making me laugh will help your speaks.

+0.1 points if you make fun of omar darwish in an actually funny way

feel free to post round

I have two years experience in policy debate at Downtown Magnet High School. I debated the climate topic (2016-2017) and education topic (2017-2018).

Email: cmiranda2300@gmail.com

School Email (if empty ignore):

General Notes:

• First and Most Important: I am returning from a break from debate so pref me at your own risk. I will do my best to judge the round fairly.
  
  Rounds judged:
  2023-2024: 22 rounds

• Speaker Points: I tend to hover around 28 by default.

• Spreading: I am not opposed to spreading on cards but when it comes to analytics I would appreciate it if you slow down.

Topicality/Theory:

I am not the best judge for these debates but I can vote on them if I am convinced there is a clear violation. Make sure your interpretations/counter-interpretations and violations are clear. Convince me that your impact is the most important impact in the round. If there are other theory arguments in the round then convince me I should value your argument over the others, otherwise I will default to topicality. T as a time skew is fine as well.

Do not spread any arguments that are not included in the document please. This is especially important for your standards and any turns/DAs.

Overall you may need to put more work into this argument if you intend on going for it.

DA/CP:

The UQ debate is probably the most important part of the disadvantage. More recent evidence is important and as long as the card is credible then that is enough for me. If you’re going to go for a nuclear war impact, please give me some context on how it happens. I will not give you an impact like that without any explanation. I find myself voting for structural violence impacts over nuclear war-esque impacts a majority of the time.

I usually do not have any issues with any CP you choose to run unless I am given a reason to. Net benefits can be a game changer for the negative. In general just convince me that your plan is better than the affirmative.

K:

I am not well-versed in the literature for most Ks so I would prefer that you explain your arguments well. Usually the most important arguments for me are the links and the alternatives. The links should be explained in the context of the affirmative. Some alternatives may be difficult for me to understand so I would appreciate some extra time explaining the alternative and what it does. If the alternative is in round solvency then make sure you give me a reason to prefer it over the aff. This means I would expect there to be a framing or a role of the ballot to help me analyze the round.

K AFF/Soft Left:

I am not well-versed in the literature for most Ks so I would prefer that you explain your arguments well. If you are going to perform or have an advocacy statement then I need to understand how you provide solvency. I would expect the aff to be in the direction of the resolution but if it isn’t then I would expect a valid reason why you are not. I expect both sides of the debate to provide their own framework and if they are similar then explain why your method is better.

Email Chain

Add me: dgpaul8@gmail.com

Please include tournament and round number in the subject line of the email.

T/L

Tech > Truth always - There is a lower threshold for refuting an "argument" that is clearly untrue, but it is your burden to clearly explain why it should be evaluated as false

I will make the least interventionary decision, meaning:

1. T is the highest layer - the rest is up for debate
2. What's conceded is true, but will only have the implications as argued by you
3. More judge instruction - Communicate the locus of your offense and defense clearly. If the final rebuttal is thoughtlessly extending and answering arguments without a unified argument, your likelihood of winning is low. Have intent - I will not grant any logic or rational to you if not explicitly said.
4. My vote is always influenced based on how the round goes down - I have no preconceptions

DAs

U/Q is up for debate - my vote is influenced based on how you debate

No preference over specific links vs. generic ones - just tell me why your link is relevant

Don't drop straight turns, and don't double turn yourself - that being said, you have to tell me they did it for me to evaluate

As the affirmative, if you drop a disadvantage, I'm still willing to hear weighing arguments from the rebuttals as to why you outweigh, but I will assume 100% risk of it happening

CPs

I think sufficiency framing is a valid argument - that being said, you must explicitly make it, and if you can't defend it, I won't buy it

'Judge kicking' the counterplan is merely to evaluate the disadvantage against the plan, in order to test whether the plan is in fact better than not only the counterplan but also the status quo. The ONLY burden of the negative is to disprove the desirability of the plan. The desirability of the counterplan should be irrelevant if the status quo is better.

• I will assume judge kick, but if presented with reasons not to, it's up for debate

T

The threshold for winning against frivolous T-interpretations is lower, but you better be sure that it really is frivolous

Won't vote on RVIs

I'll view your standards however you debate them - ie. show me why fairness o/w education

T v. K-Affs

The negative needs to have good reasons, argued effectively, why being topical is a good thing. Consequently, the affirmative needs to have good reasons, argued effectively, why it's not - I'm not preconditioned to vote either way

Ks On the Neg

I'm fine with all kritiks - whatever you want to argue, argue it - my only brightline is that you argue it better than the other side

Argue whatever framework you want to - the team that wins framework decides how I view the kritik debate - doesn't equate to an automatic win or loss - just depends on the framework interpretation

Extinction o/w is a good debate - show me why it does, and show me it why it does not - I'm open to swinging either way

What matters most is that you make your point - these debates boil down to a battle between positions

Theory

No preconceptions on whether conditionality is a good or bad thing - A good affirmative can explain why it's bad, and a good negative can explain why it's not - if it is completely 50/50, which I personally do not believe it, that means the negative won on conditionality - the affirmative is burdened with proving it is bad (51/49).

Most condo 2ARs are new - if you really want to go for it, make sure your 1AR sufficiently covered it - blowing up a a little blip in the 1AR is a hard sell

Debate the standards - don't just read down blocks

All other theory arguments are fine - exception to incredibly frivolous theory arguments - even if dropped, if they hold no arguable, serious, realistic weight, I'm not going to vote on it

Cross-Examination

I do not flow cross-x

It can be fun to watch

Bring up anything you would like me to evaluate from cross-x in your later speeches - I won't automatically assume anything

Speaker Points

Strong strategy, being engaging to watch, being smart, being clear = higher speaks

Making wrong strategic choices, being underprepared or ignorant about substance, making bad arguments, not being clear = lower speaks

30 = best debater I've seen

29.6 - 29.9 = top debater at the tournament

29.1 - 29.5 - break deep into outrounds

28.6 - 29.0 - capability to break

28.0 - 28.5 - solid team, some learning to do

< 28.0 - some work to do

Ethics

Being racist, sexist, or violent in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate is bad.

Role as an educator outweighs role as a disciplinarian - I err on the side of letting things play out and correcting ignorance after the fact - This ends when it threatens the safety of round participants

You should give this line a wide berth

(ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*:Hello, my name is Nahomy, my pronouns are she/her. I have debated in all 3 divisions in lamdl and I have debated in varsity 2020-2022. So debate how you want, but keep it within the topic and in connection with the topic. Most importantly... Have fun. Keep the nice vibes.Im a pretty chill Jude im cool with mostly everything. PLEASE KEEP your time I don't really like playing time keeper. PLEASE DO NOT ask me anything pertaining to debate while in the round ex: what you should run or what can be ran. Ask me these type of things before.

My Email: nahomy.rivas09@gmail.com please keep me in the email chain

If you say anything racist, homophobic, misogynistic, ableist, transphobic or xenophobic, I will vote for the other team and give you low speaker points. Please be nice to everyone in the room; this is a safe space for everyone.

I will also dock speaker points if you are disrespectful to the other team.

Time: I will keep time. Please also keep your time its really good to keep track of your time.

CX: open cross x

Here I go into detail on off cases, case, and how I vote but don't stress your self out don't overcomplicate debate just give me a nice constructive and speech on why I should vote for your side and not the other side use your evidence to back your points up. Be respectful keep it friendly with me and your opponents and were good.

Framework:

Big on framework if you run framework I expect to see a framework from both sides example if frame is ran on the aff side I expect a counter-frame from the neg ect. Also, I like to flow framework separately so make your frame explicitly clear!

Case:

Inherency: Tell me whats going on currently in the status quo and any issues going on

Advantages: explain the positive consequences that happen via your aff plan

Plan: Break down your plan in depth to give me all the good details about it

Solvency tell me how the AFF solves the issue via your plan this is very important

K:So if you choose to run K explain your ALT clearly please explain your link too. Explain why voting AFF is bad but also what voting for this K will look like and why its ultimately better than the AFF.

T: Voting issues ground and fairness I considered all of these when voting for the T.

CP: Why should I vote for the cp and how is it better than the aff plan you should tell me why I should vote for the cp than the plan

DA:How is the aff bad tell me all the harms and the how its linked to the affs plan explain your links and internal links impacts all the good stuff.Paint me a nice picture of all the bad things that happen when voting aff.Do an impact cal.

For the aff please answer the negs off cases do not leave something unanswered because then I have dropped arguments and that can led me to vote neg.This is For both sides dont drop your own arguments or your answers to your opponents arguments.

Ask me anything you want me to clear up before or after the round.

My basis are left at the door I will evaluate all the arguments how they were answered and handled during the round. Dont expect me to vote on something emotional if it dosent have anything to do with the topic at hand. and if you kick out of something I will stop considering it and say anything I should prioritize while making my decision.

brt.damiendebate@gmail.com

i don't know much about the topic

do whatever you'd like as long as your arguments have warrants

im expressive during debates so pay attention