I have no preferences outside of being respectful and curteous to your peers.

Hey ya'll, I was a 3-year debater at LAMDL and captained my high school team and graduated UCLA 2021 with background in political science and a concentration in IR. I debated up to varsity so I'm very familiar with all the tricks, strategies, lingo when it comes to debate. I also debated in parli at UCLA for around 2 years.

Email chain: myprofessionalemail47@yahoo.com, ejumico@gmail.com

Small things that will earn you some favorable opinions or extra speaks

-Be politically tactful on language use. Although I won't ding you if you curse or any of that sort, I do find it more entertaining and fun if you can piss off your opponent while remaining calm and kind to strategically manipulate them rather than yell and get mad. This also means that you should be very careful about using certain words that might trigger the opponent or allow them to utilize that as an offensive tool.

-Use as much tech lingo as you can. Point out when the opponent drops something or why the disad outweighs and turns the case or when there is a double bind, etc etc.

-Analogical arguments with outside references will earn you huge huge points. References through classical literature, strategic board games, video games, anime, historical examples, current events or even just bare and basic academics. It shows me how well versed and cultured you are and that's a part of showmanship.

-Scientific theories, mathematical references, experiments, philosophical thoughts, high academia examples will get you close to a 30 on your speaks and definitely make your argument stronger.

Big things that will lean the debate towards your favor and win you rounds

-I like a good framework debate. Really impact out why I should be voting for your side.

-If you're running high theory Kritik, you need to be prepared to be able to explain and convince me how the evidence supports your argument. A lot of the time when high theory Kritik is run, people fail to explain how the evidence can be interpreted in a certain way.

-Fairness and debate theory arguments are legitimate arguments and voters, please don't drop them.

-I was a solid K debater so it will be favorable for Neg to run K and T BUT I am first and foremost a strategist debater. Which means I will treat debate as a game and you SHOULD pick and choose arguments that are more favorable to you and what the Aff has debated very very weakly one or if there is a possibility that the Disad can outweigh the case better than your link story on the K, I would much prefer if you went for DA and CP than K and T.

-K Affs must be prepared to debate theory and fw more heavily than their impact.

-I LOVE offensive strategies and arguments whether you're Aff or Neg. If you can make it seem like what the opponent advocates for causes more harms than it claims to solve for or causes the exact harms it claims to solve for + more (not just more harms than your advocacy) then it won't be as hard for me to decide on a winner.

-Would love to hear arguments that are radical, revolutionary, yet still realistic. They should be unique and interesting. Be creative! High speaks + wins if you're creative. Try to make me frame the round more differently than usual and think outside the box.

-Answer theory please.

Disclosed biases, beliefs, educational background

West coast bred, progressive arguments are more palatable but some personal beliefs are more centrist or right swinging (depending on what). Well versed with foreign policy and especially issues dealing with Middle East and China, have some economics background. With that being said, I do not vote based on beliefs but arguments, I also don't vote based on what I know so you need to tell me what I need to vote on verbatim. Will vote against a racial bias impact if not clearly articulated. You should never make the assumption that I will automatically already have the background to something, please answer an argument even if you think I already should have prior knowledge on it.

Round specificities

CX:I do not flow but I pay attention.

T-team:Ok.

Flashing:I do not count it as prep unless it feels like you're taking advantage of it.

Time:Take your own time and opponents time, I do not time. If you don't know what your time is during prep or during the speech, I will be taking off points.

I’m not affiliated with any school.

I was a competitor in high school in all areas of speech and debate for 4 years in Texas. I went on to be successful and win multiple levels of tournaments, local, regional, and state. I earned many accolades while in high school and went on to assist coaches while in college. I still volunteer to judge because I love the art of verbal persuasion.

I primarily debated Lincoln Douglas, but am not stranger to CX and Congress too. When I get the opportunity to judge, I try to take it.

Speech speed should be up to you. Excellent debaters can read the audience: the judge and the competitor to adjust speed when appropriate. Is your goal to cram as much as you can in, or to win the significant arguments?

I am a flow judge for my own organization. Please do not instruct me to ‘flow this over’ or ‘flow that over’. It is your responsibility to properly argue your points and reference your opponent’s failure to do so. Be specific.

Understand that the times for LD debate are not new. 6-3-7-3-4-6-3. Not a second more; be prepared to be cut off should you exceed your time. The tournaments are on a schedule and we must be mindful of everyone’s time.

Most importantly, be professional and courteous. Regardless of your own experience and that of your opponent, great debaters can learn something valuable from every round.

he/him/his

please add me to the email chain : olibarra323@gmail.com

I know debate can be a lot for novices so please don't be afraid to ask for clarification on anything I say, there are no dumb questions!

i’ve been doing policy debate at dulles high school for three years. i have enough knowledge of other debate events to get by, but i might need clarification on event norms especially if you’re running theory. i’m cool with pretty much any arguments as long as you can explain why they’re worth a ballot. go crazy go stupid !!

policy:i’m very familiar with all areas of the topic. run what you want to run and i will evaluate it. i know the learning curve on policy debate specifically is insane. i want the rounds i judge to be a safe place for novices to learn and take risks, so please do not worry about messing up. i’m honestly just proud that you guys are brave enough to come out here and debate. i think a lot of people get scared off of policy because admittedly rounds are long and the competition is intimidating, but i promise you it will get easier. even if you don’t win my ballot, you have earned my respect. feel free to reach out if you have any extra questions before or after round :)

argument specifics:

DA’s: love them, they’re great on this topic. make sure you have a clear narrative and can identify the uniqueness, link, and impact of your DA. if you don’t run a counterplan with it, i need to know why the impact of the DA is worse than the impacts the plan solves for: why is the world of the aff worse than the status quo?

CP’s: if you run these with a DA, you need to explain how it avoids triggering the DA especially if it’s something broad like spending. if you don’t run a DA with your CP, i need to know why the CP is significantly better than the plan and the permutation

Topicality: go for it! even if you kick it in the block, i think it’s an underutilized argument and a convincing topicality shell can win you the round. that being said, if your shell is a reach or a timesuck, you probably shouldn’t go for it in the 2NR unless the aff completely concedes it. you need to provide examples of plans that meet your definition of the resolution so i understand what you think debates on this topic should look like.

Theory: basically same as topicality. even if you win that they committed a violation, you need to tell me why that violation is worth voting for. keep the frivolous theory in LD please

Kritiks: i love kritiks <3 that being said, i will not vote on a k without a clear narrative or a k that does not explain why it should earn the ballot.

LD: pretty much the same as policy, i have decent jan-feb topic understanding because i went to the strake jesuit tournament. i understand most arguments on it but if you’re using niche acronyms please tell me what they mean so i can follow what you’re saying.

framing: i’m very familiar with util + baudrillard and have some grasp of most mainstream philosophers. if you can’t explain your value criteria to me in a way i can understand, i’m going to assume you don’t understand it either and i probably won’t vote for it.

unserious arguments don’t need serious answers.

PF: i do not know much about the topic, but i know the basics of how PF works. just make sure you’re explaining why winning a specific argument is worth the ballot.

General:i will flow your speeches. speed is fine just be clear. i am pretty expressive so you can probably read my expressions to see if you’re doing something i really don’t like.

tell me your fav pokémon ! not a speak boost but it will make me happy :)

Just don't speak too fast.

CASE DEBATE- Case debates should end with two conflicting blocks of impact calculous that explain how each side is acquiring the ballot through their win conditions. I find these to be most compelling through the lenses of Time Frame, Probability and Magnitude. The teams that better access these forms of impact weighing will typically win my ballot.

THEORY - Some hurdles (biases) for debaters to overcome when having theory rounds in front of me: (1) I tend to defend against theory than it is to read theory, (2) I find conditionality to be good and healthy for the types of debates that I want to see, (3) disclosure theory does more harm for debate (by dropping teams that didn't know about disclosing) than any good it does, (4) I weigh theory on the interpretation not its tagline (this means debaters should wait to hear the interpretation before they start writing answers that miss a poorly written OR nuanced interpretation), (5) there isn't a number or threshold for too many theory positions in a round aside from speed and clarity, (6) RVIs are not worth the breadth just sit down, (7) you're either going for theory or you aren't, I am heavily bothered by debaters that say the sentence, "and if you aren't buying the theory here's this disad."

Read your interpretation slower and repeat it twice. I will not vote on theory that I do not have one clear and stable interpretation for. Also just read it slowly because I don't want to miss out on the substance of the rounds I really want to hear.

SPEED - Speed is a tool just like written notes and a timer in debate that allow us to more efficiently discuss topics whether that be on a scale of breadth or depth. Efficiency requires a bunch of elements such as: both teams being able to respond to all or group most of the arguments in a meaningful way and being able to hear and write the arguments effectively.

CRITICISMS - My interest in criticisms has waned over the years. It could just be a difference in debate meta between when I competed and now but I find many of the critical arguments run in front of me to be either constructed or read in a way that I have difficulty understanding. I don't vote on criticisms with alternatives that are incomprehensible, poorly explained or use words that mean nothing and aren't explained (the first point of your alt solvency should probably clear up these points if your alt is a mess).

I have a very difficult time weighing identity politics impacts in rounds.

Collapse - Please collapse.

Starting out 2024 as a notable unbiased judge

Email: blessingnkojo@gmail.com

You can catch me sparing at ALDD (speechforces) when am not Coaching at RSUDS

Crucial points about my philosophy on debate:

- Equity:

I believe that the fairest debates are those where there is no discrimination or use of derogatory language towards opponents or their arguments. Every argument should be respected and considered.

Things to avoid:

1. Do not classify any argument as nonsensical or stupid.

2. Do not make generalizations based on identity, race, or gender, as this can be stereotypical and provoke retaliation.

Things to do:

1. Be specific when analyzing people or places to avoid generalizations.

2. Approach every argument with a critical lens, refer to it, engage with it, rebut it, and respectfully counter propose. Now that this is clear,

please read before speaking if I am judging you…

Typically, I start evaluating during the second speech in any debate round. Therefore, I am more impressed by students who demonstrate topic knowledge, line-by-line organization skills (supported by careful note-taking), and intelligent cross-examinations, rather than those who rely on speaking quickly, using confusing language, jargon, or recycling arguments.

I have become more open to philosophy-style arguments in the past year. However, I have not extensively studied any specific literature bases. Philosophy arguments that are solely used to trick opponents will not win my vote. However, I am open to well-developed philosophy strategies. Since I am an ordinary intelligent voter, you need to ensure that your explanations are clear and robust in explaining how to evaluate your arguments.

Counter Proposals: Especially in policy debates, but not limited to them, counter proposals that aim to change the focus of the prompt (resolve) will be disregarded as they do not meet the necessary criteria. Use a counter proposal only if it is absolutely necessary or if it aligns with the spirit of the debate. My evaluation of a good counter proposal is just as important as my evaluation of the original prompt.

Goodluck..............

hi im arav

three years of ld at vestavia

dont be mean or exclusionary

have fun and be nice

i try to eval any arg except horrendous ones / uneducational ones

explain warrants

collapse

please dont make any arguments about personal things

im a slightly below average flower please dont blitz through 1ars and 2ars

slow down in your 1ar's if its not on the doc. if you send analytics your speaks will be great!

--

i lean fw vs k, not big fan of rob/fw heavy 2nr

k lit thats cool w me - cap, setcol, disability, psycho, weheliye -- anything else overexplain please

policy is good

please do the lbl on cp or da 2nr, not a big fan of giant overviews that implicitly answer everything

phil is good but explain skep/permiss triggers properly please

t/theory is good

tricks are ok - some tricks such as paradoxes are ok but any silly ones such as eval after x speech are probably bad for debate

--

everything in pf is chill do whatever

I am a relatively new judge with some prior experience in observing debates.

I appreciate debates that provide context and clarify which arguments I should prioritize in my decision-making process. I also prefer debaters to time themselves and talk clearer (slower) to provide more coherent arguments.

Good luck to all debaters.

I am a lay judge. Theory is okay, but please state it in simpler terms so I can understand better. Please speak under 270 words per minute because english is not my first language. I will lower your speaker points if I can't hear you clearly.

I care about your presentation and contents of the speech, though your case takes the highest priority in my judging. If you are doing a speech event, my reason for decision will be for debaters who have the better presentation.

For those participating in debate events: in your final/summary speeches, explain to me WHY I should choose you, not why your opponents are not good.

I have no debate experience, but I have judged some rounds, so I know a bit about debate.

Have fun debating!