I debated for Harrison, taught at NSD Flagship, and used to coach for NSU. I debated on the national circuit and read mostly LARP and Ks.

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: Just because I went to Harrison doesn't mean I want only to hear K and soft left positions. I'm very pro hearing extinction impacts, theory, trix, etc.

Random Notes:

• Read plan texts and interps slowly
• Start off slow and build up speed

Email chain: aliimtiazahmad44@gmail.com

Traditional LD. I prefer debater to speak slowly and not rush their speech.

I’m a retired health-care actuary who now has a second career as a high-school math, computer science and finance teacher.

This is my first year judging debates, so my judging "style” has yet to evolve, but my professional training and my natural inclinations are solidly established and unlikely to change. So, the following will be important to me:

• I'll be looking for evidence of broad and deep research that permits you, when needed, to argue either position adeptly. I am pretty good at seeing both sides of an argument, and I have no problem awarding a deserved win to the side arguing a position with which I disagree.

• I want your flow to be good - ideally, better than mine. Addressing important points that I otherwise would have missed will catch my attention (in a good way).
  
  
• Theatrics, ad hominem attacks and sweeping generalizations are not persuasive. Swift but engaging delivery of carefully reasoned arguments is.

• I want to see you stay "on-task" during each segment of the debate. In other words, construct during constructive, cross-x during cross-x, and rebut during rebuttal. Doing otherwise can only serve to distract and confuse your audience (in this case, me).

• Try to get every relevant thought "out on the table" for full consideration and debate. Don't assume anything is too obvious to mention only because it seems that way to you.

Thank you, and I look forward to seeing you at the debates!

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.

I am a lay judge. Let's have fun.

I am the Tower Hill debate coach. I am also a lawyer, and have been since 1980. My practice has concentrated in civil litigation. I consider the preservation of effective and civilized debate to be one of the strongest guarantees of the survival of democracy. This requires that arguments be made forcefully, with conviction, based upon demonstrable evidence, and in accordance with the applicable rules. It matters to me whether debaters treat the process and their opponents with respect.

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.

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.

Grant Brown (He/Him/His)

Millard North '17, currently a PhD student in Philosophy at Villanova University^

Head of Debate at the Brearley School

^ [I am more than happy to discuss studying philosophy or pursuing graduate school with you!]

Email: grantbrowndebate@gmail.com

Conflicts: Brearley School, Lake Highland Preparatory

Last Updates: 9/26/2023

Scroll to the bottom for Public Forum

The Short Version

As a student when I considered a judge I usually looked for a few specific items, I will address those here:

1. What are their qualifications?

I learned debate in Omaha, Nebraska before moving to the East Coast where I have gained most of my coaching experience. I qualified to both NSDA Nationals and the TOC in my time as a student. I have taught numerous weeks at a number of debate summer camps and have been an assistant and head coach at Lake Highland and Brearley respectively.

2. What will they listen to?

Anything (besides practices which exclude other participants) - but I increasingly prefer substantive engagement over evasive tactics, tricks, and theory cheap shots.

3. What are they experienced in?

I coach a wide variety of arguments and styles and am comfortable adjudicating any approach to debate. However, I spend most of my time thinking about kritik and framework arguments, especially Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, and Deleuze.

4. What do they like?

I don’t have many preconceived notions of what debate should look, act, feel, or sound like and I greatly enjoy when debaters experiment within the space of the activity. In general, if you communicate clearly, are well researched, show depth of understanding in the literature you are reading, and bring passion to the debate I will enjoy whatever you have to present.

5. How do they adjudicate debates?

I try to evaluate debates systematically. I begin by working to discern the priority of the layers of arguments presented, such as impact weighing mechanisms, kritiks, theory arguments, etc. Once I have settled on a priority of layers, I evaluate the different arguments on each, looking for an offensive reason to vote, accounting for defense, bringing in other necessary layers, and try to find an adequate resolution to the debate.

The Longer Version

At bottom debate is an activity aimed at education. As a result, I understand myself as having in some sense an educational obligation in my role as a judge. While that doesn't mean I aim to impose my own ideological preferences, it does mean I will hold the line on actions and arguments which undermine these values.

I no longer spend time thinking about the minutia of circuit debate arguments, nor am I as proficient as I once was at flowing short and quickly delivered arguments. Take this into consideration when choosing your strategy.

Kritiks

I like them. I very much value clarity of explanation and stepping outside of the literature's jargon. The most common concern I find myself raising to debaters is a lack of through development of a worldview. Working through the way that your understanding of the world operates, be it through the alternative resolving the links, your theory of violence explaining a root-cause, or otherwise is crucial to convey what I should be voting for in the debate.

I am a receptive judge to critical approaches to the topic from the affirmative. I don't really care what your plan is; you should advocate for what you can justify and defend. It is usually shiftiness in conjunction with a lack of clear story from the affirmative that results in sympathy for procedurals such as topicality.

Theory

I really have no interest in judging ridiculous tricks and/or theory arguments which are presented in bad faith and/or with willfully ignorant or silly justifications and premises. Please just do not - I will lower your speaker points and am receptive to many of the intuitive responses. I do however enjoy legitimate abuse stories and/or topicality arguments based on topic research.

Policy Arguments

I really like these debates when debaters step outside of the jargon and explain their scenarios fully as they would happen in the real world. For similar reasons, good analytics can be more effective than bad evidence - I am a strong judge for spin and smart extrapolation. I tend to like more thorough extensions in the later speeches than most judges in these debates.

Ethical Frameworks

I greatly enjoy these debates and I spend pretty much all of my time thinking about, discussing, and applying philosophy. I would implore you to give overview explanations of your theory and the main points of clash between competing premises in later speeches.

If your version of an ethical framework involves arguments which you would describe as "tricks," or any claim which is demonstrably misrepresenting the conclusions of your author, I am not the judge for you.

Public Forum

I usually judge Lincoln Douglas but am fairly familiar with the community norms of Public Forum and how the event works. I will try to accommodate those norms and standards when I judge, but inevitably many of my opinions above and my background remain part of my perception.

Debaters must cite evidence in a way which is representative of its claims and be able to present that evidence in full when asked by their opponents. In addition, you should be timely and reasonable in your asking for, and receiving of, said evidence. I would prefer cases and arguments in the style of long form carded evidence with underlining and/or highlighting. I am fairly skeptical of paraphrasing as it is currently practiced in PF.

Speaks and Ethics Violations

If accusations of clipping/cross-reading are made I will a) stop the debate b) confirm the accuser wishes to stake the round on this question c) render a decision based on the guilt of the accused. If I notice an ethics violation I will skip A and B and proceed unilaterally to C. However, less serious accusations of misrepresentation, misciting, or miscutting, should be addressed in the round in whatever format you determine to be best.

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.

UPDATED FOR 2024

Please add me on the email chain: antoninaclementi@gmail.com

Y'all should really just use speechdrop tbh. Your speechdrop/email chain should be set up BEFORE the round.

If you are super aggressive in round - I am not going to disclose.

I err Tech over Truth

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers

Hi! I competed for four years in high school at Teurlings Catholic High School (Class of 2021). I've done oratorical declamation, student congress, Lincoln Douglas debate, impromptu, and extemp. I am currently continuing forensics (NFA - LD, extemp, impromptu, ndt ceda) at Western Kentucky University. I also currently coach for Ridge high school in NJ. I did online competition the entirety of my senior year and feel extremely comfortable with the online platform.

• If you feel the need to quiz me on the topic, don't. That's rude.

Lincoln Douglas Debate:

Pref Shortcut:

1- Policy (LARP), traditional (do not default to traditional- I find it boring but I can evaluate it), stock Ks

2- T, theory, more dense/complex Ks

5/6 - tricks, phil

Framework (Value/Value Criterion):

With frameworks, I expect weighing as to why either your framework supersedes your opponents and/or how you achieve both frameworks. Have clear definitions of what your framework is and please be familiar with what you are running.

Counterplans:

I like a good counterplan. Make sure your counter plan is extremely fleshed out and has a strong net benefit. Needs to have all components. Also, if you run a counterplan I need to hear the words net benefit from you at least once. Plank kicks are fine. My favorite counterplan is condo.

Theory Shells:

Not my favorite style of debate but, I can tolerate them. Please do not run frivolous theory. You should disclose. With that said I DESPISE round report theory or something like must be open text I think cites and bare minimum disclosure solves.

I view theory as A priori - if you go for theory I am kicking the rest of your flow and only evaluating through the lens of theory.

I think…

New affs good

Condo good

PICs good

Consult CPs bad

Vague alts bad

TW good

Delay CPs are fine

but hey maybe you can prove me wrong

RVIs:

I strongly dislike RVIs - they are ridiculous

Topicality:

I like topicality and think some negatives have a place to run T. However, you need proven abuse to get me to vote on topicality. I would say I have a mid threshold for T and I am open to a full collapse but give a through LBL. Also, I am fine if you go for T in your first speech and kick it if your opponent has decent responses.

K's:

Make sure your K's are creative and have a strong foundation, logic, and structure. If you run a K (especially a K directly on the topic) I need to know the role of the ballot and why my voting for you actually creates any type of change. Also, in any K round I need a clear and spelled out Alt. Something I have realized judging is I need to know what your K is - Is it cap? sett col? security? etc - You can not run a security and a cap K combined on the same sheet in front of me. Basically, I need to know what your K is and it needs to be one thing. TBH I am not super familiar with lots of the academic jargon involved in K lit break it down for me and keep it simple. I am familiar with Wilderson, Paur, Derrida, Ahmed, Kappadia, Lacan. Stay away from super techy academic jargon. Unless you are hitting a critical aff I really do not like psychoanalysis Ks.

Cap K:

Do not read Mao, Stalin, Castro were good people automatic speak tank, DO NOT RUN ANYTHING ABOUT CUBA BEING GOOD. With that said I like cap Ks and vote on them frequently

DA/Policy Affs:

Follow a strict and clear structure. I really enjoy politics DAs but your uniqueness needs to be recent (from the last week) and follow a clear linking format. Terminal impacts are really important here but, I need to see linking so make that really clear. I enjoy most terminal impacts if they are linked well.

Note on Politics DAs

LOVE THEM

K Affs

I think they are really cool just be sure to be prepared to defend yourself on T and let me understand what my ballot does! I usually do not vote on T - FW. Super happy to K affs that make SENSE are organized and do not have technical jargon that even the debater running it does not understand. Know you’re lit and read it proudly and your creativity will be rewarded.

Tricks

• Just thinking about trix makes me physically nauseas
• I am super open to trix bads theory
• Just have a substantive debate. Please.

Phil

• Views on phil summed up: I do not LOVE phil - esp since its old white men but i am not like morally opposed ig i am just not going to be super happy - but debate is about running what makes you happy so ig its fine
• some phil is cool. I like pragmatism and that’s kinda it tbh.
• I am super open to Kant bad/any old white philospher bad theory so idk be prepared for that ig

Spreading:

I consider speed good in rounds, I think it advances the round. However I have three rules if you spread in front of me. First, your opponent must confirms they are okay with said spreading. Two, If you spread in any capacity I and your opponent will most definitely need a copy of your case and all blocks to be read sent to us. Three, don't spread if you are not an experienced and a "good" spreader, if you are spreading (and expect high speaks) I hope you look at spreading as a skill that needs through practice.

Signpost:

I am a flow judge and you should be signposting. Keep your evidence organized and clear, and make sure your extensions are valid and pointed out. GIVE ME AN ORDER EVERY SINGLE TIME AS DETAILED AS POSSIBLE.

CX:

I expect good CX questions - good CX will help you in speaks. Bonus points if you ask a question in CX and bring it up in a rebuttal later or use a CX question to hurt your opponents' framework.

Impacts:

These are pivotal to your case and blocks, have strong impacts and clear links! Big fan of terminal impacts! I like weighing done in rounds, definitely needed in your voters.

Speaks:

I use to think my speaks could not go below a 26.5. I was wrong. Take that as you will. Speaks are a reward. I'll disclose speaks, if you ask.

Flex prep:

If you use flex prep your bad at flowing

Post Rounding:

If you post round me I will stop disclosing for the rest of the tournament and drop your speaks. DO NOT DO IT. It's rude. Post rounding is different then asking questions for the sake of learning. Post rounding is you asking something snippy and when I give you my answer you roll your eyes - yes I have had this happen.

Policy:

- Same as LD
- Familiar w/ 2023 topic

Public Forum:

Same as above

• Yeah I know the rules of PF and know you can't run CPs in them.
• I know things about debate DO NOT CX me pre round about if I know enough about PF to have the "pleasure" of judging you.
• I have done PF, coached PF, taught PF to students abroad

Parli:

• Same as LD
• Do not forgot what the debate is about! Remember to at least sprinkle in key words of the topic
• I like numbering of args and clear signposting

TLDR:

Do whatever, have fun, make sense and make my job is easy and write the ballot for me in the last 30 seconds to minute of the NR and 2AR. Debates not that deep - if you don't agree with my decision that's fine but handle your loss with grace and class - trust me it benefits you in the long run. It is statistically impossible that every judge who votes you down is a "Screw" ????

Good luck and have fun! If you have any questions/comments/y iconcerns please feel free to email me (antoninaclementi@gmail.com).

Adrian Duran Rey

1 Year out from Central Florida (Dr. Phillips High School), Currently '27 at Swarthmore College (Pennsylvania)

Mostly competed local/trad circuit plus trad nats (nsda + ncfl) cause of finances, but learned prog through other people, free camps, and some competing

Overall stuff:

To me LD is two parts, 1. how do I evaluate the round? 2. Who is best reaching that evaluation? This is how I'm going to look at everything, trad, phil, theory, Ks, etc

Layering is really important when there's a lot at play and I need to figure out how I evaluate the round, so if you're reading theory, you need to do some work on this.

I don't use speech doc, if it's not cohesive/understandable in speech i'm not flowing it. i can understand spreading well, but if you're getting to the point were it's non-stop double breaths or falling over every word, please slow down

please use running prep instead of a specific amount

For Novice or Trad LD:

If you don't know what all the stuff below means, don't worry, it's not for you.

Whatever you read in front of me I should be able to understand as long as you make it make sense.

I'm fine with spreading (talking very quickly) as long as both competitors are fine with it (if it's in a novice division or overwhelmingly trad/local circuit).

yes email chain:

adrianaaron0119@gmail.com

prefs

1. Phil (kant and hobbes personal favorites) + topical trix (unique to topic) + tech trad debate

2. theory + funny tricks (a-z theory etc)

3. utill/larp + generic trix (resolved a prior, etc.)

4. k stuff (be very clear on thesis, theory of power, etc.)

5. non-tech trad debate (incoherent frameworks, no organization)

Strike: non-T stuff

Important Misc Notes

- Extend warrants!

I don't want to hear "we have evidence proving x" or "our evidence proves y claim and they don't have carded ev" Extend WHY your evidence proves x or y point and weigh it against your opponent's args

-Analytics

I love analytics, not everything needs or should be carded, just get into the warrant debate.

I'm doing parli (kinda) in college which is straight-up no evidence all analytics. Obviously, that's not how I'm judging LD, but well-warranted and explained analytics, especially for rebuttals, are great imo

-Organization

PLS NUMBER RESPONSES. Overview arguments are great, do them.

Phil

absolutely love it, my personal favorite and what I love running. ask me before round if u want to read me something more fringe and I'll tell u how much I know it so u can explain in round accordingly. Love metaethics debate and I have experience with it so go crazy, just show how ur metaethic model includes ur standard and excludes ur opp's.

Trix

Honestly they can be really fun, I like them more topical (i.e. actually being in-depth on the topic). I'll vote on abusive tricks if they're definitely winning but doesn't make round very interesting imo

Trad

Love trad debate so much when it's done well. Have a framework debate or concede opp's framework and win better offense under theirs. I will drop a speak if u tell me ur framework is a voter, tell me offense as a voter and why that offense outweighs under the framework.

Theory

I'm chill with it. Equity within the debate community is very important to me, so if you're from an established program and/or private school and read disclosure theory or something of the sort on a student who isn't, I'm not going to give any leeway at all whatsoever and your speaks will not make you happy.

Outside of that I'm down for most/all theory. I've read T a lot and it's good imo so just read it well. Also if ur justifying something that is def anti-small school/underprivileged debaters (util) by saying it helps small school debaters, I'm going to be critical on it (I'll still evaluate it fairly but my threshold on it will be low).

Util/Larp

I can evaluate it fairly and properly and will to the best of my abilities. Not my ideal round cause I don't really read or like reading util. Just make sure to do weighing and be direct on how ur winning access to impacts and it's totally fine. If it goes util v phil, I except the work done on it in terms of quality to be equal to any other phil debate so be ready to justify it well.

Note: I actually love heavy phil debates with util on one side but when they're done well. (Agency is defined by natural senses, the two brain stuff util ppl read against kant, etc)

K stuff

I've never read it in tournament round, I can evaluate it but honestly would not suggest it. Just do a lot of work on explanation. Also, I get irritated by K debaters ignoring everything on the flow by saying they're "higher layer".

Non-tech trad

I'll evaluate it as much as I can but expect it to be a coinflip cause these rounds are messy, try to work on making what ur framework is clear and how it weighs offense. Also work on weighing your impact as well as giving me a clear link chain as to how you win them.

1. Please use sources/references for all facts that you are bringing up. I want to be convinced with fact, with reliable sources.
2. Respect your opponent, don't show any disrespect, even he/she makes mistakes.
3. don't speak too fast, you need to give the listener time to digest what you say.
4. use you time wisely, I would rather listen to a more structured, complete rebuttal, than a rushed one with too many points stuffed in it.
5. give me conclusion with your reasoning, not just the resolution.

Keep in mind that I have only judged NLD. If you are making any complex arguments, please take the time to explain every link.

Final update - April 2024

Docs: speechdrop.net

Directing the DebateDrills Club Team for 2023-25 - here are incident reporting forms, roster, and MPJ/ conflict info.

Enloe HS '20 + UPenn '24. 2x LD TOC qual (cleared junior year/ skipped senior year) + 13 bids. I primarily read policy args + T/theory. I am fairly familiar with but do not particularly care for philosophy, tricks, or the K; however, I will not insert my preferences absent a poorly resolved debate - read what you feel comfortable with.

Debating

Debate is a competitive game that imparts useful life skills, flow clarification is CX, CX isn't prep, speaks are my choice and not yours

Speaks boost for taking less prep and sitting down early if you've clearly won

You should disclose properly, and it doesn't take 30 minutes to "make changes" to the aff

Not voting on:

---Args that deny the badness of racism/ sexism/ homophobia/ etc (potential auto-loss given severity)

---Death/ suffering good (spark/ wipeout type stuff is fine)

---Ad-homs or args based on out of round actions or a debater's appearance/ location/ etc (except disclosure screenshots)

---Arguments that are "vote for me because I’m x" or "I get [to do] y because I'm x"

---Independent voters that are not labeled as such in the speech they are introduced with a reason why they are

Defaults: fairness and education are voters, drop the debater, competing interps, no RVIs, comparative worlds, util, epistemic confidence, policy presumption, OCIs incoherent, perm theory is drop the arg

Tell me to read ev if you want me to

Judge kick requires winning an argument for it

Read rehighlightings if they make a new/ different argument - insert them if they show x thing is in y context, and explain any insertions

1ARs should probably read theory and 2NRs should probably answer it

Consequences probably matter but perhaps you can convince me otherwise

Tricks tend not to have warrants in the speech they're introduced or in the speech they're extended in

Ks need to prove that the aff is a bad idea, affs probably get to weigh case and extinction probably outweighs

I seem to vote for Ks far more vs phil affs than vs policy affs

K affs need to do something but usually do not

I do not want to adjudicate personal survival strategies or callouts

T framework - fairness and clash/ research > skills/ movements

Things I shouldn’t have to say

---All arguments need to be both originally made with and extended with a coherent warrant

---Won’t vote on arguments that I don’t understand the warrant for in the first speech they're introduced

---Delineate and explain arguments and their implications throughout the debate

Cheating

Clipping: Ending the debate if I catch it. If you have a recording, you can stake the round. Skipping 3+ words multiple times probably constitutes clipping.

Ev Ethics: If I catch a violation, speaks will plummet and the card will be ignored. These constitute a violation such that I'd act or you can stake the round/ make a challenge:

---Card starts/ends in the middle of a sentence or paragraph

---Text has been added to or removed from the original text of the cited article within the start/end of the card

---Card has been cut/highlighted/bracketed to make a claim that the article does not warrant

You can read any of these or any other violation you want as theory. If another part of the article contradicts the argument made in the card, I'd prefer to see a recutting of the article read as an argument.

Hi! I'm Shawna Grossman (She/Her) and I'm a parent judge. My daughter does varsity LD so I am familiar with the basics. Please go slow and be cognizant of the fact that I am not a debater myself, so some of the debate terms might need to be simplified/explained. Please remember to be kind to your opponent, because at the end of the day debate should be fun.

I need to see clear weighing. Tell me exactly why I should vote for you and note vote for your opponent. I don't want to have to guess, so tell me exactly what to do. I'll vote based on that.

For speaker points: Please be clear and slow. I need to be able to follow what you are saying. Be confident, it will show in your speaking if you are.

I'll try to give as much feedback/RFD as possible but again, I'm a parent judge with no debate experience myself so please be understanding.

Hi! My name's Xiaoqing and I'm a first time parent judge who's daughter does LD. Don't pref if you want a tech judge

Preferences:

Please don't spread, be slow and clear

Confidence is fine but don't be mean

Warrant out and explain your arguments really well

Give voters on why I should vote for you and where! Make them really clear!

*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!

(updated 10/4/22 for Duke)

Hi, I'm Rohit. I'm a junior at the University of Pennsylvania, and debated in LD for NCSSM and Ardrey Kell in high school. Feel free to ask me specifics on what I'm comfortable evaluating, but here are some general notes:

****************** for lay rounds ******************

time yourself and your opponent's speeches/prep, I'll also be keeping track but mainly for if time disputes come up

good analytics > poorly explained evidence

explicit extensions of args/contentions in 1AR and 2NR

Please signpost. Make it very clear which argument you are responding to, and under which contention it falls.

2NR should include explicit voters, 2AR should be almost all voters and weighing

DO NOT make me listen to a value debate. There is no meaningful difference between morality and justice, and 90% of the values ran. Just agree on value and debate the value criterion

***************************************************

If you're spreading, add me to the email chain (rohitjagga02@gmail.com). Don't take up >5min of the round setting up the email chain, do it before the round if possible

I like LARP (cp, disads, etc) and theory/T, and feel comfortable judging those debates. Cx checks please.

If you're running some dense phil or an uncommon K, don't assume I know it and err on the side of overexplaining.

Don't be rude or act obnoxiously

Besides that, feel free to debate in the way you prefer. If you have any questions, you're welcome to email me at rohitjagga02@gmail.com or ask me at the beginning of the round.

What I like to see in speakers

a. conviction in speech

b. expression and articulation

c. structure of speech, clarity and relevance of points made

d. speaker who engaged the audience- eye contact, pleasant demeanor

3. Particularly for debates, I will look for persuasiveness, strength (relevance, logic) and delivery (conviction, passion, clarity) of arguments

What I don't like in speech

a. if it is delivered too fast

b. if speaker shows rudeness or indifference

c. if speech indicates lack of preparation

d. Particularly for debate, if debater is interrupting or jumping before turn, overpowering or verbally bullying partner or opponent

I am a parent judge and this is the first year that I will be judging at all (and LD in particular).

I am a lawyer by profession, which means I understand situations where you are required to take positions on behalf of your client (or here, in debate) in which you do not personally believe. I do not bring personal opinions to judging. I will vote for the debater who is more persuasive overall. Focus on stating a clear position, back it up with cogent reasoning, and demonstrate how it is superior to your opponent's position.

That said:

You can speak fast to make sure you can fit in all of your arguments, but please be mindful of speaking *too* fast - I want to make sure that I take note of each of your contentions and that I understand them clearly.

Please do not use jargon or acronyms without explaining what it is shorthand for at least once, possibly twice.

Presentation will not hurt you, but it can help you. I will not take off points if you do not make eye contact (virtually or otherwise) and/or look at your notes often to the extent that your argument is clear, persuasive, and effectively responds to the other side. However, the more comfortable you are with making eye contact (or in a virtual setting, looking into the camera rather than having your eyes down) and being animated with your hands and your person, naturally, the more engaged I can be in your argument.

I’m a parent volunteer judge, have judged Speech and PF, LD debate for several years, but I am new to Congressional and Policy debate.

Your performance will be assessed based on what your deliver and how you deliver. I am a scientist, I like straightforward, well developed and evidence supported contentions and arguments. I appreciate spot on rebuttals and effective debates. I don't judge if your arguments are right or wrong, I vote for the team who is more convincible based on your defense and offense.

Don't overwhelm your case with numerous sources but rather select the best evidence to support your argument. Use reputable, unbiased sources and succinctly connect all evidence back to your contentions. It is your responsibility to challenge the evidence provided by your opponents. I don't do fact check for you.

Please speak at an understandable pace (no spreading!). If you're speaking too quickly, I may not be able to flow, and you may at the risk of losing those arguments.

In your final speech, please clearly state the reasons why you think your should win.

I expect you to be respectful and civil throughout the debate. Sarcasm and intolerance for your opponents will lose you speaker points.

I am a judge from Regis High School. I'm in search of logical, well-reasoned arguments delivered in a civil, respectful manner. I like to see a significant amount of effort put in by the competitor, while still keeping in mind that this is meant to be an enjoyable activity. I am profoundly uninterested in a landslide of dozens of arguments; a few well-reasoned points is always preferable to a novel's worth of statistical sludge. More than anything, I want to see that you have spent a considerable amount of time evaluating the issue and which arguments are worth contending.

I am a new parent judge. Please email your case before your round starts. libailing@gmail.com

I believe debate is not a competition about talking fast, you will be judged on what you say so do not spread. Being persuasive and aggressive is fine, just make sure you don't say or do anything that is offensive. Having good evidence comparison is really good, but I prefer analytical rebuttals in the argument. Weigh over arguments at the final speeches to tell me why you won the round.

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.

Hello! My name is Aamir Malik. I live in Summit, NJ.

I have experience judging at a number of National and Local Debate tournaments, mainly with Public Forum events.

I was not involved personally in Speech & Debate in high-school or college, but had many friends who were, and I have also familiarized myself with the current formats by referring to the various resources on TabRoom and YouTube.

Professionally, currently I am a senior executive at a major global life-science company and focus on creating scientific breakthroughs to improve the lives of patients experiencing disease. Prior to that, I spent 25 years as a management consultant at a leading global consulting firm.

I value thoughtful analysis, compelling facts, and specifics vs. generalities. I value substance over style and I place an emphasis on brevity and clarity. I also value debaters who speak at a normal pace rather than those who "speed-speak."

I am inspired by all the students who participate in Speech & Debate and while I recognize the inherent competitive nature of the programs, I genuinely believe that simply having the courage to participate and taking the time to learn and reflect from the experience will carry the real long-term impact in students' personal development.

Thank you for the chance to be a part of this with you and good luck!

In general, speak at a moderate speed, and be considerate of your teammates, opponents, and judges. Refrain from hyperbole. Please be clear, concise, and organized -- connect the dots for me.

I am not a technical judge. I will flow the best I can and evaluate your arguments but I am not comfortable with progressive rounds. Keep the round traditional (no tricks) or risk losing my ballot. There is no need to speed read. Please do things to make your speech easier to follow. Slow down/emphasize taglines. Signpost, and Roadmap off-time for clarity.

Debate and arguments must be persuasive. If the argument does not persuade me, I have no reason to vote for it. I do not intervene so debaters must tell me what is important and why I should vote for them. Be clear about what I am weighing and what I should value most highly. Impacts should be realistic. Not every action could or will cause a nuclear war. Your argument should be clear and plausible. I appreciate a clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.

It is important to show respect to your competitors and approach every speech as an opportunity to teach and learn.

TL;DR:

· Make it clear and easy for me to see why you won and you'll probably win.

With More Words:

I've judged and coached extensively across events but at this point spend more time on the tab side of tournaments than judging.

If you want the ballot, make clear, compelling, and warranted arguments for why you should win. If you don’t provide any framework, I will assume util = trutil. If there is an alternate framework I should be using, explain it, warrant it, contextualize it, extend it.

Generally Tech>Truth but I also appreciate rounds where I don’t hate myself for voting for you. That being said, I firmly believe that debate is an educational activity and that rounds should be accessible. I will not vote for arguments that are intentionally misrepresenting evidence or creating an environment that is hostile or harmful.

I am open to pretty much anything you want to read but, in the interest of full disclosure, I think that tricks set bad communication norms within debate.

General Stuff:

Most of this is standard but I'll say it anyways: Don’t extend through ink and pretend they "didn't respond". In the back half of the debate, make sure your extensions are responsive to the arguments made, not just rereading your cards. If they say something in cross that it is important enough for me to evaluate, make sure you say it in a speech. Line by line is important but being able to step back and explain the narrative/ doing the comparative analysis makes it easier to vote for you.

Weighing is important and the earlier you set it up, the better. Quality over quantity when it comes to evidence-- particularly in later speeches in the round, I'd rather slightly fewer cards with more analysis about what the evidence uniquely means in this specific round. Also, for the love of all that is good and holy, give a roadmap before you start/sign post as you are going. I will be happier; you will be happier; the world will be a better place.

Speed is fine but clarity is essential. Even if I have a speech doc, you'd do best to slow down on tags and analytics. Your speaks will be a reflection of your strategic choices, overall decorum, and how clean your speeches are.

Evidence (PF):

Having evidence ethics is a thing. As a general rule, I prefer that your cards have both authors and dates. Paraphrasing makes me sad. Exchanges where you need to spend more than a minute pulling up a card make me rethink the choices in my life that led me to this round. Generally speaking, I think that judges calling for cards at the end of the round leads to judge intervention. This is a test of your rhetorical skills, not my ability to read and analyze what the author is saying. However, if there is a piece of evidence that is being contested that you want me to read and you ask me to in a speech, I will. Just be sure to contextualize what that piece of evidence means to the round.

A Final Note:

This is a debate round, not a divorce court and your participation in the round should match accordingly. If we are going to spend as many hours as we do at a tournament, we might as well not make it miserable.

Sure, I'd Love to be on the Email Chain: AMurphy4n6@gmail.com

Please feel free to debate at your own pace. I only ask two things of the Public Forum competitors that I'm judging. First, that they don't spread (talk at an incomprehensibly fast rate), and second that they remain respectful and cordial to their fellow competitors and judge at all times. A spirited debate is awesome, but a shouting match is decidedly not. Rules for other formats that I may judge are listed below.

Lincoln-Douglas (LD) Debate:

-My four years of debating were spent entirely in Public Forum, and resultingly I'm more experienced with arguments backed by hard evidence as opposed to wholly tech-based or framework-based ones. However, this doesn't mean I consider the latter two to be any less legitimate—as long as you argue your case well, I will evaluate you based on the merit of the argument provided.

-I understand that spreading is more common in this format—if you have to do it, I won't hold it against you. However, I ask that you try your best to keep your speeches comprehensible to the average listener, even if they're at a faster pace than one is accustomed to listen to.

-Frameworks are bound to be argued over—if neither side can agree on a framework to use for the debate, I will choose to evaluate which one held more weight.

-I do not evaluate disclosure theory, and I advise any competitor who plans on using it in a round I'm judging to rethink their strategy going ahead.

-I allow off-time roadmaps.

-Keep it civil always.

Policy Debate:

-Like with LD, I understand that spreading/fast-paced speeches are the norm, or at the very least accepted. While I understand the constraints of time may necessitate such behavior, I will once again request that you keep your speeches comprehensible to the average listener so I can fully appreciate your argument.

-Frameworks are bound to be argued over—if neither side can agree on a framework to use for the debate, I will choose to evaluate which one held more weight.

-First and foremost, I take judging with a great sense of pride, responsibility and consider it a privilege.

-I have only judged NLD and JVLD, so relatively less experience on theory, flow charts and spreading. I prefer no spreading as if I don't understand you, then I can't judge you.

-Your presentation should be made in a such a way that an informed individual should be able to follow and understand your flow.

-I prefer quality evidence and clarity on arguments as well balance of pragmatism and philosophical ideas.

-I prefer substance over technicalities. Please make sure your contentions are backed by relevant arguments but don't expand these into irrelevant subtopics.

-I do not like mischaracterization of the opponent's arguments and do not like accusations that the other debater conceded or dropped a contention, when they did not.

-l will do my level best in judging the debate, as to not provide any disservice to the participants and all the hard work they have put in.

Hi all!

Email Chain: vparoder@gmail.com

Updated for UPenn:

I am a parent judge. Please avoid speed and I will evaluate the round based on who has the better arguments. Make sure that there are clear warrants for your arguments otherwise I will not be able to evaluate you effectively.

If you have any questions before the round please feel free to ask.

Good luck and enjoy of course!

Hi! I’m a parent judge in my second year for JV/Varsity LD and PF.

I don’t particularly enjoy spreading, but if you must, share your docs. I can also flow some prog arguments, but please explain your links thoroughly.

Hi, I am a parent judge, am relatively new to judging debate. I work in the finance industry. I have judged JV and Varsity LD at some tournaments over the last year..

I expect debaters to be respectful and clearly state their contentions. Also, please speak at a moderate pace.

Thanks, and best of luck.

Policy Debate

It is the responsibility of the debater to look at the paradigm before the start of each round and ask any clarifying questions. I will evaluate the round under the assumption it has been read regardless if you did it or not. I will not check to see if you read my paradigm, nor will I give warnings of any kind on anything related to my paradigm. If you don't abide by it you will reap what you sow I am tired of debaters ignoring it, and myself in a debate round my patience has officially run out.

1. I hate spreading slow down if you want me to flow your arguments if it is not on my flow, it is not a part of the round. It doesn't matter how well it is explained or extended. At best, depending on the speech, it will be a new argument or analytical argument and will be evaluated from then forth as such. I do want to be part of the email chain, my email is thehitman.310@gmail.com, note that just because I am part of the email chain does not mean I flow everything I read. I only flow what I hear so make sure I can hear your arguments. Beware I will be following along to make sure no one is cutting cards and I will call out teams for cutting cards so be sure to do things correctly. I will drop cards before the team and continued cutting will result in me stopping the round and contacting tab. Additionally, I will not yell clear, and I will not give time signals except to inform you your time is up. I find doing this splits my attention in a way that is unfair to the debater and often distracts debaters when called out. You will have my undivided attention.

2. I hate theory and have only voted on it once (current as of 4/12/22). In particular, I do not like disclosure theory and think it's a bogus argument, as I come from a time when there was no debate wiki; as a result, I am highly biased against this argument and don't advise running it in my round. Also, regardless of the argument, I prefer they be related to the topic. I am just as interested in the topic as I expect debaters to be. On that note, I am willing to listen to just about anything as long as they are well articulated and explained(See 3). I have heard some pretty wild arguments so anything new will be fun to hear. Know in order for me to vote on an argument, there needs to be an impact on it, and I need to know how we arrive at the impact. But I want to know more than A + B = C, I need to know the story of how we arrive at your impact and why they matter. I will not simply vote on a dropped argument unless there is no other way to vote and I need to make a decision, I consider this Judge intervention, and I hate doing this. You, as a debater, should be telling me how to vote I will have to deduct speaker points if I have to do any work for you. Keep this in mind during your rebuttals.

3. At the beginning of each round, I am a blank slate; think of me like a 6 or 7-year-old. Explain arguments to me as such. I only evaluate things said in a round; my own personal knowledge and opinion will not affect me. For example, if someone in a round says the sky is purple, reads evidence the sky is purple, and it goes uncontested, then the sky is purple. I believe this is important because I consider anything else judge's intervention which I am highly opposed to and, again, will result in a speaker point deduction. That being said, I default to a standard policy-making framework at the beginning of each round unless I am told otherwise. This also applies in the context of evidence, your interpretation of the evidence is law unless challenged. Once challenged, I will read the evidence and make a decision based on my understanding of the evidence and how it was challenged, this may result in my decision on an argument flipping, the evidence being disregarded, and/or the ballot being flipped.

4. Be aware I do keep track of Speech times, and Prep, and go solely by my timer. My timer counts down and will only stop when you say stop prep. Once you say "Stop prep" I expect you to be ready to send the file. I do not want to hear I need to copy arguments to a file to send as a part of an email chain. I will run prep for that. It should not take long to send a prepared file through the email chain, and I will wait until all participants receive the file before allowing the following speech to start but do not think you can abuse this I will restart prep if it takes an abnormal amount of time. Also extremely important to note I will not stop my timer for any reason once speech has started for any reason outside of extreme circumstances, and technical difficulties do not count. If you choose to stop your timer to resolve your issue before resuming, know that my time has not stopped and your speech time is being consumed. Also, aside from using your phone as a timer, I expect all debaters to not be on their phones during the round (this includes in between speeches and during prep). I think it is disrespectful to debate as an activity and to your opponent(s), and will deduct speaker points for it. Keeping that in mind, I will not evaluate any argument read off a phone, especially if you have a laptop in the round.

5. In JV and VCX, Cross-X is closed, period. NCX, I will only allow it if you ask. If you don't, it is closed. If you decide to have an open CX anyway, I will deduct speaker points.

6. Last but not least, be respectful to me and to each other, and I would appreciate a good show of sportsmanship at the beginning and end of each round. Any disrespect will result in a speaker point deduction on a per-incident basis. Continued disrespect will result in notifying tournament staff and lower-than-average speaker points. Although I do not expect it will go that far.

E-Debate:

A. Cameras must be on at all times. I will not flow teams with cameras off. Do not be surprised if you lose because I did not flow it you have been warned. I will not be lenient with this as I have been in the past.

B. Prep time will be run until speeches are received in the email chain. DO NOT assume you control the time as mentioned above. I am keeping time and will go by my timer. I WILL start the speech timer if you end prep AND THEN send the speech. I have zero tolerance for this, as teams consistently abuse this to steal prep. You should know how to send an email; it should not take long. If you are having genuine technical issues, let me know as the tournament has Tech Time, I can run that timer instead, otherwise, I will run speech time. DO NOT make light of this I am tired of being ignored as if I am not a part of a debate round.

C. Make sure I'm ready this should be common sense, but for some reason, I have to mention it. If you start a speech before I am ready, I will miss some arguments on my flow, and I will be highly annoyed. Your speaker points will reflect this, and you may lose the round as a result if it was a key argument that I did not flow.

D. Also, spreading on camera is a terrible idea, and I highly advise against it from a technical perspective and my general disdain for spreading. E-Debates are tricky enough with varying devices, internet speeds, and audio equipment affecting the quality of the stream, spreading in my experience is exceptionally disadvantageous, do so at your own risk.

E. REMINDER, I Control speech and prep timers, and speeches DO NOT stop because you are reading the wrong speech or can't find where you are at on a document; once the timer has started, it stays running until speech time is over. I do not know why I have to mention this, but recent judging experiences have told me it must be mentioned.

Lincoln-Douglas

I am very new to judging Lincoln-Douglas Debates. As such, I am relying on the debater to frame the debate for me, particularly in the rebuttal. Arguments should always be responsive to what your opponent is saying if you wish to win them. Explain how your arguments interact, and your line of argumentation means that line of argumentation weighs in your favor. In general, I think all arguments should be filtered through the lens of your values and criterion. That work must be done by the debater, not the judge. Additionally if what you say matches what is on my flow the chances of you winning are high.

I want to be on an email change, I ike to follow along as evidence is being read. My email is thehitman.310@gmail.com

Particularly in rebuttals make sure you are filtering aregumens through Value, Criterion and FW.

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

1. First of all, I take judging with a great sense of responsibility and consider it a privilege.
2. Your presentation should be made in such a way that an informed citizen should be able to follow and comprehend your flow.
3. I've only judged LD, so not much experience about theory, critiques, spreading. Please no spreading! If I can not comprehend you, then I can not judge you.
4. I prefer quality evidence and clarity on arguments + balance of pragmatism and philosophical ideas.
5. I do NOT like off-topic tangential arguments and especially mischaracterization of the other debater's arguments. [Many times I hear 'accusation' that the other debater conceded or dropped a contention, when they did not.]
6. I prefer substance over technicalities. Make your contentions and relevant arguments, but don't stretch and give me an irrelevant PhD thesis on a subtopic. SHOW ME THE LINKS in your arguments. I'll make my best effort to flow!
7. "It ain't over till it's over". Many times, the debate is very dynamic till the end, so give it your best shot.
8. Be assertive, but not aggressive. Be vocal, but not loud.
9. I admire all the students who participate and give it their best shot.

Hi there! I’m a current student at the University of Pennsylvania, majoring in International Studies and Business with a focus in China. I did LD in high school for all 4 years.

- Speed: Talking fast is ok but I will not be thrilled if I have to follow along your speech doc word-for-word to understand you. Communicate clearly and concisely. Connect with the fact that you are speaking to me and your opponent, not to an empty room.

- Framework: Unique to LD and very effective when done well. I've found that FW tends to either be the most interesting source of clash that can define a round, or it's completely a wash -- figure out which your round is and play to that best you can (ie if your FWs are similar, don't waste too much time on it; if your FWs have major clash, be sure to develop it). Make sure you link all your contentions and impacts to the FW.

- Cross-examination: Practice principles of respect and reciprocity, please. Regardless if you are asking/answering, try to minimize interrupting your opponent. Do not abuse your power when trying to present a new argument in the form of a question, or trying to talk over your opponent in your answer to run down the clock.

- Organization: In my opinion one of the most underappreciated determinants of a round. I keep a fairly thorough flow during rounds, and I will be very happy if you sign-post and roadmap and generally make the round easy to follow. Extend your arguments! Let me know what you think are the most important takeaways from the round!

- Progressive stuff: If you’re going to do a progressive case make sure your opponent has experience with progressive debate, otherwise it’s no fun. I want to see that you've researched and engaged critically about this specific resolution, so make sure that (1) what you present is relevant and reasonable; and (2) you fully understand and can explain the ins and outs of your argument beyond just reading what you have prepared/written.

- Content: If you present a piece of evidence you should be able to know the research behind it. Don't just throw big numbers at me -- have strong economic analysis behind them. Especially for topics with a lot of historical, political, and economic complexity that extend well beyond the USA - recognize that you are not an expert, I do not expect you to be an expert, and please steer clear of over-generalization and over-simplification. I like hearing good analysis and empirically-supported, well-explained impacts. If you want to go for a very extreme impact, make sure you can defend it very well. Finally, weighing is KEY.

- Content pt 2: I appreciate creative arguments. If you want to make a very specific argument or you have an interesting card/analysis to present, do it! Depth in a case is often more compelling then breadth.

- Overall: Please be respectful of your opponent, especially if they have less experience than you. I will not tolerate rudeness or bigotry, so be a decent human being!

TL;DR: be nice, be organized, have fun :)

Good luck everyone!

About me:

My daughter debates in "Lincoln Douglas Debate", so I am no stranger to debate arguments and frameworks. Additionally, I have often judged Speech.

If you are in debate, please send me your speech doc/case document. My email is nshenvi@gmail.com. Having the document just helps me follow along and understand what a debator is referencing to when they are talking about a specific piece of evidence.

I like civility in the room. Be respectful and gain respect.

You do not need to change your style of speaking for me, but I request you do not speak too fast. I like to be able to follow along with the flow of debate as it happens.

Don't use too many technical terms. If you do, please explain it or the argument may be lost on me.

I give a lot of weight to logical arguments and strong rebuttals and mostly award points based on that. However, I do take weighing into account, so please take the time to weigh in your final speech.

Do not bring in a controversial topic in the debate unless it is absolutely necessary.

I like an off-time road map. Helps me be more organized.

I award points based on how you speak and how you conduct yourself. If you are blatantly rude, offensive, racist, sexist, etc, you will be marked down.

Let your opponent complete their thought in cross before interuppting. I am not a fan of cutting people off mid-sentence.

Please speak to the resolution as I wont be familiar with arguments that deviate from it.

Parent of a varsity LD debater and have been judging LD for three years now.

Well versed in traditional debate. I prefer clear and confident communication. Make sure to address your opponents points- both framework and contention, so it becomes easier to evaluate the round. Also make sure to support your arguments with evidence. Simply put, I am willing to evaluate any traditional argument provided it is supported by good evidence and explanation.

Thank you and enjoy your tournament.

paradigm is being written by your judge's daughter

I'm a lay judge so that means:

1) No spreading

2) Cannot evaluate prog (Ks, Theory, Phil, etc.)

3) Keep track of your own time

4) Good eye contact + off time road maps

Be respectful and make sure your evidence isn't clipped/offensive. Don't make the debate space inaccessible in any way.

Good luck! :)

This is my first time judging public forum, but I have experience judging many traditional LD rounds.

My email address is: atijare@yahoo.com

I am a lay/parent judge.

For online tournaments, please send me your cases so I am better able to comprehend your arguments and be in accordance to online tournament rules. Please also send your speech docs for other speeches if you are using one.

Just because I have your cases open does not mean that you can spread. Please keep in my mind that I am a lay judge, and I will understand better if you go around 1.25x conversational speed at around 175 wpm.

Please utilize your summary and final focus to highlight the voting arguments and why you win each one. I'll generally vote for the team that is winning more arguments or winning arguments easier, but weighing is also important and will play a role in my decision.

I won't vote for a team just because they speak better, however it will make it easier to vote for them.

Hi, I’m Natalie and I’m a sophomore at UPenn who used to debate VLD on the national circuit. Since going to college, I have not really touched debate. I am probably unfamiliar with a lot of recent lingo and I don’t know much about the topic. Just clearly lay out your arguments and email your case to nvihodet@wharton.upenn.edu.

The paradigm earlier was from when I was in high school myself, judging NLD.

If you have any questions about my personal preferences, feel free to email me.

General: I prioritize respectful conduct in round and clarity in your arguments. Also, clearly weigh your shells.

Don’t be mean + have fun + remember that you are here to learn.

put me on the email chain: tywang2020@gmail.com

previous experience: debated policy @ strath haven in 2016-2020 but haven’t really been active in the debate community since then

disclaimer: I have not listened to spreading in a hot second and I also have not heard any rounds on either LD or Policy topics this year so taking time to explain things is a good idea

general things: please disclose!! timing and such should be done by teams themselves! being extremely rude in cx or speeches will result in reduced points!!

==================================================================

Policy:

when I was in high school, I usually debated/went for more policy args, but K rounds were always interesting and nowadays I will vote for anything you can really convince me on

specifics args:

disads/counterplans -- very familiar with these as a whole and are good // don’t really know the ones for this year’s topic but as long as you frame and have nice overview/extensions you should be more than fine

impact turns -- love to see these pulled off well, but careful to take time with them and really explain all the components and how they interact with everything in the round

k's -- I am pretty familiar and open to the common Cap, Security, Bio, etc. args. personally I would stay away from high theory args with me unless you think you can explain them exceptionally well. I do believe that the k has to have specific args and links to the aff. I will weigh the aff against the K unless framed otherwise and so case turns against Ks are definitely something to consider.

k affs -- I never ran these in highschool and would often go T or Cap against them. i'm also open to these and will vote for them, and i also believe that the neg does have to interact with aff specific answers

t/fw -- fairness and education are both important impacts, but make sure to explain how the team has caused these abuses. make sure abuse story is clear. good interp/counter interp debates (and TVAs!) are convincing to me. I usually stand as a policymaker unless you frame otherwise and unless told otherwise the ballot is usually just a win/loss (but good argumentation can change this).

theory -- I would definitely prefer to vote on the substance, but if abuse is evident or theory is completely dropped (with good explanation on why I should reject the team), this is a viable option.

==================================================================

LD:

- I have essentially no experience with LD or this topic, so be careful to explain things thoroughly

- speed and most arguments (high theory is a little confusing but if you can explain it well go for it) are fine, but I do really value good extensions and warranted out args

==================================================================