Email is forvirenra@gmail.com. I will clear 3 times before I stop flowing. No clarification questions regarding what was/wasn't read before CX - start CX and ask any questions you need. Send marked doc after CX and take prep if you need time to mark it. All of these rules apply online as well. The burden is on you to record your speeches. I will only record if I believe that a team has clipped.

About me:

I'm Reyna (she/her) debated LD for 3 years and graduated from Northwood High School (Irvine, CA) in 2019. I qualified to the TOC my junior and senior year, receiving bids and speaker awards in the process. I have been an active coach and judge for 5 years, having (at different points in time) worked at The Debate Intensive, Debate Drills, and Peninsula High School. I have also privately coached students from various high schools across the country. My students have cleared at the TOC, among other major tournaments, also receiving bids and speaker awards in the process.

I am transgender. This should not affect how you debate in front of me. I debated almost exclusively on the west coast. This should affect how you debate in front of me.

What I read in high school + coach my students to read (aka the kinds of debates I enjoy seeing):

Aff - big stick util, soft left structural violence, fringe topical plans

Neg - topic da+advantage cp, politics/elections+states, cap, afropessimism, security, topicality

Paradigm:

1. Non-negotiable:

- Will not vote on anything that took place outside the debate that is unverifiable.

- You must ask questions relevant to the debate in CX. No "How's your day?"

- Anything evidence ethics related: clipping, reading falsified evidence, reading evidence not accessible publicly, anything inauthentic or deliberately intended to deceive. If someone makes an evidence ethics claim, the round will be decided on the claim, and I will stop the round if I am the only judge. Automatic L 25 to the loser of the claim, W 30 to the winner. If no claim is made but I notice it, the debate will still be decided on ethics, but I will let the debate continue because I think practicing speeches in a competitive setting is still valuable. In an elim, my decision will hinge on evidence ethics regardless of what happens in the rest of the debate.

- Nothing blatantly designed to attack or harm someone in the room. Nothing "_____ist" or "______phobic." Use the right pronouns or gender neutral pronouns if no pronoun is given (or anything neutral, e.g. "the other team" or "the 1AR"). Automatic L 20 otherwise.

2. Hard defaults: (it will be very difficult to change my mind)

- Competing interps for T

- Theory is a reason to reject the arg except condo. I also hate seeing aff teams go for condo

- Affs must advocate for a shift from the squo

- Counterplans must at least be functionally competitive

- ROB = vote for the better debater

3. Soft defaults: (it will be an uphill battle to change my mind but not impossible)

- Textual + functional vs functional alone

- Plantext in a vacuum

- Affs get the case against the K

- Judge kick and judge choice

- Affs should defend a shift from the status quo as determined by words in the resolution. This typically entails government action but is up for debate.

- Fairness > skills

4. Other stuff:

- I like impact turns that aren't spark / wipeout

- T-substantial and T-subsets are not the same argument and should have different caselists, different offense (hint: 1 argument is a lot better than the other)

- Don't spread through blocks. Being persuasive will increase your odds of winning

- Explain what your interpretation of textual and functional competition is

Chattahoochee HS '21

University Of Kentucky '25

Add me to the chain: jaredaadam@gmail.com

Top:

I will pretty much vote on anything and lack many ideological predispositions with a few exceptions. I try to be as least interventionist as possible so please do judge instruction that explains to me why you have won the debate & the implications of the arguments you are going for.

Send a card doc after the debate has ended. I'll read the cards you think are important, but I tend to think the quality of evidence comes secondary to who did the better debating.

Debate is a communication activity, I will flow what I hear, not what is in the doc.

Theory:

I prefer to judge substantive debates over trivial theory arguments. Anything that isn't conditionality is a reason to reject the argument not the team. I lean NEG on condo, and would only prefer you go for it if either a. the neg severely mishandles it or b. it's the only winning option. I will not vote on blimpy theory arguments that aren't developed or articulated out earlier in the debate.

Non-resolutional theory is a non-starter.

Counterplans:

Judge kick is my default unless told otherwise.

Huge fan of them, I love me some solvency offense & AFF specific counterplans.

I am okay for counterplan competition, but the more egregious the counterplan, the lower the threshold it is to win the CP is illegitimate.

Disads:

Good

I think the interest rates DA is cracked. Though I haven't judge that many debates on this topic, I do not understand why some variation of an econ DA is not the 2NR in every debate.

Kritiks:

The best kritiks are ones with links to the plan. If you want to just rehash some theory about the world, without contextualizing it to the plan, I am not the judge for you.

Topicality:

I would prefer you read & defend a topical plan. Impact turning framework is more persuasive to me than extending a counter interpretation.

Impact Turns:

Good

Misc:

- tech > truth

- Don't sacrifice clarity for speed

• Bigotry will not be tolerated

• Debating cannot be separated from rhetoric, as such, I expect to be persuaded during a round and I do believe this will occur more efficiently when speakers enunciate their words. Simply put, please adjust your speech pace to one I can follow so I do not miss salient points.
• While I appreciate debate terminology, I suggest that their usage be minimal. This owes to the fact that these terms are usually a means of pointing out to the judge what a speaker is aiming towards at a particular time. If I do not understand the term, there's a possibility that I will then be unable to follow your contentions as you are directing me to. However, if complex and essential debate terminologies must be employed, invest a short sentence towards explaining what they entail.
• I weigh Impacts on various mechanisms. It will bode the speaker well to explicitly mention the mechanism with which they outweigh their opponent.
• Do not merely cite authorities, make an effort to tell me why that authority is a reliable one.
• When referring to your opponent's speech, clearly point out the contention you are addressing. Additionally, when you say that your opponent conceded to a point, do mention what it is and how that occurred, if necessary.
• Be respectful during a round.
• By all means, persuade me by telling me why your contention is true, via comprehensive analysis; give me the impact(s) of said contention(s) and why that outweighs those of your opponent.
• Finally, do enjoy your rounds and aim at learning after each one.

Forensics is a speaking competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized - speaking effectively to persuade or influence [the judge].

I take Socrates's remarks in Plato's Apology as the basis of my judging: "...when I do not know, neither do I think I know...I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know when I do not know" (Ap. 21d-e).

My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY!!!

All things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever it is you want me to comprehend, vote on, and so forth, needs to be clearly articulated, while one is speaking. This stipulation should not be interpreted as: I am ignorant about debate - I am simply placing the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments presented. Furthermore, any argument has the same criteria; therefore, clash, at the substantive level, is a must!

First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.

Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:

1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow!, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.

2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.

Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

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

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

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

I love debate!!!!

for email chains: zooark038@gmail.com

Contact info: avejacksond@gmail.com

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

LD

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

Pref Shortcut

K: 1

High theory: 1

T/Theory: 2

LARP: 1/2

Tricks: 2/3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PF

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

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

Email: abadawy598(@)gmail(DOT)com

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

Quick Prefs:

Kritiks - 1

T/Theory - 1

Policy v K – 2

Policy v Policy - 3

Phil - 3 (love it but less experienced)

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

Defaults:

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

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

- Fairness > Education

- No RVI, Competing Interps, DTD

- Comparative Worlds

- Presumption Affirms, Permissibility Negates

General:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disclaimers:

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

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

Signpost + be clear

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

Speaks

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

add hbisevac0@gmail.com

niles north 23, kentucky 27

general

the core predisposition I have is that technical execution and preventing judge intervention should be at the forefront of whatever approach you take. this means that technical concessions (including cheap shots) matter and there should be lots of judge instruction.

big fan of cool strategies. I enjoy research a lot and will always appreciate and reward a well-researched and thoughtful strategy, whatever that be. (but, I am also not qualified to mediate interpersonal problems between debaters!)

evidence matters a lot. you should read all the cards. debaters have to set the metric for how evidence should be evaluated and do comparison.

organization is extremely important. you should number arguments, sign post, and slow down at times.

thoughts

topicality: predictability matters a lot more to me than other things. have good cards. this means cards that define the word, not just use it. reasonability will forever seem super arbitrary to me but can sometimes be fine against suspect interpretations. limits for the sake of limits is not persuasive and internal link debating is very important.

counterplans: solvency deficits need explainable impacts. competition debates are good. NEG flex and precision are usually very persuasive. most AFF theory violations seem pretty silly to me and standalone theory ever being the A-strategy doesn’t make a ton of sense to me.

kritiks: teams should get to weigh the AFF but excluding Ks doesn’t make sense. vagueness on the link explanation will favor the AFF. backfile Ks with no relation to the topic are icky and the links will always sound unpersuasive. there are a lot of things that teams feel compelled defend but are entirely irrelevant in the larger context of the debate. things like realism, util, etc. often end up just buzz-words used that are not contextualized to any of the larger parts of the 1AC/thesis of the K. the less you disprove the 1AC, the less compelling you are.

planless AFFs: the more you struggle to explain the advocacy (in a non-vague way), the more favorable I am toward the NEG. I'm more persuaded by arguments about skills and methods that result from the 1AC being good as opposed to debate/institutions being bad.

asserting an argument is new or dropped does not constitute an argument, you should jump up and down about it with thoughtful explanation.

LD

everything above applies. I do not like tricks, I do not like phil, and I do not like RVIs. (and whatever else elizabeth elliott thinks)

other

please format email chains properly with the tournament, round, and teams.

if you are interested in debating in college and want to know more about kentucky, feel free to reach out!!

My decisions are incredibly flow based. I am a great judge for technical, mechanical line-by-line debate where I can crisply hear every syllable of every single word. Clarity ≥ Speed of Delivery.

Judge instruction is axiomatic. Almost every single judge paradigm, philosophy, and decisions says "more judge instructions please" because debaters rarely provide enough.

I believe in a student centered model of debate. I do not have a preference for how debaters stylistically or argumentatively debate. How and what you choose to debate is up to you - the only rule is the speech times - everything else is a procedure or ritual that is up for debate.

Add me to the email chain at butlerrj@pwcs.edu

I’m fine to evaluate both traditional and light progressive debating. I did college policy and I’ve been coaching MS and/or HS teams for years.

probably pref me for trad, light lark, or the k

will update paradigm soon

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

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

For Preferences:

K - 1

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

Theory/T - 1

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

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

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

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

on speaks:

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

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

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

K

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

From Sai Karavadi's paradigm:

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

LARP

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

Theory/T

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

Also from Sai Karavadi's paradigm:

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

Phil

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

General

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

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

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

--

Policy!

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

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

Inserting re-highlightings is good

2NR cards must be directly responsive to 1AR arguments

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

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

--

Kritiks

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

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

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

--

Topicality

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

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

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

--

Theory

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

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

Logic is an underrated standard

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

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

--

Phil

Don't run away from clash

Plan affs / counterplans with unique philosophical offense are quite cool

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

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

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

--

Speaker points

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

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

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

--

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

Parent Lay Judge

Please speak slowly and clearly, english is second language so please avoid jargon.

please keep the debate simple and slow and make your points clear.

Lexington High School 2020/Northwestern 2024

For 2024: I haven't judged in a while so I am rather rusty and I certainly don't have any topic knowledge at this point

Before the round starts, please put me on email chain: victorchen45678@gmail.com(no pocket box, and flashing is ok with no wifi)

Scroll down for PF/LD paradigm

Policy:

TLDR: tech over the truth but to a degree. (no sexist, racist, other offensive arguments) You do you, and I'll try to be as objective as possible. Aff should relate to the topic and debate is a game. Just make sure in the final rebuttal speech you impact out arguments, explain to me why those arguments you are winning implicate the whole round.

2022 season: I have absolutely no topic knowledge on this year's topic so expect me to know nothing and make sure you explain the stuff in a very detailed yet not convoluted manner.

The long paragraphs below are my general ideas about the debate

Top Level Stuff

1. Evidence -- I believe debate is a communicative activity, thus I put more emphasis on your analytical arguments than your cards. That being said, I do love good evidence and enjoy reading them. I think one good warranted card is better than three mediocre ones. I am cool with teams reading new cards in all the rebuttal speeches. A good 1AR should read more than 3 cards and don't be afraid to read cards in the 2NR. I believe that at least one speech in the block should be pretty card heavy, otherwise it makes the 1AR a lot easier. I will read the tags during rounds for the most part and read the text usually after rounds, but I won't do the extensive analysis for you because you should have already done that in the round.

2. Cross X is incredibly important to me and I flow them---I find it extremely frustrating when the 2N gets somewhere in 1ac cx, and then the 1N doesn't bring it up in the 1NC. Winning CX changes entire debate both from a perceptual level and substance level. Use the 3 minutes wisely, and don't ask too many clarification questions. You can do that during prep.

3. Be nice -- Obviously be assertive and control the narrative of the debate round, but there's no reason to make the other team hate the activity or you in the process. I am cool with open cross x but you should try to let your partner answer the questions unless they are going to mess up.

4. Tech over truth, but to a degree- If an argument is truly bad, then beat it. Otherwise, I have to intervene a ton, and I prefer to leave the debating to the debaters. However, I'm extremely lenient when one team reads a ton of blippy, unwarranted, and unclear args( quality over quantity). The only real intervention is when I draw the line on new args, but you should still make them and somehow convince they aren't new.

5. Pay attention to how I react in-round --I will make my opinion of an argument obvious

6. Make 1AR as difficult as possible. I know a lot of 2Ns want to win the round by the end of the block. However, that doesn't mean you should just extend a bunch offs terribly. In response, the 1AR should make the 2NR difficult- reading cards and turning arguments.

7. Please please have debates on case. I understand neg teams like to get invested in the offs, but case debate is precious. A lot of the aff i have seen are terribly put together, especially at the Internal Link level. Even if you don't have evidences, making some analytical arguments on why the plan doesn't solve goes a long way for you. I vote on zero probability of aff's ability to solve so even when you go for a CP, you should still go to case so I would have to vote you all down twice to vote aff.

8. Impact/Link Turns-- love them; i don't care how stupid the impact is(wipeout, malthus, bees etc), as long as you read ev and the other side doesn't argue it well, I will vote for you. As for link turn, I don't really need a carded ev for that, just nuanced analytic is sufficient for me to buy them.

9. Be funny-debate is stressful and try to light up the mood. Love a few jokes here and there, but since I am someone not invested in pop culture too much, some of the references I probably wouldn't get. If you do it well, your speaker point will reflect it.

10. Speaks- I am very lenient on speaks. I just ask you to slow down on the tags and author name and any analytical args but feel free to spread through the text of the card. I love any patho moments in the final rebuttal speeches on both sides. Here are how I give speaks

29.7-30: A debate worth getting recorded and be shared with my novices.

29.3-29.6: You are an excellent debater and executed everything right

28.7-29.2: You are giving pretty good speeches and smart analytics

28.5-28.6: You are an average debater and going through the process. I begin the round with that number and either go up or down.

28.0-28.4: You are making a few of the fundamental mistakes in your speeches or speaking unclearly.

27.0-27.9: You are making a lot of fundamental mistakes and you are speaking very unclearly

<27.0: You are rude ie being mean to your partner, opponents, or me (hope not).

Clipping card results in automatic 0 speaks and a loss, but I won't intervene the round for you, you have to call out your opponents yourself. If one team accuses the other team for clipping, I will stop the round and ask the team if they are willing to stake the round on that. If the team says yes I will walk out with the recording provided by that team and decide if the cheating has happened or not. A false accusation results in an automatic loss of the team that got it wrong. Spakes will be given accordingly.

Now on arguments

DAs

Yes, love them(Idk if there is anyone who doesn't like a good DA debate) -- go through their ev in the rebuttals; this is where i would like a team to read A LOT of evidence on the important stuff. You can blow off their dumb args, especially the links.

Zero Risk is very much a thing and I will vote on it.

If the 1ar or 2ar does a bad job answering turns case and the 2nr is great on it, it makes the DA way more persuasive -- and a good case debate would greatly benefit you as well.

Politics is OK -- fiat solves link, da non-intrinsic are arguments that I will evaluate only if the other team doesn't respond to them at all. However, I do want to see good ev on why the plan trades off with the DA.

I think it's best to have a CP and DAs together because there are just a lot more options at that point. If you really wanna just go for the DA, you need to have a heavy case debate up to that point for me to really evaluate the status quo since most of the aff are built to mitigate the status quo.

CPs and theory

I dislike process CPs-- I really don't like these debates -- I've been a 2n as well as a 2a, but I will side with the aff - this goes for domestic process like commissions as well as intermediary and conditional that lurk in your team's backfile. However, I have a soft spot for consult CP (my first neg argument). Just make sure you do a great job on the DA.

States, international, multi-plank, multi-actor, pics, CPs without solvency advocates are all good -- i'll be tech over my predispositions, but if left to my own devices, I would probably side with aff also

Condo -- all depends on the debating -- I think there could be as many condo as possible. but I also believe zero condo could be won. Still, my general opinion is that conditionality is good and aff teams should only go for them as a last resort.

I will read the solvency evidence on both sides. Solvency deficits should be well explained, why the solvency deficit impact outweighs the DA.

I don't like big multi-plank CPs, but run it as you like and kicking planks is fine

Judge kick unless the 2AR tells me otherwise.

Ks

I have some decent knowledge with a lot of the high theory Ks, but I am probably most well versed in psychoanalysis. That being said, I do want you to explain to me the story of the k and how it the contextualizes with the aff well in the block. Don't just spill out jargons and assume i will do the work for you. A good flow is important. What happens with alot of K debates is that at some point the negative team just give up on with ordering and it's harder for me to know where to put things. Any overview longer than 3 minutes is probably not a good idea but if that's your style, go for it, just make sure you organize them in an easy to flow manner. I probably will do the work for you when u said you have answered the args somewhere up top, but i would prefer the line by line and your speaker point will reflect how well you did on that.

FW should be a big investment of time and I think it's strategic to do so. That being said, you have to clearly explain why the aff's pedagogy is problematic and the impacts of that.

I am meh with generic links, just make sure you articulate them well. That being said, most of these links probably get shielded by the permutation.

Alt debate is not that important to me. I don't believe a K has to have an alt by the 2nr. I go for linear DA a lot, but make sure you do impact calc in the 2nr that explains why the K impact outweighs the aff. For the alt, I would like the aff to read more than just their cede the political block, make better-nuanced args.

Planless affs

I am probably not the best judge for these kinds of aff but I will evaluate them as objectively as possible

Framework:

The aff should defend the hypothetical implementation of a topical plan. At the very least, the aff has to have some relationship to the topic. I want the offense to be articulated well because many times I get confused by the offenses of these affs. I think fairness is absolutely an impact as well as an I/L. I default to debate is a game and it's gonna be hard to convince me otherwise.

I think the ballot ultimately just decides a win and a loss, but I can be convinced that there are extra significances and values to it. That being said, I have seen a lot of k aff with impacts that the ballot clearly can not address.

T

Not a big fan of these debates and never have been good at it.

From Seth Gannon's paradigm:

"Ironically, many of the arguments that promise a simpler route to victory — theory, T — pay lip service to “specific, substantive clash” and ask me to disqualify the other team for avoiding it. Yet when you go for theory or T, you have cancelled this opportunity for an interesting substantive debate and are asking me to validate your decision. That carries a burden of proof unlike debating the merits. As Justice Jackson might put it, this is when my authority to intervene against you is at its maximum."

On this topic specifically, I dislike effect Ts

These debates are boring to me and I will side with the aff if they are anyway close to being Topical, and that's usually how I have voted.

Reasonability = yes

LD:

I feel like most of the policy stuff should apply here. I never debated LD but I have judged quite a bit and I almost always see it as a mini Policy round.

PF:

I am more tech than truth, but I will absolutely check on evidence quality to make sure your warrants indeed support your claims. Feel free to run whatever arguments and I am willing to vote on any level of impact as long as good impact calc and weighing is done. If you have strong evidence you shouldn’t worry. I will not evaluate anything that’s not in summary by the final focus. And also please don’t stop prep to ask for another card. Ask for all the cards you want in the beginning and you will see plus on your speaks.

Debate is one of the few platforms where people can air their opinions freely based on the side of the motion they stand for. So it's the corporate responsibility of everyone to reduce toxicity to it's minimum in the circuit. One way to achieve this is by respecting the opinions of others while we are also free to reject those we may not agree to, as politely as possible.

Use of derogatory speeches on others, offensive words, and intention to hurt and lower other speakers' esteem should be avoided.

Beyond assertions, analysis of why a point should be noted is also very important.

The clarity of a speaker while speaking is very important to enable the judge and the opponent to understand one's case too.

Hi! I'm a parent judge and relatively new to the circuit. Please don't spread or run any progressive arguments. Please explain your links clearly. Have fun!

nathanchu05@gmail.com

will vote on any arg with a warrant, but i'm most comfortable judging policy debates

policy - 1

T/theory - 1

K - 2

phil/tricks - 3

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

I feel like this is important to add at the top bc no one reads paradigms anymore: OPINIONS ON 1AC DISCLO AND TRICKS HAVE CHANGED

Most of you are familiar with my judging preferences but just a little background on me. FSU grad with a Bachelor in Intersectional Women's Studies and Media/Comm. I competed in LD for four years (Im sure you can find my records somewhere idk, I've judged enough to be qualified anyway), I also competed as a varsity policy team for UMW my freshman year of college pre-covid. I worked at TDC over the summer and I privately coach some kiddos so I've been active in the activity. I also am the co-founder of the Latine and Hispanic Debate Foundation, follow us on ig @landhdebatefoundation

Im most comfortable with K's, K v T-fwk, LARP, and some phil, slightly more comfy evaling substantive theory debates.

Favorite things I've read/ judged: Borderlands, any Anzaldúa position, Crenshaw, Latine IdPol, Intersectional Fem, Set Col, Black Fem, Queer Pess, and NonT K Affs v T-fwk/Cap.

Alright here are some people I paradigmatically agree with: Deena Mcnamara, Charles Karcher, Delon Fuller, Joey Tarnowski, Jack Ave, Elijah Pitt, Lily Guizat, and Isaac Chao.

Standing conflicts: Clear Lake MK, Clear Lake RM, Heights CT, Clear Springs EG

Pref guide:

K: 1

LARP: 1

Phil: 2/3 (more comfy w Kant, Hobbes, Rawls, Butler)

Trad: 3

Theory: 2

Tricks: 4

________________________________________________

LD Specs:

Does Amanda vote you down for being mean? This seems to be a question floating around so I'll just say this: any blatant verbal discrimination/harassment of an opponent will get you an L 20. I don't tolerate in-round violence, I will stop the round and will ask you to leave the room. HOWEVER, if you just are slightly big headed and/or arrogant idc. You do you, but just be respectful to other people in the room. Please use proper pronouns!! The round is no place for hate.

Theory: I bumped theory from a 3 to 2 because I've been enjoying it a lot more. Used to really hate 1AC disclo but have recognized its necessity sometimes. Also have started to really enjoy a good theory debate but PLEASE read paradigm issues on your shells! I've voted recently on ROTB Spec, ASpec, Disclo, and CSA. Let that guide your prefs however you'd like.

Traditional-I am perfectly alright with traditional debate. I loved it as a freshman and sophomore. Highly recommend preffing me for a lay judge. I value debaters making strats accessible for all debaters. Make sure that you are weighing and using that short 1AR/2AR to crystalize and extend your arguments. Nothing is ever implied, please use well-warranted args. I have so much respect for strong traditional debaters on the circuit but I will hold you to the same standards as I hold progressive kiddos.

LARP-I'm fine with LARP debate. Policy-making is cool, do whatever you want. Plan texts need a solvency advocate, idc what ur coach says. CP's are cool, make sure there is some sort of net benefit and also if you don't answer the perm I'll be very sad. DA's are fun as long as there is a clear link to the aff, also for the love of god weigh. Your UQ needs to be from like two days ago PLEASE, enough of UQ from five years ago.

K- K's are groovy. I think non-t k affs are cool, just need clear explanation why that is good for debate. Don't like when it creates assumptions about your opponents identity because that just creates hostile rounds (that I have definitely had and they are not fun). Intersectional Fem Lit was my jam, everyone can read fem (it's not a framework that is meant to exclude people from reading it, love a good fem debate :)) Please extend the text of the ROTB, I need some framing when extending. Please refer to my tricks section to see my opinion on K tricks.

Phil-I love good phil debates, I'm comfortable with standard Util v Kant and more abstract framework debates. I think if you go this route you need to win why your paradigm is ethically relevant, and then be able to win offense/defense underneath that framing mech. Love Derrida, Hooks, and anything that has a little philosophical spice.

Tricks- LOVE K TRICKS BRING THEM BACK! Have voted on Indexicals and Solipsism. This is probably my weakest place in regards to judging but that doesn't mean I won't try. If you want to pref me and read tricks then just make sure they are clear and there is an explanation somewhere in the round about how it functions in the round and I'll try my best to judge accordingly.I hate debates that are just sloppy tricks debate, if this applies to you then dont pref me at all like please don't pref me if you just want to meme around.

Performance-I have a pretty decent ability to judge a performance debate and I think they are pretty dope. However, I don't think that debaters need to degrade their opponent during a round to "get the point across" especially because I think that ruins the integrity of the round itself. If you are going to engage in an in-round performance, please extend it in rebuttals or else I fail to understand how it is important to the aff/neg.

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).

Hello, I am Juan Cruz from Bryan High School.

I am a parent judge, but have judged on and off for about a year. I am, however, new to "progressive" styles of debating. So keep that in mind.

I prefer clear speech, some speed is ok but spreading is hard to flow and not desirable.

I understand traditional debate a lot more than progressive style debate.

I think that truth>tech but i agree that clash is important.

Judge adaptation is important! It is a major variable of debate.

I am a parent judge who has become a coach and have been judging debates for many years now. I have been mostly judged Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum with experience in Congress. I see my role as a judge is to determine who has won the debate. I weigh the framework in LD most. If the debate evolves into a contention level debate, I largely determine who wins by who has presented the best case with factual evidence. In short, convince me your side is right. It is important to provide evidence and absolutely critical to think on your feet and exploit holes in the opposing debaters evidence. Most LD/PF debates are won or loss in CX/Crossfire (and what you do with this information later in the debate). Providing evidence isn’t enough though, it must be used effectively to support arguments. This is where the heart of debate is for me. I am not influenced by my personal opinion on the topic nor do I weigh debaters personal stories, although heartfelt, into the decision. I listen to what is said and do not make conclusions beyond what is communicated. I am fine with speed provided it is clear. If I am unable to understand the debater due to speed of speech or failure to enunciate, I am unable to use that portion of the debate in my decision. It is your responsibility to speak clearly. In most cases, less words with more thought will be more effective with me than cramming all you can into your time limit. I want to see you truly debate your opponent and not just read a case.

I will keep time but will not manage it for debaters. When time is complete, I will allow thoughts to be finished but do not factor in communication past time limits into my decision.

Speaker Points-I treat speaker points uniformly within a tournament based on the talent but am not consistent from tournament to tournament. What I mean by that is that in tournament A, I’ll likely provide the best speaker a 29 or 30 but in tournament B, that same speaker may have only earned a 28 due to stiffer competition. I rarely score below a 27.

Kritiks – I’m okay with Ks. I find they take skill to run and when run effectively are powerful but when run poorly are difficult and tend to be easily defeated.

Philosophy-I'm good with philosophy and can follow it.

Flow-I do not flow rounds. I do take notes. Just because your point is extended, it doesn’t mean it carries significant weight or you’ll win the round.

Attitude-There is a fine, but clear, line between confidence and contemptuousness. I am fine with aggressive debate but bullying an opponent isn’t acceptable.

Have fun. This activity will provide you tons of benefits but not if you are hating it. Enjoy your time.

My ultimate goal is to serve you well. Every debate has a winner and a loser; sometimes the difference is extremely minor. Celebrate your wins and learn from your losses. Compete against yourself and look to be better every round. There are three variables in every debate, you/your case, your opponent/their case and the judge. I won’t be perfect but there will be other judges a lot like me.

Peninsula

Emails

High School: jordandi505@gmail.com

College: jordandi505@gmail.com; debatedocs@googlegroups.com

Evaluation

I will flow and decide according to that flow. Technical execution and judge instruction in accordance with that flow will override any preferences. Debate would be untenable if I arbitrarily imposed my thoughts and opinions into certain arguments.

Other than the fact that I will flow, most other things about my evaluation of a debate are incredibly malleable. Judge instruction and “framing” of different portions of the debate should be utilized by debaters both early and often to resolve central questions of the debate. This means that a lot of things are up for debate and should be contested, ranging from impact calculus to the permissibility of “new” arguments to inserting a re-highlighting to presumption. If a team forwards a claim + warrant for how I should evaluate a particular issue, it is the burden of the other team to refute that. The only exception that comes to mind is if it’s “new” in the 2AR, where I will reasonably protect the NEG.

If teams leave important issues unresolved, I will attempt to reach the most “reasonable” conclusion.

In that vein, I tend to vote for the team that best identifies the central questions of the debate and rigs them in their favor. That is preferable to me than being provided a “menu” of arguments to possibly vote on.

Whether an argument is considered “good” or “bad” is not something that impacts my decision-making. What determines the quality of an argument is the debating and/or evidence. If you believe an argument is “bad,” you should have no problem persuading me that is the case.

I tend to decide debates quickly. That rarely has anything to do with the quality of the debate. Rather, I have been able to follow the central questions of the debate, which allows me to evaluate it as the debate is ongoing.

I have zero desire to adjudicate anything not pertaining to the debate in front of me.

Planless AFFs

I find answers to T that focus heavily on impact turns related to the process of debate that the NEG’s model forwards to be the most persuasive.

A counter-interpretation is useful to filter AFF offense. I am less persuaded by AFFs that lack a counter-interpretation. However, there are times when no counter-interpretation can be better than having one. This usually occurs when the AFF attempts to use their counter-interpretation mainly as defense to T. For example, it’s difficult to persuade me that a counter-interp is sufficiently predictable to outweigh NEG offense absent a large impact turn. In that situation, winning the large impact turn would have already been sufficent for an AFF ballot.

Debate is certainly a game, but it may be more.

T impacts about fairness / clash are more persuasive to me than topic education.

I think most 2ACs to even generic critiques, such as the Capitalism K, are poor and easily defeated.

The sole purpose of my ballot is to decide the winner / loser of a single debate.

K

The K should either be a DA to the plan or a framework argument that brackets the AFF out of the debate. I am worse for anything in the middle.

If both teams forward a framework argument, I will usually resolve that first. I have frequently been befuddled at how some can evaluate these debates without first going to framework. Additionally, I won't contrive a middle ground between both interpretations. If one team believes their interpretation is the middle ground, I am open to being persuaded. Too often these debates lack comparison and are reduced to the same buzz phrases.

I tend not to care that fiat is not real.

A note on “death good.” I won't vote for anything endorsing self-harm or violence against anyone in the debate. That is different than arguments like spark/wipeout, the "death k," or some revolutionary praxis. I think the line is generally a difference between arguments about the people within the debate vs actual academic controversy.

CP

I must know what the CP does, and it solves in order to vote for it. The combination of a vague CP text with a lack of explanation is not persuasive…obviously.

“Process” CPs are fair game. I have no strong disposition against these strategies and tend to believe the consternation around them is rather silly. This is mainly because I am relatively more persuaded by substance, as opposed to competition or theory, against these arguments than the average person. However, that is not to say I think most 2As are prepared to execute such a strategy (in fact, it seems to be quite the opposite). All that being said, I would prefer it if the CP had topic-specific evidence.

I am good for a model of competition based on “functional only” and “text and function.” Winning a model of “textual only” is a hard sell but not impossible.

Theory

Conditionality and judge kick are good. A longer ramble with specifics is below under “Long Conditionality Ramble.” My line is probably fiating out of a straight turn to offense you introduced.

Judge kick is my default. It will be difficult to make me not consider the status quo with only a theoretical objection. This must start in the 1AR.

Nothing is a voting issue aside from conditionality.

Most theoretical objections can be expressed through competition, and I would prefer that.This is mainly because most theory interpretations are incredibly arbitrary. There may be some exceptions to that, including, but not limited to, “fiating multiple governments” bad, “CPs must be policies,” and “fiating federal and sub-federal actors” bad.

DA

Fiat is usually durable, good faith passage and implementation of the plan.

I do not care about the “type” of DA. Anything is a free game, so long as you are prepared to defend it.

Recent and specific evidence is preferred but can be beaten by smart analytics and spin.

Fiating in offense is underutilized.

Turns case arguments (especially if carded) and “fast” DAs frequently swing debates for me.

T

Provide a clear vision of what the topic should encompass and directly contrast it with the opposing teams' interpretation.

Cards to support various parts of a T argument are underutilized.

Quibbles

None of these will decide a debate but may affect speaker points depending on my mood.

Here are some (I am sure the list will grow longer):

1. Please don’t refer to this paradigm. I have physically cringed every time this has happened, please stop. I might also prefer you refer to me as “judge” than randomly mentioning my name throughout a speech (though this is much more situation dependent).

2. Poorly formatted speech documents. I usually follow along during CX and tend to read cards during prep and other dead time. Bad formatting makes this difficult and annoying. This is not to say you must format in a particular way, but relative uniformity of tags, headers, and the like would be nice. There should not be deleted headers and tags, etc. This applies equally to card docs.

3. Too much dead time. Let’s pick up the pace, especially if you want to give me time to decide debates. Particularly, let’s start debates on time. It’s 2024, you should all know how to use email.

Others

Evidence ethics or anything else in a similar vein should typically be debated. That's what I prefer but if there is a clear violation consistent with tournament policy, the onus is on the debaters to direct me to stop the round and address it.

"Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate = L and 0. My role as educator > my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out - i.e. if someone uses gendered language and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact. This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. Where that line is entirely up to me." – Truf.

***Long Conditionality Ramble***

Here are my thoughts for the NEG. I don’t really have AFF thoughts other than maybe that these will be the most important things for you to grapple with. Things I am good for the NEG about:

1. I have yet to see a 1NC where I thought the 2A's job was so difficult that it would be impossible to substantively respond. For example, you don't NEED an 8 subpoint response with 5 cards to answer the Constitutional Convention CP. The flip side of this for the AFF is either establishing a clear and consistent violation from the 2AC onward or focusing on the "model" of debate to override my presumption that maybe this 1NC wasn't too bad.

2. NEG flex is great. Two sets of arguments are persuasive to me here. First, side bias. 2AR is certainly easier than the 2NR. I am unsure about "infinite prep," but I am persuaded that AFFs typically can answer most NEG arguments thematically. For example, having a good "certainty key" or "binding key" warrant addresses a whole swath of potential CPs. Second, the topic. Teams that appeal to the nature of the topic (honestly for either side) are persuasive to me. For example, the idea that appeals to "specificity" allows the AFF to murder core generics is one I find persuasive.

3. The diminishing utility of conditionality seems true to me. Appeals to "infinite condo" allowing the nth degree of advocacies is something I am presumptively skeptical about. There are only so many arguments in the NEG box that disagree with the 1AC in different ways. Take what I said about being able to answer arguments thematically to apply here. In addition, for the NEG to accomplish such a massive proliferation, arguments tend to be incomplete. Again, this was talked about above.

4. "Dispo" is a bit ridiculous. The 2AC must define it (the NEG needs to implicate this still). After some tinkering, I unironically began searching for a definition of "dispo." Everything I found either defines it differently from each other or from the way it has been defined in most debates I have judged. Therefore, I can be easily convinced the phrase "dispo solves" by itself does not constitute a complete argument. The only other thought I have other than the "plank + process spam" stuff (which I like) is that I can be persuaded "dispo" would mostly only ever allow one advocacy. It now seems intuitive to me that absent 1NC construction that made sure every DA was a net benefit to every CP, the 2A could force the NEG to have to extend everything but since one links to the net benefit, it would be impossible to vote NEG.

5. This is more of a random quibble that I think can be used to frame a defense of conditionality. It seems logical to me that the ability of the AFF to extend both conditionality and substance in the 1AR, forcing the 2NR to cover both in a manner to answer inevitable 2AR shenanigans (especially nowadays) is the same logic criticized by "condo bad" as the 2AR can pick and choose with no cost. It seems worse in this case given the NEG does not have a 3NR to refute the 2AR in this scenario. This is a firm view, but it seems much easier to me for the 2AR to answer the fourth mediocre CP in the 1NC (like uncooperative federalism lol) than for the 2NR to answer the 5-minute condo bad 2AR that stemmed from a 45-second 1AR.

Bennett Dombcik

Please add me to the email chain: benjaydom@gmail.com

My ballot will be determined by my flow. Technical concessions are taken as truth.

Some random things that may be helpful:

---you can insert re-highlightings, re-cuttings of things not present in the original card should be read.

---please locally record speeches/turn on your camera for online debates.

---line by line is helpful for the purposes of my flow but I will attempt to write down as much of your rant as possible.

---I am generally a fan of creative and interesting strategies.

---"I have a lower bar for a warrant than most. I am unlikely to reject an argument solely on the basis of ‘being a cheap shot’ or lacking ‘data.’ Unwarranted arguments are easily answered by new contextualization, cross applications, or equally unwarranted arguments. If your opponent’s argument is missing academic support or sufficient explanation, then you should say that. I’m strict about new arguments and will protect earlier speeches judiciously. However, you have to actually identify and flag a new argument. The only exception to this is the 2AR, since it is impossible for the neg to do so." - Rafael Pierry

Email: elainefeidong@gmail.com

Canyon Crest Academy '23

Cornell '27

Background

Hi! I'm Elaine (she/her) and I did circuit LD for two years and circuit policy for one, and qualified to TOC in my senior year in policy. I read an extremely wide range of arguments on all sides of the spectrum - read a K aff and primarily K arguments in my senior year, and leaned more towards policy in earlier years. Regardless, read what you do best as I am a strong believer that my personal history shouldn't limit what you're able to read. Obviously that is with the exception of any offensive/violent arguments, basically any -ism arguments that'll get you dropped immediately.

Misc Things:

Clarity > speed always

Use all of cx time and don't steal prep

I'll vote on arguments I understand so don't be scared to overexplain.

LD specific - really don't like tricks/high theory/phil and probably won't be the best just for you for this

My stances on specific arguments are pretty much identical to this guy

*PLEASE READ for TOC digi series: disclaimer! i have ONLY judged policy this year and have no background knowledge on the LD topic so please slow down when explaining topic specific acronyms/concepts etc.

Please email me if you have any other questions - and be nice and have fun!

Hello :)

I’m Faizaan Dossani. He/Him. Add me to the email chain: faizaan.dossani@gmail.com

Westlake (TX) 2017-2021, I also coached here for the 2021-2022 season.

General/Introductions

I don't really have any disposition to any particular style of debate and will simply vote for whichever argument is winning the highest layer of the flow. I also have a low tolerance of being disrespectful to your opponents; just be nice please.

I competed in LD on the local and nat circuit in which I cleared at TFA and a sizable chunk of nat circuit tourneys. I also taught at ODI for its past two sessions. I think debate is a game with educational value and freedom. This basically means that I am tech>truth, but still care about maintaining the pedagogical value and accessibility that debate should have. I try to do everything possible to not intervene in my decisions, so navigate my ballot for me.

Kritiks + K Affs

I primarily read these arguments, as my go-to strat junior and senior year was 1-off K. I mainly read Settler Colonialism, Baudrillard, Wynter, Anthro, Berardi, Derrida, cap stuff, and Islamophobia lit but am extremely familiar with a lot of k lit (disability lit, most black scholars, and most identity politics). I have an extremely basic understanding of high theory (Deleuze, Nietzsche, etc.), but as long as you do the proper explanation, I can probably evaluate any literature you throw at me.

• Overviews are appreciated but good line by line is usually more compelling for my ballot
• I think reading pess args when you don't identify with that certain group is bad.
• Give trigger warnings. If you forget and remember midway through the speech, pause your timer and just ask everyone; safety is the most important.

LARP

I read/cut many larp positions and it was also the style of debate I hit the most, so I'm pretty comfortable evaluating these debates. I haven't done much research into the topic literature so please explain your positions to me very clearly!

• DO WEIGHING or I won't know which impacts you want me to evaluate first which means I have to intervene :(
• Evidence comparison is a must have in competing claims over the same argument
• I think reading like 6+ off and then just going for the one the aff had like 10 seconds to respond is a lazy strat, but I guess I will vote off it

Tricks

I have a love/hate relationship with tricks. I don’t mind an underview with some spikes scattered in, but I don’t understand most of the paradoxes. (Spark, GCB, Zenos, etc.) I think a lot of the tricks are stupid in nature, but I guess I will evaluate them.

• Don't be sketchy!
• Make sure that all of your tricks are on the doc. Even if you say "im extempting x" in the speech you still should send a doc of whatever analytics you read. In tricks debates, I heavily rely on the doc compared to other debates.

T + Theory

Usually wasn’t an off in my strats, but I think good theory debate can be fun. Bad theory debate means that you are just regurgitating the shell and not actually explaining how I should evaluate the abuse story on a framing level.

• I won't default any paradigm issues; please just make the implications yourself
• The more frivolous the violation, the more likely I will lower the threshold for response
• I think some form of disclosure is probably a good idea, but I also think that can be up for debate

Phil/FW

I barely read any complex framing other than Mouffe. However, I have judged a lot of phil debates so I feel that I can probably handle whatever you read as long as it is properly explained.

- Explain your complex buzzwords to me, examples will boost speaks

- I think framing hijacks/proving why your framework precludes their moral theory can be extremely compelling in these debates

Traditional Debate

I never really partook in any traditional style of debate (VC or definitional stuff) but I did debate traditional debaters a lot and feel that I can confidently evaluate these debates.

• I think the extra attention to ethos is nice in these debates, but at the end of the day I will still evaluate your arguments on a technical level first
• I'd rather you spend more of your time focusing on the substance of the debate instead of value/VC. I often find that most values are kinda the same thing but just worded differently, which makes evaluating weighing between different values kinda futile.

PF Paradigm

I never actually competed in PF but going to Westlake allowed me to drill/prep with a lot of our PFrs so I have been heavily exposed to the argumentation style and evolving nature of PF. The people that I have worked with that I have pretty similar takes on debate are Cale McCrary, Zain Syed, Jawad Bataneih, Jason Luo, and Cherie Wang.

• You can debate as tech or lay as you want in front of me. Doing LD broadened the styles of debate I partook in, so I can handle whatever progressive arguments you throw at me. Speed is fine as well, but be clear.
• I will give both teams plus 0.2 in speaks if yall just flash cases before constructive, we all know your calling for evidence just to steal prep which wastes everyones' time

Speaks + Misc.

I give speaks based off efficiency, argument quality, and just your general attitude in round. I try to be as consistent as possible with speaks, so you will most likely get between a 28-29.6 unless you do something exceedingly bad/good.

• Please record your speeches, especially if you have a history of laggy wifi
• Throwing in jokes during your speeches is always a plus
• For evidence ethics, I'd rather you form the argument into some type of theory shell instead of staking the round and allowing me to decide, but I will try to default on whatever rules the tournament is following

I know debate can be stressful and toxic; just do your best and have fun cause at the end of the day we are just some losers yelling at each other on NSDA campus :)

Yes email chain: Averyadover@gmail.com

Please label your email chains; team names, tournament, round

Prep time ends when the email was sent

Debate History

I have debated 2 years an Eisenhower High school

and 2 years at Maize High

And am now debating for the University of Mary Washington.

UK Digital 2022 Update

I have not judged many debates on this topic at all so I will not be familiar with acronyms or what DA's/ Solvency advocates are supposed to mean, so explain things.

Clarity - Especially in online debate

If I cannot understand you, im not just going to look to your doc, I think debate is a communication activity and will judge it as such.

Evidence Quality

Adrienne Brovero said this well in her paradigm, highlighting has become pretty bad. I think evidence quality matters way more than quantity. I am very receptive to pointing out flaws in arguments and bad highlighting. If you highlight word salad, I will judge the argument based on the word salad you read, and I obviously didn't understand.

The Debate stuff

Tech>Truth

I will vote for anything you want to read, if you are technically winning it on the flow. I have read a lot of weird arguments throughout my career, meaning that I am totally down to listen to whatever you want as long as it is not harming people in round.

Cross Ex: Im not strict do whatever you want as long as you are the "Asking team"

Ill go into specifics now

Topicality:

Its a voting issue, and I dont think RVI's are a thing.

I default to competing interpretations, but like everything else, you can persuade me otherwise. If you are going for T I need analysis on why this is important for my ballot. All to often I see debaters undercover or dont provide enough offense of topicality.

Kritiks: I will listen to them but do not expect me to know the nuances of how your K works, you are going to have to explain that to me. Planless affs need to tell me what my position in the debate round is along which how I resolve the problems.

Theory: More likely than not I wont vote for stand alone theory arguments, I think debaters should frame theory as a threshold or mitigation question.

FW: I lean towards resolutional action being good but I can be convinced otherwise.

I will vote on presumption

I love a good case debate.

I think circumvention is underrated, if deployed well, it can highly mitigate the case and provide offense on each advantage.

My favorite arguments in debate are case arguments and impact turns, and I have empirically been known to go for them. If the aff can clearly articulate how their aff interacts with the off case, it can mitigate the offense on the off case.

Counterplans:

They are fine, read what you want, but I can be persuaded on theory arguments. The aff should be able to prove why the counterplan cannot solve the aff, and or why the perm is best.

Conditionality:

This might sounds old school, but I think rampant conditionality, especially when contradicting is hurting debate. This is not me saying you can't read them, just a heads up that if deployed well, I will vote on conditionality is bad.

Impact Calc: This is incredibly important

You can't just tell me you are winning the debate, tell me why you are winning specific arguments and what it means to the debate if you win them.

If you have any other questions feel free to email me or ask me before the round.

trad parent judge.

truth > tech to some extent, i don't vote for obviously untrue or undeveloped arguments. this doesn't mean you can drop a whole contention and win.

no tricks, no incomprehensible spreading, speed talking (think podcast on 2.0) is good. kritiks, theory, and phil are fine if you can explain them in a way a toddler would understand and be extremely persuasive while doing it. very few debaters are capable of this, so i would suggest just not running them.

i'm fine with theory that i think is warranted. be warned that i have a very high bar for warranted (think 'went two minutes overtime for prep and dropped my entire case' rather than 'actor spec'). predictability > education >>> fairness. i need you to thoroughly explain which layer of the debate i should evaluate your theory on and how it should be weighed against substance. i default to dta and it's very difficult to convince me otherwise.

responding to theory-- i don't need a counter-interp. the majority of theory shells can be defeated via a twenty second explanation of reasonability.

i'll vote on ANYTHING if you're persuasive enough. if you can convince me that spreading six conditional counterplans and a floating pik against a novice at their first tournament is predictable, educational, and fair, i'll vote on it.

confidence is key, talk well and there's a decent chance you'll have my ballot. in speaks, i usually give 29 to the winner of a round and 27-28 to the loser.

i make a point to put my full effort into every round. i think this is an activity that takes a lot of effort and you all should be proud of yourselves for even showing up to tournaments.

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.

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

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

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

—CX—

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

—Ks—

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

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

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

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

—Policy vs K—

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

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

Perm double bind.

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

—K affs—

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

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

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

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

Ballot key?

—Framework—

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

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

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

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

—Policy Vs Policy—

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

—Phil—

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

—Theory/Tricks—

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

Hi, My Name is Jeff Freedman, I am a Lay parent Judge. I have been judging public forum debate for two years. I work in Marketing, however, my passion is for drumming, and my corgi, James.

I am able to flow to some extent, however, I would much prefer well rationed args., If you spread, or speak fast, I will not flow. Therefore, you should all be speaking at a rational pace where you can give me good reasoning for your arg.

I know how to flow, however that is almost the full extent of my abilities. I understand minimal lingo, and would much prefer you tell me for example why you outweigh your opponent, then give me some buzz word to explain it.

Truth>Tech, if there becomes disputes over evidence, and cards are called, I would Like to be added to the email chain. Even if there is no cards called, I would still like for debaters to create an email chain before round starts with me on it, my email is smallarmyjeff@gmail.com

Topicality: I do not understand any argumentation that is non topical, such as Ks and Theory. Even if a K is topical, I still do not understand it, and if you run one, you will be dropped.

In round procedure: In debate, the standard is that all debaters must be kind to each other. I expect that all debaters uphold this rule. For in-persons, I expect that who ever is speaking come to the front of the group and speak. For first and second cross this rule remains as well. Debaters may be seated for grand-cross. This doesn't apply for online tournaments.

Before Round: I would like for the AFF team to be seated on my right, and the NEG team on my left, for online tournaments, this doesn't apply. Before the first speech is given, I would like for each debater to introduce themselves. I ask that they say their name, whether they are first or second speaking for their team, and the school that they are debating for.

Rhetoric: I would like to see good rhetoric in specifically summary speeches. Good rhetoric may include references 80s music/bands. If the first speaker uses good rhetoric in summary, I would like to see that rhetoric extended in final focus.

I expect to see some good debate!

Jeff

UK, Niles North

CONTACT

---add arielgabay1710@gmail.com

GENERAL

---technical execution overdetermines everything. I will try my absolute hardest to be non-interventionist and minimize it, in any regard, to as close to zero as I can. That said, in some debates, that's impossible, and if that is the case, I will let debaters know why I intervened, but will try and optimize that intervention towards what I believe is most far.

---what I mean by this is that I have zero preference for what argument you go for, debaters work hard and are passionate about different things, you should let rip whatever you feel best increases the chances of you winning, nothing is off the table.

OTHER

---please let me know if you are interested in debating in college, and want to know more about kentucky, don't hesitate to ask via email or at tournaments!! I almost always have kentucky debate stickers in my bag.

---I do not like dead time and will lower speaks and take prep if it gets egregious. for every 3 minutes, the round starts after the posted start time -0.2 speaks to the team whose fault it is (obv accidents or whatever happened).

---you are welcome to 'post-round'. debaters work hard and deserve to know why things were decided as they were. you are allowed to tell me you think I am wrong, and I will explain to you why I think that I am right.

Tanya Reni Galloway

I enjoy analyzing the quality of evidence, persuasive techniques, and presentation style of all debate categories. I have judged all debate categories over the past 10 plus years including Congress, FX, DX, CX, LD, PF, BQ, and WS. I am an old-school purist. I judge all categories so I prefer that each category stays in its own lane. Having said that, I realize many students love progressive argumentation, so I say tabula rasa. I will judge the style they are trained in and give feedback accordingly. It is always about the student. My feedback and comments, on my ballots, are designed to empower the student to take their game in debate and life to the next level. I believe our speech and debate students are developing themselves as leaders and can use their skills to make profound differences when applied to areas of life that matter to them.

I also judge all IE events. I love OO, when done well, it is like a mini TED talk. I love to see the WHY. Why did the student choose the topic or selection? What resonates for them? In the categories which require acting skills, I really look for a connection between the student and the selection, when the student embodies the selection and becomes the character. I believe acting skills can build empathy and connection to the human condition. These students can use these skills and apply them in an area of life that they are passionate about and make a difference in the world. They can be the voice for others, who do not have the courage or opportunity to speak or perform in front of others.

I competed in high school and college and won awards in acting, singing, and public speaking events. I was a professional actress and trained at the Film Actors Lab. I am a trained toastmasters judge. I currently lecture on art as therapy. I was also the manager of the Communications Programs for the Dallas branch of a global personal and professional develop company, Landmark Worldwide.

I am an enthusiastic supporter of academic sports. Speech and debate participation provides cognitive and behavioral enhancement. It improves reading, listening, speaking, critical thinking, and writing skills. It also improves motivation and increases curiosity and engagement. I enjoy empowering the future leaders of our community and world. I encourage the students to take the skills they are learning and to apply them to areas of life that are of concern to them now, so they can make a difference and learn the practical value of their skills. It increases engagement for both at-risk and gifted students. I also think coaches are rock stars! Thank you for the difference you make each day with your students. It takes heart, dedication, patience, and perseverance, You are the one they will always remember.

Please do not do any of the following things.

Spreading (ok if you can speaker clearly)

Mumbling

Please do the following things.

Sign posting

Road maps

Weighing arguments

Hello I debated for 4 years in High school and have been judging for 6 years, I am in my first year an Assistant Coach at Blanson CTE High School

Debaters: If your opponent clearly is less experienced than you and you exploit that to stroke your ego I will drop your speaks to the lowest number I can and i will down you even if you won the round on the flow and I will contact your coach. Practices like that are unethical and takes away the educational aspect of debate. Also I don't like these progressive things that have been ran at recent tournaments, I have no problem with progressive arguments that are ran well however most of the time they are not done well.

Do not ask me to pre flow you should know your case already, I like big picture or line by line I'll judge the round on either, impact calculus, make sure you weigh for me, I HATE FRIVOLOUS THEORY, and also don't run anything you don't understand. Be respectful and have fun

I want an educational round over a competitive round. If you spread the other team out of the room, are intentionally vague and unwilling to explain your vocab, or are generally rude and dismissive, especially against a novice team, I'm giving you an L and giving you the minimum number of speaks. My view of debate is as an educational activity first and competitive second. Local tournaments are to foster critical thinking skills and create more nuanced, educated high schoolers.

First: this is a communication event it does not matter if I can understand speed DO NOT SPREAD, I cannot flow what I cannot understand and it is not my job to read off of a doc. You can send me the doc, but I will only refer to it if there is a problem with evidence.

Second: be respectful the easiest way to get me to drop your speaks (and you'll likely loose the round too) is if you are being rude

Third:DO NOT MAKE UP SOURCES I will fact check you and I will get in touch with your coach and the tournament director, you CAN use the internet in rounds now

Fourth: Debaters I DO NOT DISCLOSE Do not ask me to disclose and all comments will be on the ballot

Congress Kids: do not wait until the round has started to take splits do that before the round. and I HATE in house recesses to take splits especially when y'all just started. another thing, when y'all take splits and you need to write a speech in round go with the least popular side of the debate as it increases your chances at getting the speech. CLASH IS ESSENTIAL FOR CONGRESS TO BE A DEBATE EVENT!!!!!! When y'all take in house recesses it makes you look unprepared. When you get up to give a speech make sure you are actually adding something to the debate rehashing old arguments does nothing for the debate. When you clash with past arguments make sure you mention specific arguments brought up and the speaker who said it.

Extemp: I like to see a well organized and structured speech. You need a good hook to capture the audiences attention. DO NOT MAKE UP SOURCES I can tell when a source is made up and if I think you are making up a source I will fact check you. I hate being lied to in extemp. MAKE SURE YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION!!! That is the quickest way to get me to drop you in rank if you don't answer the question, you could have excellent analysis but you must answer the question

Interp: I'm not gonna lie this is probably the event I am least equipped to judge, but I like to see good blocking, clear character transitions and distinctions between characters. In POI make sure you have a variety of pieces in your program. Bring the emotion out in your piece, that does not mean you need to scream to convey emotions

OO:I like to listen to a good oratory. I love the speeches where I learn something and maybe make me feel inspired. Speech should have a catchy agd/hook that transitions naturally into your background information. Make sure you have a solution for your problem. When choosing a topic try to make it unique there are several topics that are commonly used so make your speech unique. I like to see acronyms for your solution. Make sure you have a call to action

Info: Informative is a different event from OO so don't give an OO in info. One of the main differences is that in Info you do not offer a solution you offer societal implications. I love to see infos that actually teach me something I didn't know before I came to judge the round, so be creative I love to see unique info visuals and topics

PF

LD

Congress

Policy

Extemp

Conflicts: Bridgeland HS, Blanson CTE HS, Avalos P-Tech

nathan.gong@utexas.edu / I prefer tabroom fileshare though

I qualified to the TOC three times for LD, debated twice, and cleared once (as Plano East and Plano Independent)

Read good quality evidence, be clear, compare arguments, and ballot paint!

Stop talking early when possible - I don't want to hear a 6 minute speech when a theory shell was conceded.

I can tell you speaker points after round if you want

Don't read evaluate after X

Hey, I'm Ms. Granchi I am an executive in medical devices. I have judged for 2 years now. I'd prefer it if you addressed me in rounds treating me as as a generally informed person that you are trying to persuade.

I know people have lots of questions, so here are some things about how I judge rounds.

1) Do your best to write my ballot for me in your last couple of speeches. If you do not tell me how I should evaluate the round; you do not tell me how to weigh (please do this) your arguments; and you do not tell me how you win the round; I will decide for myself purely based on substance if you do not do these things. It will also reflect poorly on speaker points.

2) If you want me to evaluate something, please warrant it thoroughly (for example, don't rely on the existence of a card or a tagline as a sufficient explanation for your argument).

3) Please respect each other in the debate round, I do not tolerate any misconduct/harassing.

4) I allow progressive debates if there is an actual substantial abuse and the theory is not an excuse for not debating and I'm explicitly told how to evaluate it, I'll evaluate it.

5) I'll only call for cards if both sides are saying opposite things about the same piece of evidence and/or I'm explicitly told to call for the card.

6) I can flow any level of speed, but spreading will reflect poorly in speaker points.

7) Please signpost. You really don't need give me off time road maps like "I'm going to respond to my opponents' arguments and return to my own," I can follow you if you tell me in the speech where you're going.

8) If you postround me, your speaker points will decrease monotonically with the amount of time you spend postrounding me. I welcome questions, but my decision is what it is.

P.S.: I have a dog named popcorn and if you relate the argument at the end with my dog popcorn, I will give you an extra speaker point! ????

-Ms. Granchi

.

David Griffith

Coach at the University of Kentucky and New Trier High School

griffithd2002@gmail.com for high school and college email chains as well as any questions you may have.

ukydebate@gmail.com and debatedocs@googlegroups.com for college email chains only.

Hate mail can be sent to jordandi505@gmail.com and/or debateoprf@gmail.com, and you are welcome to add both of those to any email chain if you want.

Two non-negotiables:

The aff must depart from the status quo---winning that the status quo is bad does not mean anything. If the aff does not provide a solution to a harm and instead chooses to simply explain how the world works to me, I will vote neg on presumption.

The neg always gets infinite conditionality---I am completely unwilling to decide a debate on how many positions were read. The neg will never be punished for obeying the pairing by disagreeing with the aff.

Other than those principles, here are some general notes that will help you get the best decision from me:

Organization is significantly more important than substance---I refuse to flow the speech doc. If you don't number your arguments, talk in intricately worded paragraphs, or fly through every argument at the same speed, I will miss arguments and feel that I'm a good enough flow not to feel bad about missing something. Debate is a speech activity.

Tell me what to do in every place possible---robust judge instruction is your only hope of avoiding catastrophic judge intervention in front of any judge. Final rebuttals should clearly explain the implication of winning your most important arguments relative to other arguments in the debate. Doing so will result in a faster, clearer decision and better speaker points.

Explain the importance of technical concessions---the bar I use for this is that I have to be able to explain to the other team what the implication was of them dropping a certain argument. Often, teams assert that things like "turns case" are dropped but won't say what this means. If you truly believe something is conceded and important enough to jump up and down about, don't leave it up to my intuition to figure out if it wins you the debate.

Complain about new arguments---I generally think new 1AR arguments have gotten out of hand. If the block makes deliberate choices informed by 2AC errors/concessions and tells me this, I am highly likely to obey 2NR judge instruction to ignore whatever the 1AR cooked up. For the aff, I am more than willing to entertain the idea that the 1NR does not get new impacts to the DA (or perhaps give the 1AR add-ons in response). For the neg, I am more than willing to strike an unwarranted "perm do both" from my flow of the 2AC if the 1NC explained why the CP avoided the net benefit (emphasis on explained).

Make complete arguments, and refuse to answer incomplete ones---it is not the 12-off 1NC that makes me angry, it is the 2AC that treats each off-case equally. If the 1NC doesn't read a link, the 2AC doesn't need to go to that sheet because fully conceding the other components of the DA doesn't disprove plan desirability. Is there value in hedging your bets? Maybe, but it's not always necessary. Similarly, I consistently see 2ACs that accurately assess that a 1NC position was incomplete and then spend an inordinate amount of time on that sheet. This will make me second-guess whether the 1NC applied because it tells me that you take the argument seriously. Stop doing that.

How should you approach debates involving planless affirmatives?

Shallow debating will favor the neg---I find that teams will often repeat lines of argumentation that they assume to be true without explaining them. For neg teams, this is oftentimes asserting that fairness is an impact without any of the explanation required to prove such a claim, and for aff teams, this usually looks like asserting some structural problem with debate and/or the topic without explaining why that problem exists/why the aff solves it. This is where my bias comes in: because I am more familiar with the neg side of things, when underdeveloped, I am more likely to intervene for the negative.

You don't need to adapt---I'm agnostic towards both the "best impact" to framework and the "best" way to answer it. I don't view framework debates as distinct from anything else and try my best to maintain the same conventions of judging that I do in every other debate.

Focus on internal links---what I mean by this is that teams seldom disagree with one another about whether debate has some value. The question that each team should try to answer in front of me is how we can maximize debate's value wherever it exists. A good portion of the final rebuttal needs to be dedicated to explaining why the model that you have forwarded does that better than the other team's can. This may just boil down to "do impact comparison," but I find that framework debates are more engaging to watch and easier to evaluate when teams explicitly focus on comparison as opposed to making large, structural claims and trying to get me to connect the dots for them.

What should you know in debates where the neg goes for the K against a policy aff?

Tricks are for kids---I'm a terrible judge for teams that rely on dropped tricks in order to win, especially if those tricks are vague assertions of "serial policy failure" or "ontology" or "root cause" without tailored application to the aff. I'm a great judge for nuanced link debating, competing ethical frameworks, and alternatives oriented towards changing the world in some capacity rather than simply explaining it. Remember, I must be able to explain why arguments interact in order for me to weigh one in your favor, so if I can't explain why the link turns case, the link does not turn the case.

Here is a list of thoughts related to counterplans!

Judge kick is my default, I guess?---does this even matter in the year of our lord 2024, where no one goes for "links to the net benefit" and very few teams have full-throated defenses of permutations against anything but the slimiest of process junk? If no one tells me to kick the counterplan, I guess I'll kick it, but I'm a very easy sell on the argument that I shouldn't.

I need to understand CP solvency---I do not presume that a CP solves the case in the same way that I do not presume the 1AC reading a plan text automatically means it solves its advantages. The 2AC cannot drop solvency arguments if the 1NC doesn't make any. The same is true for the 1AR if the 2NC does not explain the CP. The neg burden here is not unreasonable, but I have seen enough decisions hinging on this issue recently that I feel the need to say this explicitly.

Not great in complex competition debates---these tend to be the debates that go over my head the most. I find myself voting neg a lot just because of technical concessions and a lack of 2AR judge instruction inviting intervention based on my general neg bias. Moreover, I am not intimately familiar with the inner workings of functionally and textually non-severance partially-but-sometimes-fully intrinsic permutations, and I require extra hand-holding in the 2NR/2AR on that particular issue.

Impacts matter---solvency deficits need connections to them. "Delay" and "certainty" only matter if the aff has a short-term impact that requires certainty. If I can't explain what impact that is, the deficit doesn't matter.

Regarding topicality against policy affs.

Love it---some of the best debates I've watched, judged, and have participated in involved T. Good T speeches earn very high speaker points. I don't really care what the T argument is as long as you explain it compellingly.

What is plan in a vacuum?---seriously, someone tell me. How do you interpret the plan in a vacuum? The 1AC read evidence that informs what the plan means. This is why the aff can go for solvency deficits against CPs and nuanced no link arguments against DAs. To me, it seems untenable to suggest that the evidence the 1AC used to define plan function should be ignored when deciding topicality. This is not to say that plan in a vacuum is completely unwinnable in front me. Rather, I am not a fan of writing vague plan texts that lack a clear mandate, reading a 1AC that defends potentially untopical action, and then going for plan in a vacuum as if the 1AC deliberately read an advantage/solvency cards about something the plan didn't do.

Predictability matters vastly more than anything else---I think that the more precise or predictable an interpretation is, the less it matters how good its limits are on the topic in a vacuum. If a "bad" definition is more precise or predictable, limits are solely a reason we should've written the resolution better. I am not compelled by neg limits arguments when attached to unpredictable interpretations. I am equally unpersuaded by whining about aff ground when attached to interpretations that barely define words in the resolution.

The aff should go for reasonability---this is the ultimate conclusion to my disdain for limits. Most neg impacts to T can be taken out easily enough that offense about substance crowd-out can outweigh them.

In the event that the neg goes for the status quo...

This is where I am the most neg biased---I am better than average for believing the world is better now than it is post-plan. I'm generally bad for structural uniqueness arguments if there's adequate link debating by the neg, and I am such a sucker for case defense that even weak DAs end up doing enough for me to win.

Evidence quality matters---this is in the DAs section of the paradigm because it is where it matters most. Far too often, teams read lots of bad cards that gesture at vague economic concepts for a few rebuttals, tell me to read the cards, and then don't look alarmed when I conclude that the cards sucked. Debates over bad evidence result in more intervention, particularly when that evidence is under-explained by the 2NR/2AR. This means that if you're going for the status quo with a DA that doesn't have the best evidence, you cannot afford to let your cards do the debating for you.

Thumpers are boring and cowardly---mostly applies to politics on this topic. "There are other bills in Congress" is not a link nor a uniqueness answer to the politics DA. You have to explain why your thumper implicates the DA or is not priced in by the neg reading a uniqueness card.

Be smart---I am not a particularly smart person but know one when I see one. Smart arguments as an alternative to getting lost in the cards will not only increase your chances of winning, but it will also boost your speaker points. Knowing stuff about the world is really cool.

Some more thoughts on impact turns.

Impact framing matters more than impact defense---I am more than willing to pull the trigger on impact framing even with unmitigated impacts from the other side. I am not averse to stomaching a nuclear war if animals come first or risking the heat death of the universe if future generations don't matter. I think people care too much about impact defense in this debates when it rarely matters. Invest more time in explaining how I should decide the debate than assuming I can follow the implication of every technical drop exactly how you envision I shoudl.

I have no thoughts on the substance of impact turns---everything is fair game. It is virtually impossible to get me to toss an impact turn without substantive refutation. If you can't explain why spark or wipeout or warming good is incorrect, you deserve to lose because the majority of impact turns are academically ridiculous and/or philosophically inconsistent.

-Debated 4 years LD, graduating in 2013; qualified to TOC twice and reached Quarterfinals my senior year.

-Have coached for 10 years; am currently the Head Debate Coach at Lynbrook High School.

Am rewriting this for TDI:

If I'm your judge, just concentrate on explaining your arguments in the clearest and most straightforward way possible. Don't hide behind buzzwords like 'engagement, containment, entanglement, probing,' etc. etc. -- instead, explain your arguments to me like a story. Don't merely assert that a country would react a certain way if the US did something -- provide clear warrants by pointing to particular lines in your evidence or by referencing historical examples. I think it is an excellent investment of your time, in front of me, to sometimes go slow and read lines from evidence to emphasize what's important, or, when it comes to your opponent's cards, what's missing.

I would also signpost, number arguments, and begin argument comparison in the debate as early as possible.

Updated for TOC Digital Speech and Debate Series 2 :) --- I've been having issues with formatting while updating this paradigm, I'm sorry if this looks terrible on the device you are reading it on.

Email chains (add me): hunterharwoods@gmail.com

Pronouns: He/Him/His

I have been involved in high school and/or collegiate debate in some capacity for the last 13ish years. I competed on the Texas state and national LD circuits in high school and coached several nationally successful students in the few years after I graduated. I also competed on the policy team at UNT. I have a high level of experience judging circuit debate, although admittedly I don't judge very often anymore. Much of my judging history is not listed on Tabroom (shoutout Joy of Tournaments). I work full-time in software now, so I no longer coach, but I keep up with the community and judge the occasional bid tournament when I have free time. Debate has been the most impactful activity in my life since I started many years ago, and I feel the role of the judge is as an educator, to help instill the same "portable skills" that have helped me and countless other debaters achieve their goals. I balance that with the idea that debate is a game that should be fun for everyone.

I have always enjoyed reading judge paradigms to see how other people think about debate, but you may not feel the same way. Mine keeps getting longer - please at least read the tl;dr and the section about online debate at the bottom (if applicable). Whether I am judging you in a policy or LD round I will be thinking about the debate in largely the same way. If you have questions before the round, please ask. See also: Christopher Vincent's paradigm, I align closely with it.

tl;dr

(1) You must give a trigger warning if you plan on discussing a sensitive topic. If you're not sure if you should give a trigger warning, err on the side of caution.

(2) Debate however you're comfortable, as long as you can justify the practice in-round. I will evaluate any type of argument. At the same time, I could not realistically say I am a "tab" judge given we are all a product of social location and lived experience. Please don't make morally abhorrent arguments, and please be kind and professional.

(3) As the affirmative, I believe you need to tell me how to evaluate the round and then generate offense in this manner (this is intentionally broad). I love critical affirmatives and I'm always game for a straight-up policy debate. Whatever affirming looks like to you is most likely fine with me. I prefer the affirmative to at least refer to the topic. The negative can do whatever to disprove the affirmative, the topic, read a K or CP, etc. I like rounds where each team defends an advocacy. CX is [obviously] binding. Flex prep is fine and binding too. I think this year's policy topic and the Jan/Feb LD topic are both awesome - please feel free to break creative/out-of-the-box strats in front of me. Performance is great but please make sure I know how to evaluate it.

(4) I am fine with speed but please slow down a little if I'm judging you in an online round. Slow down on tags and author names, and please allow pen time in the appropriate places. I keep a detailed flow - please listen when I say "clear" or "slow" so I can do this. Please don't assume I know much about the topic or your authors since I do not coach or judge very often anymore (err on the side of overexplaining, try to minimize topic jargon where possible). I still feel confident I can evaluate most rounds but these factors are important to keep in mind.

(5) I will intervene as little as possible - when good weighing doesn't happen this becomes difficult, so please tell me exactly how to vote and why. I vote off the flow but I cannot help viewing the debate holistically, as a performance. Tech > truth, you can win with arguments that have untrue conclusions if you set them up properly and win the necessary planks. If you [technically] win with bad/dropped arguments I would rather give a low point win than intervene. LD rounds are very short so please keep that in mind when reading philosophically dense positions/high theory K's - I like these arguments but I like good explanations more.

(6) If you are making arguments off the flow/off the top of your head and you are not capable of spreading them without mumbling/slurring/jumping around, don't spread those arguments. It is [understandably] harder to spread "off the dome" than prewritten material, and it will come at the cost of me being able to understand you or be compelled by you. Slow down and group, cross-apply, weigh, make turns, win framing, etc - there are so many other routes to the ballot. I would prefer to follow your debate.

(7) I would much rather hear a round containing fewer arguments that are more complex, nuanced, and well-warranted than tons of arguments that are blippy, poorly explained, and hard to build a narrative around. I greatly prefer compelling arguments to bad ones. I also prefer engagement to evasion.

(8) If you have a position that was written by a coach, teammate, friend, etc, and you do not understand it as if you wrote it yourself, it is my strong preference that you do not read that position in front of me - if you read a position that I understand well and explain it poorly, that is not good for you, and if you read a position that I don't understand well and explain it poorly, that is also not good for you. It's a lose-lose.

(9) Please be very careful with evidence practices while assembling speech docs. Evidence ethics is important. When I debated we were very, very familiar with exactly how long it would take us to get through pretty much any file we had. During a policy round at Stanford I received a 31 page speech doc that ended up as a 15 page speech doc by the time we cut everything that wasn't read in the speech - that is ludicrous. This is the most extreme example but it was a trend and I don't like it.

(10) Please weigh so I don't have to do it for you. Tell me a good ballot story.

Longer Version

(1) Good debate starts with good research. Cheesy but true. You should feel confident walking into the round that you know more than anyone else in the room about the topic. Getting caught off guard is no fun. Being able to make awesome, carded, responsive arguments on the fly because you know your stuff is super fun. And a super topic-centric, contentious round is far more fun to judge than a super generic one. If I feel like you know a ton about the topic you're discussing (ie you explain it super well, don't have to constantly refer to evidence or quote it to explain warrants, etc), your speaks will be high.

(2) Theory Specific Stuff: I default to competing interps, no RVI's, drop the arg. You can change any of these defaults with arguments in-round. I ran a lot of theory in high school. Although my views on the subject have changed since then, theory is an important part of debate strategy, and I will vote for pretty much any theory arg. I will not vote for "wifi bad", "shoe theory", or really any shell that isn't about something that happened in-round. I generally think shells should be structured Interp-->Violation-->Standards-->Voters-->Implications (drop the arg v. debater). Justify why you should get an RVI if you're going for one. My threshold is pretty low on CI/I meet's for the 1A and 2A; if the affirmative is going for an RVI, the negative needs to do a lot more work to prove why the aff shouldn't get an RVI than the aff needs to prove why they should. I feel like this offsets the time burden placed on the aff should the neg choose to go theory-heavy in the 1N and 2N, but again, you've still gotta win why the RVI is a voting issue in both the 1A and 2A. I despise messy theory debates so pls don't be that person. I am okay with theory preempt-heavy 1AC's as long as the rest of the round is coherent.

(3) K debate <3: I ran a broad array of K's in HS and college. I don't love generic K's, I do love critical affirmatives that tell a great story, and I do love critical negative strats with extremely relevant link and impact stories and tangible alternatives. Please make sure the evaluative mechanism for the round is clear so I can vote on your K. Performance is great but please make sure I know how to evaluate it.

(4) Larp/policymaking: I love it when these debates go well/are extremely substantive and find generic ones to be excruciatingly boring. Please feel free to run creative/out-of-the-box plans and CPs in front of me.

(5) Tricks: I ran some tricks in HS. Not my cup of tea anymore, but I understand that they can be fun to run from time to time, especially if both debaters can throw down. I also believe that being able to answer them makes you a much better debater. If you're going to read stuff like this, don't be shady. I won't flow spikes that aren't clearly numbered. I will bomb your speaks if your strategy involves your opponent missing a tiny blip that you blazed through in the first speech, and if they missed it, I probably did too. That is not good tricks debate.

(6) I feel like this goes without saying, but arguments in bad taste or that justify bad things (racism good, genocide good), or use of rhetoric that I feel violates the safety of others (hate speech, slurs, sexism, etc), will cause me to immediately stop the round and have a serious, coach-involved discussion after I vote you down with the lowest speaks I can. Read this article by the legendary Chris Vincent if any of this is unclear (I'm sure you've already read the Vincent 13 evidence but the whole article establishes good norms)

https://www.vbriefly.com/2013/10/26/201310re-conceptualizing-our-performances-accountability-in-lincoln-douglas-debate/

(7) I think disclosure is a good norm. I obviously can't require you to do this, but I am pretty persuaded by disclosure theory as a result.

(8) Do not clip cards. It's easy to do it by accident, but I will hold you accountable regardless. If you're not 100% sure what I mean, https://the3nr.com/2014/08/20/how-to-never-clip-cards-a-guide-for-debaters/

If you follow those guidelines, you should not have any issues with clipping.

(9) CX is binding. I don't usually flow or take general notes during CX but I pay close attention. Flex prep is fine, but you may not use CX time as prep time. Any questions asked and answered during prep will also be binding. You must answer any question asked in CX, and if you and your opponent agree that flex prep is cool, any that they ask you during prep as well. If you are not okay with flex prep, please make that clear before the round begins.

(10) Be clear and concise. I'll say clear as many times as I have to. I don't think it's fair of me as a judge to stop trying to understand you just because I'm having to work a little harder at it. However, you're liable for anything I don't get the first time. Debate is a communication activity. If you're trying to extend an argument in the 1AR and I have no idea what you're talking about because the 1AC was 6 minutes of garbled tags and authors, that's on you. The speech doc will not save you in this regard. I feel like I've developed a pretty fair brightline over time for how clear and expounded upon I require an argument to be for me to vote on it.

(11) Being clear and concise doesn't just apply to spreading. Word economy and time allocation are super important. You'll be amazed at how much more time you have in your rebuttal if you weigh and do argument interaction concisely, while telling a good ballot story. Organization is crucial; consistently good debaters are not sloppy.

(12) Please weigh. Please. If you don't I have to do it for you, and nobody likes judge intervention. Avoid that situation entirely and do good weighing.

(13) Please stop reading generic, pre-written overviews in front of me. Your speaks will suffer. If you tell a good ballot story an overview is not necessary. A short overview at the end of your rebuttal is fine to wrap up key voting issues but that's not what I'm referring to.

(14) I might not know all of your jargon. I also probably won't know all your authors. Just explain things well and this will not be a problem.

(15) Speaker points: You'll start at a 28.7, and move in increments of .1. Good strategic decisions, conciseness, clarity, and confidence are all important to me. Pretty much everything I discuss in this paradigm will affect your speaks. At a bid tournament, 29 or above generally means I think you deserve a shot to break, above a 29.4 means I think you deserve a speaker award too. If the maximum increment set by the tournament is .5, I will round up and let you know that in the RFD. Although I start the round with all debaters at 28.7, I find I give speaks around an average of 28.3-28.6.

(16) Do not be mean to less skilled debaters. If there is a clear skill gap in the round, and you're a total jerk, spread them out of the room, intentionally make super complex args that they cannot engage with (basically doing things to exclude them from participating in the round in any way), you'll get the win but I will bomb your speaks. Debate should be inclusive, fun, and educational for everyone. Nothing is more demoralizing than getting dunked on while you have no idea what's happening. The flip side of this is that being kind, educational, helpful, mature, and still decisively winning a round against a significantly less skilled debater/novice will be a quick W30 from me, even at a bid tournament. We have to prioritize fostering an atmosphere in this community that will make people want to stay and get better, not quit. Relatedly, if your opponent asks you not to spread, and you do it anyway, I'm not going to vote for you. I don't care what their reason is. If you ask your opponent not to spread and then get up and spread the 1NC (why would you even try this), I'm going to down you too. I saw this happen at a local a long time ago and I've always kept it in my paradigm. It's mean and probably cheating.

(17) The case that you send in the email chain must be formatted identically to the one you're reading out loud. Same font size, highlights, stylization, everything. Don't be that person who sends their case in all caps or with the cards uncut or all highlighted or whatever. That's not cool and you shouldn't need to do that to get a leg up in the round if you are prepared.

(18) Time yourself and your opponent. I have noticed an increase in people not keeping time. Please make sure you keep your own time and time your opponent as well. Time prep and tell me how much you have left, and write it down yourself too. If you ask me "how much prep do I have left?", I'm going to take a speaker point away.

(19) Please flow.

(20) You should compile your speech doc during prep. I don't count flashing/emailing as prep but please do not abuse this; if it takes you longer than 20-30 seconds to get it done, I'm going to assume you're stealing prep and I'm going to remove the excess from your remaining prep time, or dock your speaks if you have no prep left.

Online Debate-Specific Stuff

a.) You MUST make local recordings of your speeches as you give them in the round. If you or I or your opponent drops off the call, please complete the speech without stopping, and immediately email the copy in the email chain. Failure to do this will result in any missed arguments not being considered. After reviewing community discussions on this issue, this seems like the best norm going forward.

b.) Pls don't steal prep.

c.) DO NOT GO FULL SPEED ONLINE YOU WILL PROBABLY LOSE!!!! Go 75% of your top speed max. Spreading is HARD to follow online. I'm tired of flowing off speech docs, if I miss an argument completely I will not even flow the extension and that's on you. Also, I often mishear/misspell the author names, and sometimes I'm way off, so it would benefit you to say "extend [warrant]" as opposed to "extend [author name]." This is a good habit to get into regardless, some judges don't even flow author names and it's usually more convincing if you don't need to tell me the name of the card for me to know what you're talking about.

d.) Email chains are required, if you're flight B please set it up before the round. Yes I would like to be added, my email address is at the top.

e.) Try to find a way to see both me and your opponent during speeches, and please keep your camera on if possible. Body language is important, and I'm pretty expressive as a judge, so you'll probably want to see me while you're reading to see if I look receptive or confused. If there is a bandwidth issue, equity issue, etc preventing you from keeping your camera on, a simple "I'd prefer to leave my camera off" is enough and I will not ask questions.

f.) Debaters can tell each other "clear" or "slow" (please do not abuse this) during speeches. Other than that please make sure your mic is muted while your opponent is giving a speech.

If you have any questions for me before or after the round, please don't be shy. If you have any questions about the decision or things you could've done better, please ask as many questions as necessary after the round (time permitting) or in the downtime between rounds.

Debate can be stressful, and life is stressful enough as is. You should always feel safe and cared for in the debate community, and if you don't, please speak up; there are always people listening. Good luck, and most importantly, have fun!

I am a college student studying philosophy. I debated 3 years for Midtown High School in Atlanta, Georgia. Any pronouns are fine. Make the round fun. You can contact me for any questions. (peterchaynes03@gmail.com)

I've been hearing that nuclear war is going to happen since 1982. Just because something is said in a round does not make it true. Valid, reasonable positions and evidence are key. The impacts of arguments need to be sound and connected. I am not tabula rasa. If I'm not convinced, I'm not voting for it.

I do NOT want to be on the email chain. Debate is a speaking activity, not an essay-writing contest. If I don't hear it, the argument is not being flowed. Spreading is a no. I will only call for evidence if indicts are made.

I like trad debate, but if you are doing it make sure that you have a clear value and value criterion WITH JUSTIFICATIONS. Explain to me why your contention level impacts matter under your own framework and why your framework is preferable to your opponent's.

I do not like utilitarianism. I find it is often misused and boring to judge. It is not a value, and I will be very likely to vote against it if there are little to no warrants and your opponent is running a different framework well. Run at your own risk. That being said, I will evaluate it fairly if it is genuinely run well, and I maintain equally high standards for other frameworks.

Signposting and roadmaps are appreciated. Answer CX questions in good faith please. Be respectful of your opponent.

Prog stuff:

Trix, friv theory, spikes are all bad. 1 NIB is okay.

K is lovely as long as it is clear and understandable. Links are a must and develop your alt. Really make it as clear as possible because I probably don't know about your pre-fiat heidegger k aff.

To steal from a good friend:

I am very unlikely to vote on a K if:

1. You cannot explain your alt well.

2. You clearly do not understand your literature and are just reading from blocks.

3. You have not impacted out why the K means you win the debate - It means nothing to me if you just tell me the 'aff is securitising' in the 2nr.

Theory is fine as long as there is actual abuse. I do not vote on disclosure theory, and I only use a reasonability standard.

LARP is not ok. You are not policy makers. Please don't. Discussion of policy implications is necessary for some topics, but if your case is 15 seconds of "util is truetil" and 5:45 of a hyperspecific plan with a chain of 5 vague links ending in two different extinction impacts, I'm not going to be a fan. Realistically speaking, your links are speculative, your impacts won't happen, and despite debaters telling me that extinction is inevitable for 15+ years, it still hasn't happened. Please debate the topic rather than making up your own (unless you warrant why you can do that). If there is no action in the resolution, you can't run a plan. If there is no actor, don't a-spec. If you want to debate policy, do policy debate.

IF YOU POWER TAG YOUR CARDS I WILL VOTE YOU DOWN.

I will give +0.1 speaker points if you make a Big Lebowski or Top Gun reference in round.

Update for MS TOC 2024 (the only important updates are PF-specific for MS TOC)

Updated March 2023 (note this is partially from Greg Achten's paradigm - an update for Kandi King RR 2023)

Email: huntshania@gmail.com-please put me on the email chain

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Overview [updated MS TOC 24]

I've done debate for over a decade now, and I think it's a really awesome activity when we share similar value in the activity. Please be kind and respectful to each other, and have fun debating! Feel free to ask any questions/clarifications before you debate. Some quick background, I competed the longest in LD in high school (elims of NSDA, 4th speaker / quarters at TOC, championed Greenhill, Co-championed Cal Berkeley Round Robin and Finals at Cal Berkeley Tournament my senior year). I've also competed in a lot of other events besides LD (WSDC, Impromptu, Extemp, Oratory, PF, Congress) and other notable achievements include being runner-up at NSDA 2013 in Extemp Debate and debating for the USA on the NSDA's inaugural USA Debate team my senior year in WSDC. I've coached a lot of students at this point, I was an assistant coach for Northland, Harvard-Westlake for 4 years, The Harker School for 3 years as the MS Director of Speech and Debate and currently as an assistant coach/law student, and am presently one of the head coaches for the USA Debate Team through the NSDA. Good luck, have fun, and best effort!

Paradigm[Updated March 2023]

[**Note I copied this paradigm from my colleague, Greg Achten at The Harker School when my paradigm was deleted in March 2023.]

I enjoy engaging debates where debaters actively respond to their opponent's arguments, use cross-examination effectively, and strategically adapt throughout the debate. I typically will reward well-explained, intellectually stimulating arguments, ones that are rooted in well-grounded reasoning, and result in creativity and strategic arguments. The best debates for me to judge will either do a stand up job explaining their arguments or read something policy-based. I love a new argument, but I just caution all debaters in general from reading arguments your judge may not have a background in that requires some level of understanding how it functions (that often debaters assume judges know, then are shocked when they get the L because the judge didn't know that thing).

I haven't judged consistently in awhile, and what that practically means it'd be wise to:

(1) ask questions about anything you may be concerned about

(2) avoid topic-specific acronyms that are not household acronyms (e.g., ASEAN, NATO, WHO, etc.)

(3) explain each argument with a claim/warrant/impact - if you explain the function of your evidence, I'll know what you want me to do with that evidence. Without that explanation, I may overlook something important (e.g., offense, defense, perm, or "X card controls the link to..", etc)

Argument Preferences:

The execution of the argument is as important as the quality of the evidence supporting the argument. A really good disad with good cards that is poorly explained and poorly extended is not compelling to me. Conversely a well explained argument with evidence of poor quality is also unlikely to impress me.

Critiques: Overall, not what I read often in debates, but you'll likely do fine if you err on the side of extra explanation, extending and explaining your arguments, directly responding to your opponents arguments, etc. I try my best to flow, understand more nuanced arguments, etc. But, I don't have a background in critical studies so that will need extra explanation (especially links, framing arguments, alternatives).

Topicality/Theory: I am slightly less prone than other judges to vote on topicality. Often the arguments are quickly skimmed over, the impact of these arguments is lost, and are generally underdeveloped. I need clear arguments on how to evaluate theory - how do I evaluate the standards? What impacts matter? What do I do if you win theory? How does your opponent engage?

The likelihood of me voting on a 1ac spike or tricks in general are exceptionally low. There is a zero percent chance I will vote on an argument that I should evaluate the debate after X speech. Everyone gets to give all of their speeches and have them count. Likewise any argument that makes the claim "give me 30 speaker points for X reason" will result in a substantial reduction in your speaker points. If this style of theory argument is your strategy I am not the judge for you.

Philosophy/Framework: dense phil debates are very hard for me to adjudicate having very little background in them. I default to utilitarianism and am most comfortable judging those debates. Any framework that involves skep triggers is very unlikely to find favor with me.

Evidence: Quality is extremely important and seems to be declining. I have noticed a disturbing trend towards people reading short cards with little or no explanation in them or that are underlined such that they are barely sentence fragments. I will not give you credit for unread portions of evidence. Also I take claims of evidence ethics violations very seriously and have a pretty high standard for ethics. I have a strong distaste for the insertion of bracketed words into cards in all instances.

Cross examination: is very important. Cross-ex should be more than I need this card and what is your third answer to X. A good cross-ex will dramatically increase your points, a bad one will hurt them. Everyone in the debate should be courteous.

Disads/CP's: these are the debates I am most familiar with and have spent nearly all of my adult life judging and coaching. DA turns the case is a powerful and underutilized argument. But this is all pretty straightforward and I do not think I have a lot of ideas about these that are not mainstream with the exceptions in the theory section above.Speaker points: for me are based on the following factors - clarity of delivery, quality of evidence, quality of cross examination, strategic choices made in the debate and also, to a degree, on demeanor. Debaters who are friendly and treat their opponents with respect are likely to get higher points.

Also a note on flowing: I will periodically spot check the speech doc for clipping but do not flow from it. I will not vote on an argument I was unable to flow. I will say clear once or twice but beyond that you risk me missing many arguments.

Public Forum

Pretty much everything in the above paradigm is applicable here but there are two key additions. First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence.

Other than that I am excited to hear your debate! If you have any specific questions please feel free to ask me.

Debated policy in high school and parli at Columbia University

judging for over 4 years

email: cyrusjks10@gmail.com

pronouns: he/him

2/17/24 EDIT:

Quick Prefs:

1) Ks/KAFFS/Performance

2) LARP

3) Phil

4) T/Theory

5) Tricks (unless tied to social advocacy)

IHSA 2022 Update:

Debate Philosophy: Generally, I default to voting for the team that has done the better debating, in terms of proving the merit of the arguments they make against some comparative (opponent's arguments, status quo, etc.). Offense is always appreciated, and I normally vote for the team that has the best warranted / impacted out offense.

UK Digital TOC Speech & Debate #2 Edit:

What debaters should do more of: give roadmaps, sign post, slow down on taglines, do impact calculus/weigh, do line-by-line analyses, compare evidence, collapse on key args in final rebuttal speeches, and say why you are winning/get the ballot (write my ballot for me)

What debaters should avoid doing: spreading through overviews and theory shells (if need to spread please send out a doc), saying they have proved something to be true, bringing up that something was dropped/conceded without explaining why it matters or is a critically important to evaluating/framing the round, jumping all over the flow (please sign post so I can accurately flow/ keep track of your arguments), and sending out speech docs that can't be downloaded or copied from. ALSO please no postrounding and no sending me emails before a round is scheduled to occur nor after a round has occurred, as judges are not allowed to have contact with debaters except during a round.

1/7/22 EDIT:

Quick Prefs:

1) LARP

2) Ks/KAFFS/Performance

3) Phil

4) T/Theory

5) Tricks

Miscellaneous

Kritiks I like to hear (in order): Afropess/antiblackness, afrofuturism, set col, cap,

Sheryl Kaczmarek Lexington High School -- SherylKaz@gmail.com

General Thoughts

I expect debaters to treat one another, their judges and any observers, with respect. If you plan to accuse your opponent(s) of being intellectually dishonest or of cheating, please be prepared to stake the round on that claim. Accusations of that sort are round ending claims for me, one way or the other. I believe debate is an oral and aural experience, which means that while I want to be included on the email chain, I will NOT be reading along with you, and I will not give you credit for arguments I cannot hear/understand, especially if you do not change your speaking after I shout clearer or louder, even in the virtual world. I take the flow very seriously and prior to the pandemic judged a lot, across the disciplines, but I still need ALL debaters to explain their arguments because I don't "know" the tiniest details for every topic in every event. I am pretty open-minded about arguments, but I will NOT vote for arguments that are racist, sexist or in any other way biased against a group based on gender identity, religion or any other characteristic. Additionally, I will NOT vote for suicide/self harm alternatives. None of those are things I can endorse as a long time high school teacher and decent human.

Policy Paradigm

The Resolution -- I would prefer that debaters actually address the resolution, but I do vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often. That is because it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question, in the context of the rest of the round.

Framework -- I often find that these debates get messy fast. Debaters make too many arguments and fail to answer the arguments of the opposition directly. I would prefer more clash, and fewer arguments overall. While I don't think framework arguments are as interesting as some other arguments in debate, I will vote for the team that best promotes their vision of debate, or look at the rest of the arguments in the round through that lens.

Links -- I would really like to know what the affirmative has done to cause the impacts referenced in a Disad, and I think there has to be something the affirmative does (or thinks) which triggers a Kritik. I don't care how big the impact/implication is if the affirmative does not cause it in the first place.

Solvency -- I expect actual solvency advocates for both plans and counterplans. If you are going to have multi-plank plans or counterplans, make sure you have solvency advocates for those combinations of actions, and even if you are advocating a single action, I still expect some source that suggests this action as a solution for the problems you have identified with the Status Quo, or with the Affirmative.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part of the card you read needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards after a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot make enough sense of it to write it down, I will not be able to vote for it. If you don't have the time to explain a complicated argument to me, and to link it to the opposition, you might want to try a different strategy.

Old/Traditional Arguments -- I have been judging long enough that I have a full range of experiences with inherency, case specific disads, theoretical arguments against politics disads and many other arguments from policy debate's past, and I also understand the stock issues and traditional policy-making. If you really want to confuse your opponents, and amuse me, you'll kick it old school as opposed to going post-modern.


LD Paradigm

The Resolution -- The thing that originally attracted me to LD was that debaters actually addressed the whole resolution. These days, that happens far less often in LD than it used to. I like hearing the resolution debated, but I also vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often in LD. That is because I believe it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question.

Framework -- I think LDers are better at framework debates than policy debaters, as a general rule, but I have noticed a trend to lazy framework debates in LD in recent years. How often should debaters recycle Winter and Leighton, for example, before looking for something new? If you want to stake the round on the framework you can, or you can allow it to be the lens through which I will look at the rest of the arguments.

Policy Arguments in LD -- I understand all of the policy arguments that have migrated to LD quite well, and I remember when many of them were first developed in Policy. The biggest mistake LDers make with policy arguments -- Counterplans, Perm Theory, Topicality, Disads, Solvency, etc. -- is making the assumption that your particular interpretation of any of those arguments is the same as mine. Don't do that! If you don't explain something, I have no choice but to default to my understanding of that thing. For example, if you say, "Perm do Both," with no other words, I will interpret that to mean, "let's see if it is possible to do the Aff Plan and the Neg Counterplan at the same time, and if it is, the Counterplan goes away." If you mean something different, you need to tell me. That is true for all judges, but especially true for someone with over 40 years of policy experience. I try to keep what I think out of the round, but absent your thoughts, I have no choice but to use my own.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part if the card you read really needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot understand enough to write it down, I won't vote for it. If you don't think you have the time to explain some complicated philosophical position to me, and to link it to the opposition, you should try a different strategy.

Traditional Arguments -- I would still be pleased to listen to cases with a Value Premise and a Criterion. I probably prefer traditional arguments to new arguments that are not explained.

Theory -- Theory arguments are not magical, and theory arguments which are not fully explained, as they are being presented, are unlikely to be persuasive, particularly if presented in a paragraph, or three word blips, since there is no way of knowing which ones I won't hear or write down, and no one can write down all of the arguments when each only merits a tiny handful of words. I also don't like theory arguments that are crafted for one particular debate, or theory arguments that lack even a tangential link to debate or the current topic. If it is not an argument that can be used in multiple debates (like topicality, conditionality, etc) then it probably ought not be run in front of me. New 1AR theory is risky, because the NR typically has more than enough time to answer it. I dislike disclosure theory arguments because I can't know what was done or said before a round, and because I don't think I ought to be voting on things that happened before the AC begins. All of that being said, I will vote on theory, even new 1AR theory, or disclosure theory, if a debater WINS that argument, but it does not make me smile.

PF Paradigm

The Resolution -- PFers should debate the resolution. It would be best if the Final Focus on each side attempted to guide me to either endorse or reject the resolution.

Framework -- Frameworks are OK in PF, although not required, but given the time limits, please keep your framework simple and focused, should you use one.

Policy or LD Behaviors/Arguments in PF -- I personally believe each form of debate ought to be its own thing. I DO NOT want you to talk quickly in PF, just because I also judge LD and Policy, and I really don't want to see theory arguments, plans, counterplans or kritiks in PF. I will definitely flow, and will judge the debate based on the flow, but I want PF to be PF. That being said, I will not automatically vote against a team that brings Policy/LD arguments/stylistic approaches into PF. It is still a debate and the opposition needs to answer the arguments that are presented in order to win my ballot, even if they are arguments I don't want to see in PF.

Paraphrasing -- I have a HUGE problem with inaccurate paraphrasing. I expect debaters to be able to IMMEDIATELY access the text of the cards they have paraphrased -- there should be NO NEED for an off time search for the article, or for the exact place in the article where an argument was made. Making a claim based on a 150 page article is NOT paraphrasing -- that is summarizing (and is not allowed). If you can't instantly point to the place your evidence came from, I am virtually certain NOT to consider that evidence in my decision.

Evidence -- If you are using evidence, I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Pretending your cards include warrants (when they do not) is unacceptable. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part you card you read MUST say extinction will happen. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

Theory -- This has begun to be a thing in PF in some places, especially with respect to disclosure theory, and I am not a fan. As previously noted, I want PF to be PF. While I do think that PFers can be too secretive (Policy and LD both started that way), I don't think PFers ought to be expending their very limited time in rounds talking about whether they ought to have disclosed their case to their opponents before the round. Like everything else I would prefer were not true, I can see myself voting on theory in PF because I do vote based on the flow, but I'd prefer you debate the case in front of you, instead of inventing new arguments you don't really have time to discuss.

Hi I'm Chandra. I'm a parent judge that's still quite new to judging. 

Some important notes: 

• I'm not a big fan of spreading since I'm new to judging, but if you do spread, please add me to the email chain and coordinate with you partner beforehand.(ckandanuru@gmail.com)
• I don't know too much about theory and tricks debate; I would prefer traditional/lay debate styles that stick to the topic.  
• Please provide me with clear voters in the final speech & well-explained warrants/extensions throughout the entire round. Otherwise, you risk confusing me.

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

I am a parent judge with limited exposure to Varsity LD Debate.

Please go slow to allow me to follow.

Email: knnmbd@yahoo.com

Emory ‘24

Washburn Rural ‘20

Email chain: gkessler222@gmail.com

Tech > truth, but arguments need warrants.

Being rude/condescending will earn you very low speaks.

I won't adjudicate issues that occurred outside of the debate.

T USFG: I'm very good for T against K Affs. Fairness is the best impact. I also like clash style impacts.

Ks: I'm also very good for Affs with plans and extinction impacts against Ks. I generally believe Affs should get to weigh the plan.

T: I don’t have extensive topic knowledge so will need more explanation. I enjoy these debates more so when they include substantive engagement, and less so when they include a contrived, unpredictable interp.

CPs: Not a huge fan of generic process CPs.

Theory: Conditionality is generally good, but I can be persuaded otherwise.

Caddo Magnet ‘21

Kentucky '25

I want to be on the email chain, austinkiihnl@gmail.com.

Conflicts

Caddo Magnet

Niles North

Top Level

The most important thing I have to say is that I will do my absolute best to judge every debate in the least interventionist way possible, besides a few non-negotiables I'll list below. I will vote on an argument that I profoundly disagree with if I think that it was won. However, evidence quality influences technical debating and I value good evidence highly, even though I don't usually read a ton of cards in high school debates because I don't feel like I need to.

I've found that even though I have a ton of opinions about what I think debate should look like, those preferences pretty much entirely go away when judging. I don't care much at all about what arguments debaters are making and really only care about how it's debated. I've been in a lot of debates and have seen many people go for many different arguments, so I should be able to understand yours. However, I will say that I have a fairly strong preference for organized, and technical debating, and not debating in this way will probably make it harder than you'd like for me to give a satisfying decision.

I'll do my best to default to as few things as possible and adapt to the debate at hand. If you want me to view the debate a certain way, tell me how I should so I don't have to substitute my preferences for your debating.

Inequality Topic

I judged a lot of debates on the topic as a lab leader in a Michigan Classic lab this summer, so I have a basic understanding of what the topic looks like, but I'm not super involved in researching the high school topic, so you may want to unpack some particularly technical topic concepts/acronyms.

General Thoughts

I think of debate as a game, which filters a lot of these thoughts, but you can easily win that debate is not a game or is more than just a game. (Almost) everything is debatable.

It's generally better to make bold choices and only go for a few pieces of offense in the final rebuttals to explain them well than to go for a lot of things and not explain them as thoroughly.

I default to evaluating arguments probabilistically. That goes away if questioned.

Line by line is good.

Judge instruction is good.

Justify new arguments. Just because another team says you don't get new arguments doesn't mean it's true, especially if they're reading cards on an argument you dropped.

If you're going for a K of reps, you probably need case defense unless it was grossly mishandled. I see going for reps links while not answering the case as a bit like a link turn with no UQ. If you disagree, explain why and you'll be all good.

It'll help you to start the debate on judge kick early.

Good for T arguments with good evidence. I generally prefer predictability over debatability, but that's not absolute and shouldn't affect how I evaluate debates.

Good for competition debates. Send perm texts if it's anything besides do both, do the CP, or some variation of the plan and certain planks.

Good for politics. Read a lot of cards.

Good for impact turns and theory. Not because I think the arguments are true, I just think of them like any other argument and a lot of teams are bad at answering them. I don't really see why going for theory if you're winning is more "cowardly" than going for other arguments that you're winning that are technical TKOs, but that doesn't mean it's always or even often the best strategy.

Good for Ks that are impact turns/solvency takeouts to the case. Good for Ks that have alts that solve the case and links that are DAs to the plan. Probably best for Ks that are just Framework and say the aff shouldn't get to weigh the plan.

Good for extinction outweighs vs. the K. Also fine for the perm and link turns.

Good for clash and fairness. Fine for other impacts to FW. Good for a counter-interp or impact turn strategy against FW, just make sure you pick one.

Generally don't love K affs that identify truisms and say that's a reason to vote for them. Pointing out bad things does nothing for you if you don't have a means of solving them. Of course, you can also get unique offense based on what the neg says, but you need to explain what voting aff does, whether it changes debate practices, rejects unethical ones in just this debate, forwards a desirable political strategy, etc.

Fairly bad for frivolous theory arguments when they aren't based on resolutional language. For example, if the 2AC drops ASPEC, the neg often didn't have enough of an argument to extend it in the 2NC without making new arguments, so the 1AR gets to justify new arguments too. That doesn't mean I won't vote on bad theory arguments (I have), or that new 1AR arguments are automatically justified, but it does mean that I have a pretty high bar for winning them.

Bad for analogizing T to actual violence (genocide, drone strikes, etc.). That's not to say that you can't problematize reading T, but arguments comparing it to literal violence are wildly unpersuasive.

I think role of the ballot arguments are usually pretty silly.

Not the biggest fan of many soft left affs. I think lots of aff framing arguments are kinda silly but so are lots of other arguments, so I don’t actually care too much. I obviously prefer aff-specific framing arguments but if generic, I prefer risk assessment (existential risks overestimated, probability outweighs, conjunctive fallacy, butterfly effect, etc.) type aff framing arguments instead of "X comes first," "extinction is non-unique," and asserting that a DA is low risk without actual defense, but that seems to be out of vogue.

If you're going to say that plan text in a vacuum, functional and/or textual competition, utilitarianism, probability first, etc. are bad, you need to provide an alternative to those things. Otherwise, it's the equivalent of reading offense against a T interp when you don't have a counter-interp to solve any offense. The fact that those things have problems doesn't necessarily mean that alternatives are better.

LD

I judge this a little bit and there's not much that I have to say about it specifically. All of the stuff above applies equally to LD. I've only ever debated in policy and usually only judge policy so I'm probably best for you if you just act like this is a one-person policy debate.

Never really had a debate where "value criterions" became important, but if you're gonna do that, just explain why offense in favor of yours outweighs offense in favor of theirs and you'll be fine.

Not a fan of frivolous theory arguments.

PF

I've only judged this a few times. It would probably also help you to act like this was a policy debate because of my lack of familiarity with PF specifically. Really, you just need to win that your offense outweighs your opponent's.

Please don't paraphrase articles when first reading them. That's bordering on an academic integrity violation. Just read what your cards actually say, then you can obviously explain and paraphrase them in later speeches.

Non-negotiables

Both teams get 8 minutes for constructives, 5 minutes for rebuttals, and however many minutes of prep time the tournament invitation says/everyone in the round agrees to. I won't flow anything you say after the timer goes off.

CX is binding.

There is one winner and one loser.

I will flow both teams unless requested not to. If you request me not to flow and the other team would like me to, then I just won't flow you, which will almost certainly end up worse for you and make the debate harder for me to decide.

I won't vote on anything that did not occur in the round/I didn't see (personal attacks, prefs, disclosure, etc.). I think a judge's role is to determine who won the debate at hand, not who is a better person outside of it, and there's often no way to verify out-of-round claims. If someone makes you feel uncomfortable or unsafe, I will assist you in going to tab/whoever you'd feel most comfortable with so they can create a solution, but I don't view that as something that the judge should decide a debate upon, especially for high schoolers.

If a team initiates an ethics challenge, the debate stops and if it's found to be legitimate, the offending team will lose and will get the lowest speaks I can give. If it's not found to be legitimate, the team that initiated the challenge will lose.

It'll be hard to offend me but don't say any slurs or engage in harmful behavior against anyone else in the debate including racism, sexism, homophobia, intentionally misgendering someone, etc. I see pretty much all arguments as fair game but when that becomes personally harmful for other people in the debate, or is something indefensible like racism good, then it's crossed a line. I've thankfully never seen something like this happen in a debate that I've been in but it'd be naive to act like it's never happened. The line for what is and is not personally harmful to someone is obviously arbitrary but that applies to almost all things in debate, so I think it's fair to say that it's also up to the judge's discretion to determine when the line has been crossed.

Misc

I'm pretty expressive but I try not to be. I don't want to influence how the debate plays out but if I'm confused, think an argument is funny, or think an argument is bad, I might unintentionally show it.

I'll boost your speaks if you're reading a substantial number of cards that you cut if they're good. I've been seeing a lot of old, bad cards in docs that could very easily be replaced in an afternoon, so I'll reward people that I see putting in the work. I'll be ecstatic if most of your cards, especially in the 1AC and 1NC, are from 2021 or newer.

I've noticed lots of debaters being pretty quiet when they're speaking which has made it hard to understand and flow. It seems like a result of online debate, so I'll cut some slack, but it's generally better to be too loud than too quiet.

Call me Austin, not "judge."

I like when people are funny. Lighten up the debate and make some (good) jokes if that's your thing.

Feel free to post-round. You won't offend me.

I believe that a good debate should consist of fair, logical, and followable argumentation.

Please debate in a manner that would be understandable to a general audience and speak in a way that can be easily followed. A little bit of speed when reading evidence is understandable, but please keep the argumentation and analysis of key evidence points at a normal speaking pace. Assertiveness and respect is favored over aggressiveness.

Overall, a clean, fair debate is the objective.

I judge based on the arguments presented, not on my own convictions. Apart from listening to first affirmative and negative constructs carefully, I pay close attention to cross examination, rebuttals, and timings before voting.

I am based out of East Bay, California.

I have been judging for past 8 years (in fact earlier than that).

i have recently shortened this paradigm cuz it was getting really ranty - if you would like to see my thoughts on specific arguments, feel free to look at my rant doc

Intro

• I’m Eva (they/them) - please just call me Eva in round instead of judge. I did traditional LD (Canfield ‘18) in HS and have coached since graduating. I primarily coach traditional debate, but when I bring kids onto the circuit they typically go for theory and K heavy strats

• Email: evathelamberson@gmail.com put me on the chain but speechdrop is better :) i think docs are a good practice even for lay debaters and i would prefer if you send analytics

• Sidenote: I judge every weekend in the season, but Ohio doesn’t use Tabroom so it doesn’t show up :( I've probably judged an additional 500+ local rounds

TL;DR FOR PREFS i have come to the conclusion that i actually care very little what you read and hold a minimal amount of dogma re: what arguments should be read and how they should be read. i am good for whatever barring anything offensive, obviously. i have judged & voted for basically everything - if you have good strategy and good judge instruction, i will be happy to be in the back of your round whether you're reading the most stock larp stuff ever or tricky phil or friv theory or a non-t aff, etc. read the rant doc if you're interested in my specific thoughts on specific types of arguments. basically, do whatever you want, seriously

i believe debate is a game and it's not my job to tell you how to play it; i will be happiest when you are debating the way you enjoy the most and are best at

i consider myself a fairly flexible judge and try not to be biased toward any particular style. however, in very close clash rounds, i may lean towards arguments i find to be simpler/easier to vote for or that i understand better. to be open about my biases, i will say that i find myself voting for theory, phil, and tricks more than ks and all the above more than policy

accessibility:

• round safety is very important to me, and if there is a genuine safety concern that is preventing you from engaging in the round, i would prefer it be round ending as opposed to a shell - if you are feeling unsafe in a round, please feel free to email or FB message me and I will intervene in the way you request.

• pls give me a heads up if you're gonna read explicit discussions of self harm or suicide. you can still read them in front of me but i would like a warning as early as possible - email or messenger is the fastest way to reach me during tournaments

• DO NOT try to SHAKE MY HAND. on this subject, i am a huge germaphobe - i will be wearing a mask probably until the end of time, don't worry i'm not sick, i just don't want to get sick. if there are covid precautions or anything like that you want us to take in the round, please vocalize this and we will make that happen (open windows, masking, etc.)

Email for chain: benjaminlannis@gmail.com

Pronouns: he/him/his

I'm a past LD/policy debater who hasn't debated in a few years. I remember the basics and generally like spreading but I can't handle too much speed. Please don't expect me to remember what presumption is.

The first priority is making debate a fun, inclusive, educational space. I have no tolerance for debaters being disrespectful to their opponent or aggressive questions after the round (from debaters or coaches).

Sarah Lawrence '25, Caddo Magnet High '21, she/her, yes I want to be on the email chain-- ejarlawrence@gmail.com

Top-Level: I prefer a fast, technical debate and default to evaluating debates as a policymaker, but can be persuaded otherwise. Don't overadapt - debate is a game, and winning your arguments is what matters. I like to reward good evidence, but I won't be reading every card after the round unless it is flagged or a close debate and good evidence is not an excuse for unwarranted debating/little explanation.

T vs policy affs: I don't enjoy close definitions debates. T debates where the interpretation becomes clear only in CX of the 2NC or later will be very hard to reward with my ballot. I understand that good T debates happen (T-LPR on immigration comes to mind) but if the topic doesnt have easily understandable, legally precise definitions based in government literature (CJR comes to mind) I'm going to err towards reasonability more than anyone I know. Plan text in a vaccum probably sucks, but if you can't articulate a clear alternative you probably can't win. Predictability probably outweighs debatability.

T vs K affs: Debate is probably a game, but probably also more than that, and neither team's offense is likely truly reliant on winning this anyway. Fairness is probably an impact, but it is frequently pretty small. Neg teams that clearly explain what the aff's interpretation justifies (ie. internal link debating) and why that's bad are more likely to win my ballot. Aff teams that come up with a counter-interp that attempts to solve for some limits/predictability seem more instinctively reasonable to me than those who try to impact turn things I think are probably good like predictability, but either strategy is fine.

Counterplans/Theory: Theory other than conditionality/perfcon is probably not a voter. On a truth level, I think being neg in a world without massive conditionality and theoretical abuse is impossible on lots of hs topics. Given that, I'm actually fairly familiar with and interested in hearing good condo debating- competing interps means if you have something explainable and not arbitrary (infinite condo, infinite dispo, no condo) and can articulate some standards I won't hack for anyone. Default to judge kick, but can be convinced not to, counterplans should probably be textually and functionally competitive, I'd love to hear a real debate on positional competition but I'm not optimistic.

Disads: Uniqueness matters, and determines offense on the link level, but win the link too. No politics disad is true, but some politics disads are more true than others. These were my favorite arguments to cut and go for, and interesting scenarios that are closer to the truth or strategic will be rewarded with speaks. I'm of the somewhat controversial opinion they make for good education and the less controversial one lots of topics are unworkable for the neg without them, so don't go for intrinsicness/floortime DAs bad theory.

Impact Turns: Nothing much to say here, other than a reassurance I will not check out on something I find unpersuasive in real life (any of the war good debates, spark, wipeout). If you can't beat it, update your blocks.

Impact Framing/Soft Left Impacts: I default to utilitarian consequentialism, and have a strong bias in favor of that as a way to evaluate impacts. If you want to present another way to evaluate impacts, PLEASE tell me what it means for my ballot and how I evaluate it. "Overweight probability" is fine for the 1AC, but by the 1AR I should know if that means I ONLY evaluate probability/disregard probabilities under 1%/don't evaluate magnitudes of infinity. Anything else means you're going to get my super arbitrary and probably fairly utilitarian impulse. I would love if whoever's advocating for ex risks would do the same, but I have a better handle on what your deal means for the ballot, so I don't need as much help. "Util Bad" without an alternative is very unpersuasive - BUT a fleshed out alternative can be very strategic.

K vs Policy Affs: I vote neg most often in these debates when the neg can lose framework but win case takeouts or an impact to the K that outweighs and turns the aff. I vote neg somewhat often in these debates when the aff does a bad job explaining the internal links of their FW interp or answering negative impacts (which is still pretty often). For security type Ks, it seems like some people think they can convince me sweeping IR theories or other impacts are false with all the knowledge of a high schooler. Read a card, or I will assume the aff's 3 cards on China Revisionist/cyber war real are true and the K is false.

Brief tangent ahead: If you think the above statement re: the security K does not apply to you because you have a fun way to get around this by saying "it doesn't matter if the K is false because we shouldn't just use Truth to determine whether statements are good to say", I think you're probably wrong. You're critiquing a theory of how we should evaluate the merits of Saying Stuff (traditionally Truth, for whatever value we can determine it) without providing an alternative. So, provide an alternative way for me to determine the merits of Saying Stuff or you're liable to get my frustration and fairly arbitrary decisionmaking on whether you've met the very high burden required to win this. I've judged like four debates now which revolved around this specific issue and enjoyed evaluating none of them. Aff teams when faced with this should ask a basic question like "how do we determine what statements are good outside of their ability to explain the world" please. First person I see do this will get very good speaker points. TLDR: treat your epistemological debates like util good/bad debates and I will enjoy listening to them. Don't and face the consequences.

K vs K affs: I've now judged a few of these debates, and have found when the aff goes for the perm they're very likely to get my ballot absent basically losing the thesis of the affirmative (which has happened). This means I don't think "the aff doesn't get perms in a method debate" is a nonstarter. Other than that, my background in the literature is not strong, so if your link relies on a nuanced debate in the literature, I'm going to need a lot of explanation.

Miscellaneous: These are unsorted feelings I have about debate somewhere between the preferences expressed above and non-negotiables below.

For online debate: Debaters should endeavor to keep their cameras on for their speeches as much as possible. I find that I'm able to pay much more attention to cx and give better speaker comments. Judging online is hard and staring at four blank screens makes it harder.

I am becoming somewhat annoyed with CX of the 1NC/2AC that starts with "did you read X" or "what cards from the doc did you not read" and will minorly (.1, .2 if it's egregious) reduce your speaks if you do this. I am MORE annoyed if you try to make this happen outside of speech or prep time. 2As, have your 1A flow the 1NC to catch these things. 2Ns, same for your 1Ns. If the speaker is particularly unclear or the doc is particularly disorganized, this goes away.

At my baseline, I think about the world in a more truth over tech way. My judging strategy and process is optimized to eliminate this bias, as I think its not a good way to evaluate debate rounds, but I am not perfect. You have been warned.

I am gay. I am not a good judge for queerness arguments. This isn't a "you read it you lose/i will deck speaks" situation, but you have been warned its a harder sell than anything else mentioned

For LD/PF: I have judged very little of either of these events; I have knowledge of the content of the topic but not any of its conventions. I understand the burden for warranted arguments (especially theory) is lower in LD than in policy - I'm reluctant to make debaters entirely transform their style, so I won't necessarily apply my standard for argument depth, but if the one team argues another has insufficiently extended an argument, I will be very receptive to that.

Non-negotiables:

In high school policy debate, both teams get 8 minutes for constructives, 5 minutes for rebuttals, 3 minutes for CX, and however many minutes of prep time the tournament invitation says. CX is binding. There is one winner and one loser. I will flow. I won't vote on anything that did not occur in the round (personal attacks, prefs, disclosure, etc.). I think a judge's role is to determine who won the debate at hand, not who is a better person outside of it. If someone makes you feel uncomfortable or unsafe, I will assist you in going to tab so that they can create a solution, but I don't view that as something that the judge should decide a debate on.

You have to read rehighlightings, you can't just insert them. If I or the other team notice you clipping or engaging in another ethics violation prohibited by tournament rules and it is found to be legitimate, it's an auto-loss and I will give the lowest speaks that I can give.

It'll be hard to offend me but don't say any slurs or engage in harmful behavior against anyone else including racism, sexism, homophobia, intentionally misgendering someone, etc. I see pretty much all arguments as fair game but when that becomes personally harmful for other people, then it's crossed a line. I've thankfully never seen something like this happen in a debate that I've been in but it'd be naive to act like it's never happened. The line for what is and is not personally harmful to someone is obviously very arbitrary but that applies to almost all things in debate, so I think it's fair to say that it is also up to the judge's discretion for when the line has been crossed.

Email: Briajia.l@gmail.com

Bri (She/her)

Policy/LD rounds

Background- Debated policy for 6 years. LD/Policy judge over 6 years.

Speed

Spreading is fine, please be sure to slow down on the tagline and when quoting evidence so I can properly flow the arguments in the round. I also recommend that debaters share the files before each speech just in case I miss anything on flows during the speeches. I also do not recommend fully spreading in the rebuttal rounds. At the end of the day, just try to be as clear as you are able to.

Adjudicating rounds

I am very traditional when it comes to policy debate and my judging style is very straight forward. If you are Aff please convince me how the Aff solves for its impacts. Be very cautious to extend solvency and impacts throughout the round. I would also recommended an overview at the beginning of the second affirmative speech.

Neg team should be careful not to be abusive and run frivolous off case arguments only as a time advantage. When there is multiple off case arguments in a round, the neg needs to let me know what they want me to vote on. Make sure all off case arguments have the components needed to win, a dis ad needs a strong link and impact and a counter-plan needs to have a net benefit for me to vote on it.

Kritik Rounds

I am open to non traditional Affs but are very hesitant to vote on them if they are not ran properly or explained in a way that I am able to understand. I think it is very important for the team to explain to me why running non traditional Aff is a better move than policy. Other than that I am open to all arguments and case types, as long as I have something to vote on at the end of the round. I really enjoy fun and creative K affs. I am very big on solvency and even though an Aff may not be policy it still needs to solve in some way. Please run what you like, it just needs to be clear. I have heard K affs for the first time that have completely changed my perspective on judging/debate. If you feel confident in your K aff then please run it. I always keep an open mind.

Neg teams that run Ks need to do a good job at explaining the K, also if there is an alt , you must convince me how the world of the alt solves and there needs to be very clear explanation. In other words, the alt needs to make sense. I do not recommend running a K that you do not fully understand, it will likely cause you to lose the round.

Assigning Speaks

I assign speech based on the clarity of the debaters in the round and the overall quality of the speeches from each debater. Debaters who are more convincing and strategic are more likely to get higher speaker points.

I sometimes doc speaker points if debaters are rude to each other in cross ex, there is nothing wrong with being aggressive or strategic in cross x but it needs to have a purpose. Let's have fun and be respectful.

Kritiks I like to hear: Afropess/antiblackness, settler colonialism, Security, Cap K, Anarchy, Disability K, Black Fem

FYI-(Please do not send me emails outside or after a tournament, Judges are only allowed to have contact with debaters during a round/tournament.) it’s fine to ask questions after a round on clarification or how to improve but please don’t post round me, especially coaches! Please be respectful. Decisions are final and I’ve already submitted the ballot before giving feedback per tournament rules.

Hello! I am a parent judge but I have judged some traditional rounds before. My email is catchup.liang@gmail.com if needed for questions / the email chain. 

Please refrain from using extreme debate jargon and stick to more policy-esque positions since I'm rather unfamiliar with judging others. 

Also, please speak slower so that I can flow well and avoid spreading. 

Finally, please be kind to each other and be respectful (don't cut each other off, etc.)

I am a parent judge. Please be clear with your arguments. Read them in a manner that is comprehensible. If you read them too fast I won't be able to flow properly. Try not use to use extremely technical terms. If you do please explain them. Finally, be respectful to your opponents and have fun.

hi! i debated pf and parli for princeton high school (2018-22). i now coach for flintridge and compete in british parli for usc

lmk if you have any questions on facebook or email me at liuanna@usc.edu

tldr normal flow judge who is lazy and doesn't like intervening

my preferences:

honestly, analytics/logic > evidence. i'm super disinclined to vote off an arg if i don't understand it even if you throw a billion stats at me. i'll probably believe anything if it's warranted enough though. this also means i have a really high threshold for extensions in summary & ff so always overexplain please

please stay in the 150-200 wpm range or send a speech doc (but this will make me really sad i hate flowing off speech docs just read a shorter case pleaseee). i can flow faster if im forced but then i might miss things which will make us both sad. also i don't flow author/source names so when u extend don't just say "extend amadeo" tell me what amadeo said

bare minimum for second rebuttal is responding to turns, you also should frontline anything you want to go for (yay sticky defense)

i don't listen to cross, i won't look at cards unless you tell me i have to, i'm not gonna time anything so y'all keep track, idc what you wear to round

if you have questions about my decision please ask me! i'm always down to help clear anything up

don't be any of the -ists, if you do i drop you with the lowest speaks possible

progressive args:

disclaimer: i was an east coast pf debater 2 years ago who only ran trad, run at your own risk

i am willing to buy anything but ONLY IF

1- you warrant everything (i mean literally everything, from your links or standards to especially rotb!!) and you warrant it well, i have a very high threshold for this

2- you speak slow because if i have to flow off of a speech doc because you want to read 14 tricks instead of 7 i will actually start sobbing right there on the spot and then not be able to flow due to the tears blurring my vision

basically explain it to me like i'm a lay judge

I am a "lay" judge. Please speak clearly, avoid speed, explain thoroughly and do not make assumptions about my knowledge of the topic. I prefer well articulated argumentation. Please don't be too tech-y with me, I don't know what Ks or T or phil are.

tldr do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.

--

About me:

she/her

policy coach @ damien-st. lucy's: spring 2022 - present

ld coach @ harker: fall 2024 - present

--

Recently rewritten paradigm, probably best to give it a quick skim!

My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments.

I am good for policy teams that do topic research and aim to not go for process cp backfiles every 2nr. I am also good for k teams that do topic research and answer the aff and go for 2nr arguments that are substantive (not "role of the ballot"). I am bad for ld teams that go for ld-specific things ("tricks"), but am good for ld teams that are well-researched and read policy or k arguments.

More LD-specific notes/thoughts at bottom of paradigm.

--

Topic Knowledge:

I don't teach at a policy camp in the summer. I am involved in the Damien-St. Lucy's team research, and have vaguely kept up with the camp evidence updates. Most of my early-season topic knowledge is a result of hearing Chris yap at me about how he has a law degree in this field. So, consider my topic knowledge to be a less-smart version of Chris. Will update this section of the paradigm if/when that changes. Independent of this, I am generally a bad judge for arguments that rely on understanding of or alignment with community-developed norms -- I don't form my topicality opinions in July and then become immovable on them for the remainder of the season.

--

email chains:

ld email chains: nethmindebate@gmail.com

policy email chains: damiendebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

if you need to contact me directly about rfd questions, accessibility requests, or anything else, please email nethmindebate@gmail.com (please don't email the teamail for these types of requests)!

please include an adult (your coach, chaperone, or even parent) on the email chain if you are emailing me directly -- just a good safety norm to not have direct communications between minors & adults that don't know them!

--

flowing: it is good and teams should do it

stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow:)

--

Some general notes

Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve procedurals about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate. I feel increasingly uncomfortable evaluating debates that come down to accessibility/cw procedurals, especially when the issue could have easily been resolved pre-round.

Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. I can handle a decent amount of speed. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.

Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate's still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.

I am aggressively pro-disclosure. Disclosure is one of the elements of debate that is most important for small-school and novice accessibility. If you do not disclose, I will assume that you prefer the exclusionary system where only big schools have access, and I will punish your speaker points accordingly. I am so aggressive about enforcing disclosure with all teams (big and small school) because I believe in the mission of the open evidence project and other similar open source disclosure practices. tldr disclose or lose!

--

Speaker points:

Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.

I try to give points as follows:

30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive

29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots

29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined

28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix

28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round

27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors

27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors

26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament

25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.

Extra speaks for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.

Minus speaks for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.

--

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

--

Case:

I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.

Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the impact is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.

--

Planless affs:

I tend to believe that affirmatives need to defend the topic. I think most planless affs can/should be reconfigured as soft left affs. I have voted for affs that don't defend the topic, but it requires superior technical debating from the aff team.

You need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.

I tend to dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have a meaningful relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.

--

T/framework vs planless affs:

In a 100% evenly debated round, I am likely better for the neg than the aff. However, approximately none of these debates are evenly debated. Either team/side can win my ballot by doing the better technical debating. This past season, I often voted for a K team that I thought was smart and technical. Specific thoughts on framework below:

The best way for aff teams to win my ballot is to be more technical than the neg team. Seems obvious, but what I'm trying to convey here is that I'm less persuaded by personal/emotional pleas for the ballot and more persuaded by a rigorous and technical defense of why your model of debate is good in this instance or in general. I have historically voted against aff teams that made arguments along the lines of "vote for me or I'll quit debate."

I think that TVAs can be more helpful than teams realize. While having a TVA isn't always necessary, winning a TVA provides substantial defense on many of the aff's exclusion arguments.

I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness (or something else). I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponents' strategy.

I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.

--

Theory:

The less frivolous your theory argument, the better I am for it.

Please weigh! It's not nearly as intuitive to make a decision in theory debates - I can fill in the gaps for why extinction is more impactful than localized war more easily than I can fill in the gaps for why neg flex matters more/less than research burdens.

--

Topicality (not framework):

I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are your friend.

Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.

--

Kritiks (neg):

I tend to like K teams that engage with the aff and have a clear analysis of what's wrong with the aff's model/framing/epistemology/etc. I tend to be a bit annoyed when judging K teams that read word-salad or author-salad Ks, refuse to engage with arguments, expect me to fill in massive gaps for them, don't do adequate weighing/ballot analysis/judge instruction, or are actively hostile toward their opponents. The more of the aforementioned things you do, the more annoyed I'll be. The inverse is also true - the more you actively work to ensure that you don't do these things, the happier I'll be!

--

Disads:

Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.

Counterplans:

I don't have strong ideological biases about theory other than that some amount of condo is probably good. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.

No judge kick. Make a choice!

--

LD-specific section:

-you might think of cx judges in ld as people who despise judging ld and despise you for doing ld. i try to not let this be true about me. all of my issues with ld can be grouped into two general categories: 1) speech times/structure (not your fault, won't penalize you for it), and 2) the tendency to read unwarranted nonsense, such as "tricks," shoes theory, etc (you can avoid reading these args very easily and make me very happy)

-i am a horrid judge for tricks and frivolous theory. please just go for another argument!

-i am okay for phil. i don't have any personal opposition to philosophy-based arguments, i just don't coach/judge these arguments often, so i will need more explanation/hand-holding. many phil debates recently have involved tricks, which has soured me on this argumentative style, but i would be happy to judge a straight-up phil debate:)

-you don't get 1ar add-ons -- there is no 2ac in ld

-i teach at ld camp every summer, so assume i have some idea of community norms, but don't assume i am following trends super closely

--

Arguments that are simply too bad to be evaluated:

-a team should get the ballot simply for proving that they are not unfair or uneducational

-the ballot should be a referendum on a debater's character, personal life, pref sheet, etc

-the affirmative's theory argument comes before the negative's topicality argument

-some random piece of offense becomes an "independent voter" simply because it is labeled as such

-debates would be better if they were unfair, uneducational, lacked a stasis point, lacked clash, etc

-a debater's moral character is determined by whether they read policy or k arguments

-evidence ethics should be a case neg, as opposed to an opportunity for reasonable preround discussion and an opportunity to correct mistakes

-"tricks"

-debaters get to make arguments about how many speaker points they should get

-teams should not be required to disclose on opencaselist

-the debate should be evaluated after any speech that is not the 2ar

-the "role of the ballot" means topicality doesn't matter

--

Arguments that I am personally skeptical of, but will try to evaluate fairly:

-it would be better for debate if affirmatives did not have a meaningful relationship to the topic

-debate would be better if the negative team was not allowed to read any conditional advocacies

-reading topicality causes violence or discrimination within debate

-"role of the ballot"

-the outcome of a particular debate will change someone's mind or will change the state of debate

-the 5-second aspec argument that was hidden in the 1nc can become a winning 2nr

-the affirmative may not read a plan because of "bare plurals"

--

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! if there's anything i can do to make debate more accessible for you, let me know! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.

Nick Loew - GMU'24 - 4x NDT qualifier, 1x NDT Doubles

nickloew14@gmail.com

I have primarily read 'policy' arguments; however, you should read whatever arguments you are most comfortable with and want to go for. None of my opinions about debate are so significant that they overdetermine deciding who won based on the individual debate in front of me.

Tech > Truth. Complete arguments require warrants.

I appreciate debaters who are simultaneously serious and kind. Being rude or condescending to your opponents will earn you lower speaks than you're probably hoping for.

T - I enjoy well-researched and substantive topicality debates. On the other hand I dislike contrived and unpredictable interpretations that are arbitrary in nature. (T LPR on the HS immigration topic > T substantial on the college alliances topic).

T vs K Affs - I almost always was on the neg going for T in these debates. The aff can win by either presenting a counterinterpretation that seeks to solve the negs offense alongside impact turns to the negs model or impact turns alone. For me I will say that the latter is more difficult as I struggle to vote aff when there is no counterinterp extended in the 2AR to solve some amount of limits/ground.

CPs - I'm alright for most process garbage. Although, I really enjoy specific process CPs that include topic/aff specific evidence. In competition debates I lean affirmative when there is equal debating and the neg has presented a CP that competes based off of certainty or immediacy.

Ks - I like Ks with links to the plan and alternatives that attempt to solve an impact compared to Ks that rely entirely on framework strategies. That being said, I have still voted for positions that were solely critiques of plan-focus or fiat for example.

Theory - Generally I believe that conditionality is good.

If you have any specific questions feel free to email me.

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

Lincoln Douglas:

I strongly believe in affirmative disclosure.

Theory: I am mostly unfavorable towards/dislike one sentence theory arguments that seem and are arbitrary in nature. Furthermore, I am unlikely to believe that most theory arguments aside from condo are reasons to reject the debater (ex: solvency advocate theory/states theory/agent CPs etc… is not a reason to reject the team).

Please attempt to be clear. I have found this to be a problem more often in LD likely because of the short speech times.

FAQ: (Nearly identical to Jasmine Stidham's thoughts)

Q:I primarily read policy (or LARP) arguments, should I pref you?

A: Yes.

Q: I read a bunch of tricks/meta-theory/a prioris/paradoxes, should I pref you?

A: No thank you. (This is starting to change insofar that my willingness to vote for these arguments is increasing).

Q: I read phil, should I pref you?

A: I'm not ideologically opposed to phil arguments like I am with tricks. I do not judge many phil debates. You may need to do some policy translation/over-explanation however so I understand exactly what you're saying. (I'm working on getting better at judging these debates!)

Q: I really like Nebel T, should I pref you?

A: Avoid reading evidence from debate blogs. If you'd like to make a similar argument, just find non-Nebel articles. This applies to most debate coach evidence read in LD. T whole-rez generally is fine.

Q: I like to make theory arguments like 'must spec status' or 'must include round reports for every debate' or 'aspec' should I pref you?

A: Not if those arguments are your idea of a round-winning strategy. I am annoyed by strategies that rely on your opponent dropping analytics that weren't sent in the document.

Q: RVIs? No 1AR theory?

A: Nope. Never.

Michael Lovaglio, he/him. Penn '27

Hey guys! Feel free to add me to your chain: michael.lovaglio15@gmail.com

My name is Michael, I was the founder and captain of the Debate team at MAST@FIU. I now help coach the team. I compete on the policy team at the University of Pennsylvania (go Quackers).

Quick prefs (Stanford)

1 - theory

1 - Ks (K affs are great)

2 - phil (just explain it well, see specs below)

2- trix

3 - T

3 - policy/larp

6 - lay

*30 speaks if you read something funny

I'll literally vote on anything - run whatever you want. Just be sure to explain well (more clarification below)

In detail stuff:

* I don't evaluate cx. I listen for fun. if smth happens in cx you want me to vote on, please talk about it in case. (the exception is anything violent/racist/harmful/sexist/all the bad things).

Theory (IMPORTANT IF YOU PLAN TO READ):
I think theory is top level. I read this the most. Friv theory is probably not top level but I'll still vote on it and some can be really fun.

I legit don't care for disclosure. this is a big paradigm thing: if you read disclosure against a novice i feel inclined to vote you down. However, that is not to say I dislike wiki theory. Accessibility, and other smart violations, are valid and I will vote on them. Smart theory relating to wiki is good. just not disclosure. please.

No pref for condo or pics. Do spikes go on top????? Who knows.
Fairness > education.

RVIs are legit, OCI's are legit. I default to DTA if not told otherwise.
shell > RVI
the RVI needs to be warranted but it doesn't haven't to be in shell format.

Ks - theory > K except for T, T is not top level and imo is substance against the K.
K > larp BUT - Your job here is to convince me the K is prior and I will 100% vote on it.
I'm familiar with common Ks. I'm very open to identity K's but i think they should have some real world advocacy apart from "vote for me for being an identity." 30 speaks if you sing a song and/or the method is unique and has real-world application.

Pess stuff is fine as long as opponent is good with it. "death good" is fine as long as opponent is good w it. That being said, no violent pess (i.e., don't advocate for death of an identity THAT YOU ARE NOT A PART OF).

K vs T - K = T, but you need to convince me that the K is prior. Tindites shouldbe meta.

Policy - Policy is fine, I just find it boring. I will not just downvote you or give low speaks for reading policy.
Policy > T, T should be won entirely.
K > Policy
Theory > Policy

Phil - I love phil. I'm a phil major too hehe. Most familiar with kant, hobbes, nietzche, aristotle, rawls, heigel, kastafanas, decartes, and some more. I'll vote on others just plzzzzz explain well. If your syllogism makes no sense or you cant explain it in cx, I'll dock speaks.

Trix - the Miami circuit hated me for being the only trix debater but honestly i think silly stuff are really fun and funny. but my threshold is low. If someone reads shoe theory and you take off your shoes I'll eval + high speaks. Creative responses to trix are high speaks. also reading trix badly will be punished.
I vote neg on presumption when all offense moots.
Prove the ought statement true and I'll pick up permissibility.
Just group paradoxes.
I believe skep.
I believe determinism.
Tt is fine but the ac needs to trigger it or there needs to be an indite in the ac.
A prioris need to be extended to the final speech.

IVIs - I'm inclined to vote on IVIs so long as they're not blippy. I think substance-specific IVIs need to be warranted more thoroughly, but checks are legit. I.e, don't ask my identity etc.

Speaks - if you're funny ill give high speaks. typically I like to give high speaks j cause you're a winner for being here. But I'll low speaks you for being rude, disrespectful, racist/etc. (see below)

Some no nos:

YES TO SPREADING BUTT!!!!!!!; if you agree to not spread and then spread, insta vote against you. I'm so serious. (I'm good w/ speed myself, just send doc)

Pre-Round Agreements: If you agree not to run prog and then run prog, insta vote against you. I'm so serious. #TradDebatersDeserveRightsToo

Anything blatantly racist/sexist/harmful to debate space I'll insta vote you down w/ low speaks and report you to tab. Be respectful!!!

Further elaboration:

Traditional Rounds:

As much as i love circuit, i love trad. I was a big trad debater too.

VC/standard is everything. If there's no offense left I fall back on who wins framework.

Extend everything!! Lbls are best too!

I prefer the voters at the end of the speech but if you start with them in the AR1 that's fine just signpost please.

I also want to hear emphasis and power coming from your voice. Being a strong speaker is one of the most important things in Debate.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before/after the round, or shoot me an email! I love an exciting Debate atmosphere, so please don't let nerves get to you! At the end of the day, you're always a winner if you learned a thing or two. Can't wait to hear your cases and happy debating!

PF

If for some god forsaken reason I'm judging PF:

I'm familiar with pf mechanisms insofar as I coach my novices a little. I'll probably vote on impact calc and solvency. Solvency deficits bad >:(

Read circuit stuff. I like theory in pf. I hate disclosure theory. Do something cool - set a cool norm specific to PF and I'll give high speaks.

I think Ks in PF function soooo weirdly but I'll vote on it.

Idk other pf circuit norms so enlighten me - i can catch on quick and something new and cool I'll vote on w/ high speaks.

General

Have fun with it! Debate can be super stressful and trust me I get it. I don't dock speaks yada yada yada, the fact that you all are even here competing in the first place is a 30 for me :)

I am a parent judge. I prefer traditional LD/lay policy-style arguments.

Add me to the email chain: elissalu6@gmail.com

Please do not spread. If I do not understand you, I cannot accurately evaluate you. Please avoid topic-specific jargon, or be sure to explain it, and signpost your arguments in a well-structured speech.

Have strong warrants/explain the connection between your claim and evidence. Be sure to do clear weighing and give voters. Utilizing cross-ex well is smart to establish weaknesses in your opponent's case.

Be respectful and have fun!

First of all, thank you for all the hard work behind this.

Enjoy and learn from the process.

Respect your opponents.

Don't spread!

I expect you are very familiar with the material instead of just reading the doc.

I value comparison. So clearly tell me why your evidences outweigh the opponent's! Write my RFD in your last speech.

Please add me to the email chain: email: upalmandal@gmail.com

I'm a parent judge, please speak slowly and clearly. Please respect me and your teammates throughout the round.

The main thing I am looking for is that you write my ballot for me in the final speeches. Please explain all your arguments clearly and backed up with facts and evidence. I will not infer what you want to convey, you must clearly tell me what you want me to know and my decision will be based off of what you say in the round. If something is brought up in cx, it needs to be reiterated in the speeches again for me to take it into account. I will do my best to flow, but make sure it isn't messy or unclear since I am still new to this. There are a lot of terms I don't know, so it would be advised to explain everything.

Most importantly, have fun!

I prefer moderate speed. I vote for clear speaking and convincing arguments.

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..............

put me on the email chain laurenmcblain28@gmail.com

Lincoln Park (CDL) 2016-2020

University of Kentucky 2020-present

don't call me "judge," lauren is fine.

Accessibility

preferrable to reduce speed by about 15%

analytics in the doc are appreciated and will result in a .2 speaker point bump

Policy

No experience on the current topic so don't overrely on acronyms or buzz words

Read whatever you want to read - i'll do my best to evaluate all arguments without bias. I have done all kinds of debate.

Tech > truth (mostly) - I have a lower threshold for silly arguments and think a smart analytic can beat a bad card.

T is good, theory is good, disads are good, counterplans are good, abusive counterplans are good, saying abusive counterplans are bad is good, Ks are good, K affs are good, framework is good. Everything that is not racist/sexist/ableist/and/or homophobic is probably good.except for judge kick - do you want me to tell you what to go for too? no thanks. However, if the block says judge kick and the 1AR does not say no judge kick, i will begrudgingly judge kick. if the first i hear of judge kick is the 2nr - the 2ar just has to say 'no' and i will not judge kick.

my voting record on framework is split 50/50.

im biased towards the aff on fairness - i have a hard time believing the aff makes debates procedurally unfair as long as there is a strong connection to the topic. that being said, i'll still vote for it even if i think it's a little silly. best aff strat --- nuanced counter interp that solves limits and ground or just straight impact turns. best neg strat --- tva + switch side.

K v K debates are cool and you should probably still make a framework argument about how to evaluate the round. i do not care if perms exist or not in a methods debate. convince me.

LD

I AM A VERY BAD JUDGE FOR TRICKS --- READ AT YOUR OWN RISK

PF

get your opponents emails and send your case to them before your speech. if you do not do this, i will make you take prep time for anything that exceeds cross time to send evidence back and forth to each other.

Novice

do line by line, respond to all arguments, and extend all parts of your arguments, split the block on the neg, and narrow down what you go for in the final speeches and you will be golden.

Evidence

Sometimes I follow along, sometimes I don't. I tend to only read the evidence when the debate is close or convoluted. Other than that, I think the debating should be left to the debaters in the room, not authors or coaches who cut the cards.

If you read a great piece of evidence but can't explain the warrants and your opponent reads a mediocre piece of evidence and can, I'm more likely to side with your opponent.

Add me to the chain: speechdrop[at]gmail.com

tldr: My name is Jonathan Meza and I believe that at the end of the day the debate space is yours and you should debate however you want this paradigm is just for you to get an insight on how I view debate. One thing is I won't allow any defense of offensive -isms, if you have to ask yourself "is this okay to run in front of them ?" the answer is probably no. I reserve the right to end the debate where I see fit, also don't call me judge I feel weird about it, feel free to call me Meza or Jonathan.

debate style tier list:

S Tier - Policy v k, Policy v Policy, Debates about Debate
A tier - K aff v Policy, K aff v Framework, Performance debate (either side)
B tier - K v K, Theory,
C tier - Phil
D tier - Trix
F tier - Meme/troll

about me: Assistant debate coach for Harvard Westlake (2022-). Debated policy since 2018 that is my main background even tho I almost only judge/coach LD now. Always reppin LAMDL. I don't like calling myself a "K debater" but I stopped reading plan affs since 2019 I still coach them tho and low key (policy v k > K v K). went 7 off with Qi bin my senior year of high school but not gonna lie 1-5 quality off case positions better than 7+ random shells.

inspirations: DSRB, LaToya,Travis, CSUF debate, Jared, Vontrez, Curtis, Diego, lamdl homies, Scott Philips.

theory: Theory page is the highest layer unless explained otherwise. Aff probably gets 1ar theory. Rvis are "real" arguments I guess. Warrant out reasonability. I am a good judge for theory, I am a bad judge for silly theory. Explain norm setting how it happens, why your norms create a net better model of debate. explain impacts, don't just be like "they didn't do XYZ voter for fairness because not doing XYZ is unfair." Why is it unfair, why does fairness matter I view theory a lot like framework, each theory shell is a model of debate you are defending why is not orientating towards your model a bad thing. Oh and if you go for theory, actually go for it do not just be like "they dropped xyz gg lol" and go on substance extend warrants and the story of abuse.

Topicality: The vibes are the same as above in the theory section. I think T is a good strategy, especially if the aff is blatantly not topical. If the aff seems topical, I will probably err aff on reasonability. Both sides should explain and compare interpretations and standards. Standards should be impacted out, basically explain why it's important that they aren't topical. The Aff needs a counter interpretation, without one I vote neg on T (unless it's kicked).

Larp: I appreciate creative internal link chains but prefer solid ones. Default util, I usually don't buy zero risk. For plan affirmative some of you are not reading a different affs against K teams and I think you should, it puts you in a good place to beat the K. as per disads specific disads are better than generics ones but poltics disads are lowkey broken if you can provide a good analysis of the scenario within the context of the affirmative. Uniqueness controls the link but I also believe that uniqueness can overwhelm the link. straight turning disads are a vibe especially when they read multiple offs.

K affirmatives: I appreciate affirmatives that are in the direction of the topic but feel free to do what you want with your 1ac speech, This does mean that their should be defense and/or offense on why you chose to engage in debate the way that you did. I think that at a minimum affirmatives must do something, "move from the status quo" (unless warranted for otherwise). Affirmatives must be written with purpose if you have music, pictures, poem, etc. in your 1ac use them as offense, what do they get you ? why are they there ? if not you are just opening yourself to a bunch of random piks. If you do have an audio performance I would appreciate captions/subtitles/transcript but it is at your discretion (won't frame my ballot unless warranted for otherwise). In Kvk debates I need clear judge instruction and link explanation perm debate I lean aff.

Framework: I lean framework in K aff v framework debates. These debate become about debate and models defend your models accordingly. I think that the aff in these debates always needs to have a role of the negative, because a lot of you K affs out their solve all of these things and its written really well but you say something most times that is non-controversal and that gets you in trouble which means its tough for you to win a fw debate when there is no role for the negative. In terms of like counter interp vs impact turn style of 2AC vs fw I dont really have a preference but i think you at some point need to have a decent counter interp to solve your impact turns to fw. If you go for the like w/m kind of business i think you can def win this but i think fw teams are prepared for this debate more than the impact turn debate. I think fairness is not an impact but you can go for it as one. Fairness is an internal link to bigger impacts to debate.

Kritiks: I am a big fan of one off K especially in a format such as LD that does not give you much time to explain things already reading other off case positions with the kritik is a disservice to yourself. I like seeing reps kritiks but you need to go hard on framing and explain why reps come first or else the match up becomes borderline unwinnable when policy teams can go for extinction outweighs reps in the late game speeches. Generic links are fine but you need to contextualize in the NR/block. Lowkey in LD it is a waste of time to go for State links, the ontology debate is already making state bad claims and the affirmative is already ahead on a reason why their specific use of the state is good. Link contextualization is not just about explaining how the affirmatives use of the state is bad but how the underlining assumptions of the affirmative uniquely make the world worst this paired up with case take outs make for a real good NR Strategy.

speaker points: some judges have really weird standards of giving them out. if I you are clear enough for me to understand and show that you care you will get high speaks from me. I do reward strategic spins tho. I will do my best to be equitable with my speak distribution. at the end of the day im a speaker point fairy.

quotes from GOATs:
- " you miss 100% of the links you dont make" --- Wayne Gretzky -- Michael Scott - Barlos
- "debate is a game" - Vontrez
- "ew Debate" - Isaak
- "voted for heg good" - Jared

Hi, I am Elizabeth Miani. I am a lay parent judge.

I am fine evaluating whatever you want to present; just do not spread, and if it is progressive, then just explain how I should go about evaluating the argument.

You are best off running a traditional case in front of me as that is what I have experience judging.

BE LOUD AND CLEAR AND SIGNPOST. If you want to run progressive-style arguments, make sure you explain it SLOWLY. For example, if you say, "Impact turn this, cross-apply that," that doesn't tell me what I have to do as a judge, and I will be lost.

The round comes down to clarity. I am not able to properly assess your arguments if you are not clear in your delivery of said arguments.

Give the reason to vote for you!

Please also note I have an accent, but that does not mean I do not understand you perfectly. I do.

Remember, simplicity and clarity will go a long way in winning the round with me as your judge. Good luck!

Please maintain professionalism and proper decorum at all times, feel free to speak as quickly or slowly as you are comfortable with, and make sure you state your evidence explicitly - don't make me work for it. It's your job as a speaker and debater to argue your stance using words.

I will not read anything sent to me. I will only consider what is presented verbally in the round.

I consider cross and questioning heavily. If you ask just clarifying questions, that’s weak.

As an LD judge, I prefer a traditional argument to a K. You have been given a resolution and a stance to argue, and it is your job to debate within the definitions and assumptions of that resolution and stance. Debating around the resolution is, at best, a waste of time, and at worst, inappropriate in my opinion.

As a PF judge, like LD, I also prefer traditional argument, but especially within PF, I need your impacts linked properly. Stating evidence is not enough. Tell me why that evidence matters and what it affects.

In Congress, I appreciate the strategic use of speech timing. As the legislation goes on, it becomes more and more important to have novel arguments and evidence so if you don’t have anything, be sure to use clash to refute the other side.

I am a parent judge with limited experience, so please convince me why you win using ordinary terms. I do not understand debate jargons

LD Paradigm

This is the LD paradigm. Do a Ctrl+F search for “Policy Paradigm” or “PF Paradigm” if you’re looking for those. They’re toward the bottom.

I debated LD in high school and policy in college. I coach LD, so I'll be familiar with the resolution.

If there's an email chain, you can assume I want to be on it. No need to ask. My email is: jacobdnails@gmail.com. For online debates, NSDA file share is equally fine.

Summary for Prefs
I've judged 1,000+ LD rounds from novice locals to TOC finals. I don't much care whether your approach to the topic is deeply philosophical, policy-oriented, or traditional. I do care that you debate the topic. Frivolous theory or kritiks that shift the debate to some other proposition are inadvisable.

Yale '21 Update
I've noticed an alarming uptick in cards that are borderline indecipherable based on the highlighted text alone. If the things you're saying aren't forming complete and coherent sentences, I am not going to go read the rest of the un-underlined text and piece it together for you.

Theory/T
Topicality is good. There's not too many other theory arguments I find plausible.

Most counterplan theory is bad and would be better resolved by a "Perm do the counterplan" challenge to competition. Agent "counterplans" are never competitive opportunity costs.

I don’t have strong opinions on most of the nuances of disclosure theory, but I do appreciate good disclosure practices. If you think your wiki exemplifies exceptional disclosure norms (open source, round reports, and cites), point it out before the round starts, and you might get +.1-.2 speaker points.

Tricks
If the strategic value of your argument hinges almost entirely on your opponent missing it, misunderstanding it, or mis-allocating time to it, I would rather not hear it. I am quite willing to give an RFD of “I didn’t flow that,” “I didn’t understand that,” or “I don’t think these words in this order constitute a warranted argument.” I tend not to have the speech document open during the speech, so blitz through spikes at your own risk.

The above notwithstanding, I have no particular objection to voting for arguments with patently false conclusions. I’ve signed ballots for warming good, wipeout, moral skepticism, Pascal’s wager, and even agenda politics. What is important is that you have a well-developed and well-warranted defense of your claims. Rounds where a debater is willing to defend some idiosyncratic position against close scrutiny can be quite enjoyable. Be aware that presumption still lies with the debater on the side of common sense. I do not think tabula rasa judging requires I enter the round agnostic about whether the earth is round, the sky is blue, etc.

Warrant quality matters. Here is a non-exhaustive list of common claims I would not say I have heard a coherent warrant for: permissibility affirms an "ought" statement, the conditional logic spike, aff does not get perms, pretty much anything debaters say using the word “indexicals.”

Kritiks
The negative burden is to negate the topic, not whatever word, claim, assumption, or framework argument you feel like.

Calling something a “voting issue” does not make it a voting issue.

The texts of most alternatives are too vague to vote for. It is not your opponent's burden to spend their cross-ex clarifying your advocacy for you.

Philosophy
I am pretty well-read in analytic philosophy, but the burden is still on you to explain your argument in a way that someone without prior knowledge could follow.

I am not well-read in continental philosophy, but read what you want as long as you can explain it and its relevance to the topic.

You cannot “theoretically justify” specific factual claims that you would like to pretend are true. If you want to argue that it would be educational to make believe util is true rather than actually making arguments for util being true, then you are welcome to make believe that I voted for you. Most “Roles of the Ballot” are just theoretically justified frameworks in disguise.

Cross-ex
CX matters. If you can't or won't explain your arguments, you can't win on those arguments.

Regarding flex prep, using prep time for additional questions is fine; using CX time to prep is not.

LD paradigm ends here.

Policy Paradigm

General
I qualified to the NDT a few times at GSU. I now actively coach LD but judge only a handful of policy rounds per year and likely have minimal topic knowledge.

My email is jacobdnails@gmail.com

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain. No, I don't need a compiled doc at end of round.

Framework

Yes.

Competition/Theory
I have a high threshold for non-resolutional theory. Most cheaty-looking counterplans are questionably competitive, and you're better off challenging them at that level.

Extremely aff leaning versus agent counterplans. I have a hard time imagining what the neg could say to prove that actions by a different agent are ever a relevant opportunity cost.

I don't think there's any specific numerical threshold for how many opportunity costs the neg can introduce, but I'm not a fan of underdeveloped 1NC arguments, and counterplans are among the main culprits.

Not persuaded by 'intrinsicness bad' in any form. If your net benefit can't overcome that objection, it's not a germane opportunity cost. Perms should be fleshed out in the 2AC; please don't list off five perms with zero explanation.

Advantages/DAs
I do find existential risk literature interesting, but I dislike the lazy strategy of reading a card that passingly references nuke war/terrorism/warming and tagging it as "extinction." Terminal impacts short of extinction are fine, but if your strategy relies on establishing an x-risk, you need to do the work to justify that.

Case debate is underrated.

Straight turns are great turns.

Topics DAs >> Politics.

I view inserting re-highlightings as basically a more guided version of "Judge, read that card more closely; it doesn't say what they want it to," rather than new cards in their own right. If the author just happens to also make other arguments that you think are more conducive to your side (e.g. an impact card that later on suggests a counterplan that could solve their impact), you should read that card, not merely insert it.

Kritiks
See section on framework. I'm not a very good judge for anything that could be properly called a kritik; the idea that the neg can win by doing something other than defending a preferable federal government policy is a very hard sell, at least until such time as the topics stop stipulating the United States as the actor.I would much rather hear a generic criticism of settler colonialism that forwards native land restoration as a competitive USFG advocacy than a security kritik with aff-specific links and an alternative that rethinks in-round discourse.

While I'm a fervent believer in plan-focus, I'm not wedded to util/extinction-first/scenario planning/etc as the only approach to policymaking. I'm happy to hear strategies that involve questioning those ethical and epistemological assumptions; they're just not win conditions in their own right.

CX
CX is important and greatly influences my evaluation of arguments. Tag-team CX is fine in moderation.

PF Paradigm

9 November 2018 Update (Peach State Classic @ Carrollton):

While my background is primarily in LD/Policy, I do not have a general expectation that you conform to LD/Policy norms. If I happen to be judging PF, I'd rather see a PF debate.

I have zero tolerance for evidence fabrication. If I ask to see a source you have cited, and you cannot produce it or have not accurately represented it, you will lose the round with low speaker points.

Hi, my name is Neelima Namburi.

I am a flow parent judge, so please avoid spreading and make sure you weigh a lot in your final speeches. It would be nice if you could send your speech docs before you speak.

Email: namburin2020@gmail.com

In my judging, I prioritize three things.

1. Speaking Clearly. Make sure you speak clearly and slow down for taglines so I understand your case. If you want to go a little faster, make sure you send your cases and speech documents to my email.
2. Arguments. Have well fleshed out arguments where you explain the warrants and have a logical link chain.
3. Final speeches. Always weigh. Ensure that you always talk about what argument your are going to refute in your rebuttals. Move cleanly from 1 contention to another and try not to jump around on the flow. Do not bring up new arguments in your final speech.

Debate is supposed to be a safe space. Don't bully anybody. Have fun debating!

Hello Competitors!

I am a parent judge with limited experience judging a debate round.

Please keep in mind the following:
1. Please please do NOT spread or rush . I like to write down points, if iam not then you are speaking too quickly.
2. Explain what you are saying clearly. Pretend as though I have no topic knowledge whatsoever.
3. Be respectful- don't say anything racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc.

4. If possible please add me to your email chain- narrapradeep@gmail.com

LASTLY GOOD LUCK & LETS ALL HAVE FUN

(He/Him)

Hey friends!
TLDR; 10+ years of experience coaching and competing in all formats of debate and all styles (traditional and progressive). I'm fairly open-minded to any argument that is well justified and I'm going to vote for the team that paints the best picture via their impact comparison. I want you to write my ballot for me in your closing arguments. Also please note I will not vote on any argument that isn't extended in your final speeches. If you want me to vote on something you need to extend it and tell me why I'm voting for it. Other than that, just have fun, debate is your space.

*Speaker points are arbitrary but here’s something that isn’t: If you give all of your speeches without reading cards, I’ll give you a 30 as a baseline (may still deduct a bit from this for certain things). Of course, please refer to cards and summarize your them in your own words. Evidence debate has led to people not listening to each other’s arguments and IMO it’s net worse for debate. Constant powertagging means paraphrasing theory is probably irrelevant (but I’m very open to criticisms that a team said that a card said something that it didn’t)

Here are just a few specifics about my philosophy, feel free to ask about more:

On Evidence:
I believe there is far too much emphasis on evidence in many rounds of LD and CX as of late. Cards are important for backing up a claim which specifically needs evidence (think statistics, quotes, etc). Some folks are quick to dismiss their opponent's arguments by saying "no evidence" without actually responding to the merit of the argument. Conversely, the overemphasis on evidence has made some students afraid to get up and make an argument simply because they don't have a card on it. Perhaps it is because of my background in NPDA, but I strongly believe that many claims can be made and warranted via analytics and in fact that these arguments are even preferable because they demand that debaters think on their feet and respond to the argument specifically instead of searching desperately for a card that may or may not actually verify the claim they want to make. An argument has 3 parts: Claim, Warrant, Impact. A card is one type of warrant but historical and or/material analysis is another which is just as valid and I encourage debaters to make whatever argument occurs to them so long as they can warrant said argument.

On Strategy:
In general, I don't care what you read. Debaters should make their own strategy and use whatever they think is competitive. That said, I am of the opinion that "6 off" strategies tend to be uncompetitive because no arguments are really developed and I will lean towards skepticism of neg blocks which develop a lot of new arguments because their initial constructives refused to engage the debate in depth. Quality tends to prevail strategically over quantity but I won't impose this belief onto you, if you think 6 off is more strategic, then prove it and I'll vote for it if you win. There is no K, CP, or theoretical argument I will reject outright on principle. Some arguments are likely more theoretically legitimate than others (An uncondo K is probably pretty alright and 8 condo delay CPs may not be) and some arguments are certainly more true than others but what I think is irrelevant in context of what is said in the round. Whatever it is you decide to go for, I do believe "collapsing" is good and makes debates simpler and also that arguments should be explained in context of one another. That's to say, how does "straight-up" make sense of the K, how does theory make sense (or not make sense) of the Aff, so on and so forth. Framework is the most important aspect of debate (followed by links). Tell me what my role as a judge is or the role of my ballot is and precisely how I ought to use it. I want to do as little as possible when writing my ballot and want as much of the argument as possible to be framed and explained for me. You should understand the difference between defense and offense and recognize that defense does not independently win rounds. Defense can empower offense but is not sufficient in and of itself to overcome any offense which improves upon the status quo.

*As an updated addendum to this, I would strongly prefer not to vote on violations that are alleged to occur outside of a debate round.
** A second addendum on theory - in light of some rounds that have occurred in early 2023, I'm realizing that in a debate that collapses to theory where theory truly feels like a wash, I think I'm preferring to flip to the team that didn't go for theory. This means you should use theory with me in instances that truly feel abusive. This is not to say that I won't vote on potential abuse, but it is to say you better win your shell convincingly if you intend to collapse on potential abuse

On Speed:

In general, I don't mind speed. I used to debate quite quickly, I listen to every podcast in the world on 2.0, and one of my previous partners was probably one of the fastest there ever was. That said I don't think speed should be a tool of exclusion and I do think there is a point at which speed is used (especially in evidence style debates) as a tool to lazily "warrant" an argument by reading cards that don't say what you say they say in the tagline and just hoping no one notices. Obviously, you should slow down to read taglines but even when you're "spewing" out the actual card, it should be comprehensible. This is especially true in a world of online debate which can become particularly hard to understand. I've watched some judges in a panel be too afraid to clear/slow when no one can understand a word someone is saying (especially in online debate). To be clear: I am not afraid to clear/slow you. Clear means speak more clearly, slow means I need you to slow down. I'm much more likely to say clear than I am slow as I want to hear the merits of your cards so if the card becomes an issue in a debate I can actually hear what you read. I don't mind going back to read a card that is contested but I also think that as soon as I start spending time outside the round reading, I'm now being asked to input my interpretation of what I read and apply it to what the debaters said. This quickly begins to violate the so-called "path of least resistance" that most judges are looking for. As such, my preference is to evaluate what I understood and hopefully not have to go back and read. It's the responsibility of debaters to make sure that what they're arguing is understood by the judges to the maximum extent possible. Spewing out a card at a speed you can't handle without slurring your words does not accomplish this goal. You'll get a lot further spending your time making coherent arguments everyone can understand than you will spitting nonsense to make fake claims.

*As an addendum to this, this issue has gotten a lot worse since I first wrote my paradigm. And frankly, at the highest levels (CEDA), we now see debate starting to slow back down. Honestly, I'm starting to feel like this is my preference. I'm not going to punish anyone for spreading, and I don't need you to speak your case at 2mph, "2.0 podcast" is a pretty good speed. My highest priority is understanding. Look, we are talking about some really in-the-weeds ideas in some of these debates. Debate will inevitably bastardize almost any philosophy, but I think you're going to do a lot more just interpretation of it when you slow down enough to actually explain your position and how you resolve the issues in and out of round.


If you ask me for prep, I'm just going to run your time, it's up to you to keep track of how much you're using. Flex prep is fine, but if you're going to do it, please ask your opponent and establish it at the beginning of the round. I've had some debaters ask me if flex is OK after their opponent already used some or all of their prep and this seems unfair to me. If you make an argument in CX, make sure you actually put it on the flow during your speech time.

PLEASE provide me a copy of all texts (Plans, counterplans, perms, alts, interpretations, etc)

Overview

E-Mail Chain: Yes, add me (chris.paredes@gmail.com) & my school mail (damiendebate47@gmail.com). I do not distribute docs to third party requests unless a team has failed to update their wiki.

Experience: Damien '05, Amherst College '09, Emory Law '13L. This will be my third year coaching full time; eighth year at Damien and my third year at St. Lucy's Priory. While I consider myself fluent in debate, but my debate preferences (both ideology and mechanics) are influenced by debating in the 00s.

Topic Knowledge: I do not teach at camp, so I will be a very poor judge for arguments that rely on community meta norms established by camp. I am a very good judge for evaluating high-tech arguments that depend on nuance. I studied IP law and was the recipient of an IP law scholarship while at Emory. I also previously published a piece on novel IP in tech (specifically, the interaction between trademark and copyright rights in the case of community designed maps in video games in the Blizzard vs. Valve litigation).

Debate: I believe that the point of the resolution is to force debaters to learn about a different topic each year, so debaters who develop good topic knowledge generally out-debate their opponents. That being said, I am open to voting for almost any argument or style so long as I have an idea of how it functions within the round and it is appropriately impacted. Debate is a game.Rules of the game (the length of speeches, the order of the speeches, which side the teams are on, clipping, etc.) are set by the tournament and left to me (and other judges) to enforce. Comparatively, standards of the game (condo, competition, limits of fiat) are determined in round by the debaters. Framework is a debate about whether the resolution should be a rule and/or what that rule looks like. Persuading me to favor your view/interpretation of debate is accomplished by convincing me that it is the method that promotes better debate, either more fair or more pedagogically valuable, compared to your opponent's. My ballot always is awarded to whoever debated better; I will not adjudicate a round based on any issues external to the round, whether that was at camp or a previous round.

I run a planess aff; should I strike you?: As a matter of truth I am predisposed to the neg, but I try to leave bias at the door. I do end up voting aff about half the time. I will hold a planless aff to the same standard as a K alt; I absolutely must have an idea of what the aff (and my ballot) does and how/why that solves for an impact. If you do not explain this to me, I will "hack" out on presumption. Performances (music, poetry, narratives) are non-factors until you contextualize and justify why they are solvency mechanisms for the aff in the debate space.

Evidence and Argumentative Weight: Tech over truth, but it is easier to debate well when using true arguments and better cards. In-speech analysis goes a long way with me; I am much more likely to side with a team that develops and compares warrants vs. a team that extends by tagline/author only. I will read cards as necessary, including explicit prompting, however I read critically. Cards are meaningless without highlighted warrants; you are better off fewer painted cards than multiple under-highlighted cards. Well-explained logical analytics, especially if developed in CX, can beat bad/under-highlighted cards.

Debate Ideologies: I think that judges should reward good debating over ideology, so almost all of my personal preferences can be overcome if you debate better than your opponents. You can limit the chance that I intervene by 1) providing clear judge instruction and 2) justifications for those judge instructions. The 2NR and 2AR are should be competing pitches trying to sell me a fully formed ballot to endorse.

Accommodations: Please email me ahead of time if you believe you will need an accommodation that cannot be facilitated in round so that I can work with tab on your issue. Any accommodation that has any potential competitive implications (limiting content or speed, etc.) should be requested either with me CC'd or in my presence so that tournament ombuds mediation can be requested if necessary.

Argument by argument breakdown below.

Topicality

Debating T well is a question of engaging in responsive impact debate. You win my ballot when you are the team that proves their interpretation is best for debate -- usually by proving that you have the best internal links (ground, predictability, legal precision, research burden, etc.) to a terminal impact (fairness and/or education). I love judging a good T round and I will reward teams with the ballot and with good speaker points for well thought-out interpretations (or counter-interps) with nuanced defenses. I would much rather hear a well-articulated 2NR on why I need to enforce a limited vision of the topic than a K with state/omission links or a Frankenstein process CP that results in the aff.

I default to competing interpretations, but reasonability can be compelling to me if properly contextualized. I am more receptive when affs can articulate why their specific counter-interp is reasonable (e.g., "The aff interp only imposes a reasonable additional research burden of two more cases") versus vague generalities ("Good is good enough").

I believe that many resolutions (especially domestic topics) are sufficiently aff-biased or poorly worded that preserving topicality as a viable generic negative strategy is important. I have no problem voting for the neg if I believe that they have done the better debating, even if I think that the aff is/should be topical in a truth sense. I am also a judge who will actually vote on T-Substantial (substantial as in size, not subsets) because I think there should be a mechanism to check small affs.

Fx/Xtra Topicality: I will vote on them independently if they are impacted as independent voters. However, I believe they are internal links to the original violation and standards (i.e. you don't meet if you only meet effectually). The neg is best off introducing Fx/Xtra early with me in the back; I give the 1ARs more leeway to answer new Fx/Xtra extrapolations than I will give the 2AC for undercovering Fx/Xtra.

Framework / T-USFG

For an aff to win framework they must articulate and defend specific reasons why they cannot and do not embed their advocacy into a topical policy as well as reasons why resolutional debate is a bad model. Procedural fairness starts as an impact by default and the aff must prove why it should not be. I can and will vote on education outweighs fairness, or that substantive fairness outweighs procedural fairness, but the aff must win these arguments. The TVA is an education argument and not a fairness argument; affs are not entitled to the best version of the case (policy affs do not get extra-topical solvency mechanisms), so I don't care if the TVA is worse than the planless version from a competitive standpoint.

For the neg, you have the burden of proving either that fairness outweighs the aff's education or that policy-centric debate has better access to education (or a better type of education). I am neutral regarding which impact to go for -- I firmly believe the negative is on the truth side on both -- it will be your execution of these arguments that decides the round. Contextualization and specificity are your friends. If you go with fairness, you should not only articulate specific ground loss in the round, but why neg ground loss under the aff's model is inevitable and uniquely worse. When going for education, deploy arguments for why plan-based debate is a better internal link to positive real world change: debate provides valuable portable skills, debate is training for advocacy outside of debate, etc. Empirical examples of how reform ameliorates harm for the most vulnerable, or how policy-focused debate scales up better than planless debate, are extremely persuasive in front of me.

Procedurals/Theory

I think that debate's largest educational impact is training students in real world advocacy, therefore I believe that the best iteration of debate is one that teaches people in the room something about the topic, including minutiae about process. I have MUCH less aversion to voting on procedurals and theory than most judges. I think the aff has a burden as advocates to defend a specific and coherent implementation strategy of their case and the negative is entitled to test that implementation strategy. I will absolutely pull the trigger on vagueness, plan flaws, or spec arguments as long as there is a coherent story about why the aff is bad for debate and a good answer to why cross doesn't check. Conversely, I will hold negatives to equally high standards to defend why their counterplans make sense and why they should be considered competitive with the aff.

That said, you should treat theory like topicality; there is a bare amount of time and development necessary to make it a viable choice in your last speech. Outside of cold concessions, you are probably not going to persuade me to vote for you absent actual line-by-line refutation that includes a coherent abuse story which would be solved by your interpretation.

Also, if you go for theory... SLOW. DOWN. You have to account for pen/keyboard time; you cannot spread a block of analytics at me like they were a card and expect me to catch everything. I will be very unapologetic in saying I didn't catch parts of the theory debate on my flow because you were spreading too fast.

My defaults that CAN be changed by better debating:

- Condo is good (but should have limitations, esp. to check perf cons and skew).

- PICs, Actor, and Process CPs are all legitimate if they prove competition; a specific solvency advocate proves competitiveness but the lack of specific solvency evidence indicates high risk of a solvency deficit and/or no competition.

- The aff gets normal means or whatever they specify; they are not entitled to all theoretical implementations of the plan (i.e. perm do the CP) due to the lack of specificity.

- The neg is not entitled to intrinsic processes that result in the aff (i.e. ConCon, NGA, League of Democracies).

- Consult CPs and Floating PIKs are bad.

My defaults that are UNLIKELY to change or CANNOT be changed:

- CX is binding.

- Lit checks/justifies (debate is primarily a research and strategic activity).

- OSPEC is never a voter (except fiating something contradictory to ev or a contradiction between different authors).

- "Cheating" is reciprocal (utopian alts justify utopian perms, intrinsic CPs justify intrinsic perms, and so forth).

- Real instances of abuse justify rejecting the team and not just the arg.

- Teams should disclose previously run arguments; breaking new doesn't require disclosure.

- Real world impacts exist (i.e. setting precedents/norms), but specific instances of behavior outside the room/round that are not verifiable are not relevant in this round.

- Condo is not the same thing as severance of the discourse/rhetoric. You can win severance of your reps, but it is not a default entitlement from condo.

- ASPEC is checked by cross. The neg should ask and if the aff answers and doesn't spike, I will not vote on ASPEC. If the aff does not answer, the neg can win by proving abuse. Potential ground loss is abuse.

Kritiks

TL;DR: I would much rather hear a good K than a bad politics disad, so if you have a coherent and contextualized argument for why critical academic scholarship is relevant to the aff, I am fine for you. If you run Ks to avoid doing specific case research and brute force ballots with links of omission and reusing generic criticisms about the state/fiat, I am a bad judge for you.If I'm in the back for a planless aff vs. a K, reconsider your prefs/strategy.

A kritik must be presented as a comprehensible argument in round. To me, that means that a K must not only explain the scholarship and its relevance (links and impacts), but it must function as a coherent call for the ballot (through the alt). A link alone is insufficient without a reason to reject the aff and/or prefer the alt. I do not have any biases or predispositions about what my ballot does or should do, but if you cannot explain your alt and/or how my ballot interacts with the alt then I will have an extremely low threshold for disregarding the K as a non-unique disad. Alts like "Reject the aff" and "Vote neg" are fine so long as there is a coherent explanation for why I should do thatbeyond the mere fact the aff links (for example, if the K turns case). If the alt solves back for the implications of the K, whether it is a material alt or a debate space alt, the solvency process should be explained and contrasted with the plan/perm. Links of omission are very uncompelling. Links are not disads to the perm unless you have a (re-)contextualization to why the link implicates perm solvency. Ks can solve the aff, but the mechanism shouldn't be that the world of the alt results in the plan (i.e. floating PIK).

Affs should not be afraid of going for straight impact turns behind a robust framework press to evaluate the aff. I'm more willing than most judges to weigh the impacts vs. labeling your discourse as a link. Being extremely good at historical analysis is the best way to win a link turn or impact turn. I am also particularly receptive to arguments about pragmatism on the perm, especially if you have empirical examples of progress through state reform that relates directly to the impacts.

Against K affs, you should leverage fairness and education offensive as a way to shape the process by which I should evaluate the kritik. I'm the type of judge who is more likely to give you "No perms without a plan text" because cheating should be mutual than because epistemology and pedagogy mean your theory of power comes first.

Counterplans

I think that research is a core part of debate as an activity, and good counterplan strategy goes hand-in-hand with that. The risk of your net benefit is evaluated inversely proportional to the quality of the counterplan is. Generic PICs are more vulnerable to perms and solvency deficits and carry much higher threshold burden on the net benefit. PICs with specific solvency advocates or highly specific net benefits are devastating and one of the ways that debate rewards research and how debate equalizes aff side bias by rewarding negs who who diligent in research. Agent and process counterplans are similarly better when the neg has a nuanced argument for why one agent/process is better than the aff's for a specific plan.

- Process CPs: I am extremely unfriendly to process counterplans where the process is entirely intrinsic; I have a very low threshold for rejecting them theoretically or granting the aff an intrinsic perm to test opportunity cost. I am extremely friendly to process counterplans that test a distinct implementation method compared to the aff. There are differences in form and content between legislative statutes, administrative regulations, executive orders, and court cases. The team that understands these differences and can impact them is usually the team that wins my ballot. Intentionally vague plan texts do not give the aff access to all theoretical implementations of the plan (Perm Do the CP). The neg can define normal means for the aff if the aff refuses to, but the neg has an equally high burden to defend the competitiveness of the CP process vs. normal means. The aff can win an entire solvency take out if there is a structural defect created by deviating from normal means.

I do not judge kick by default, but 2NRs can easily convince me to do so as an extension of condo. Superior solvency for the aff case alone is sufficient reason to vote for the CP in a debate that is purely between hypothetical policies (i.e. the aff has no competition arguments in the 2AR).

I am very likely to err neg on sufficiency framing; the aff absolutely needs either a solvency deficit or arguments about why an appeal to sufficiency framing itself means that the neg cannot capture the ethic of the affirmative (and why that outweighs).

Disadvantages

I value defense more than most judges and am willing to assign minimal ("virtually zero") risk based on defense, especially when quality difference in evidence is high or the disad scenario is painfully artificial. Nuclear war probably outweighs the soft left impact in a vacuum, but not when you are relying on "infinite impact times small risk is still infinity" to mathematically brute force past near zero risk. I can be convinced by good analysis that there is always a risk of a DA in spite of defense.

Misc.

Speaker Point Scale: I feel speaker points are arbitrary and the only way to fix this is standardization. Consequently I will try to follow any provided tournament scale very closely. In the event that there is no tournament scale, I grade speaks on bell curve with 30 being the 99th percentile, 27.5 being as the median 50th percentile, and 25 being the 1st percentile. I'm aggressive at BOTH addition and subtraction from this baseline since bell curves are distributed around the average and not everyone being actually average. Elim teams should be scoring above average by definition. The scale is standardized; national circuit tournaments will have higher averages than local tournaments. Points are rewarded for both style (entertaining, organized, strong ethos) and substance (strategic decisions, quality analysis, obvious mastery of nuance/details). I listen closely to CX and include CX performance in my assessment. Well contextualized humor is the quickest way to get higher speaks in front of me, e.g. make a Thanos snap joke on the Malthus flow.

Delivery and Organization: Your speed should be limited by clarity. I reference the speech doc during the debate to check clipping, not to flow. You should be clear enough that I can flow without needing your speech doc. Additionally, even if I can hear and understand you, I am not going to flow your twenty point theory block perfectly if you spit it out in ten seconds. Proper sign-posted line by line is the bare minimum to get over a 28.5 in speaks. I will only flow straight down as a last resort, so it is important to sign-post the line-by-line, otherwise I will lose some of your arguments while I jump around on my flow and I will dock your speaks. If online please keep in mind that you will, by default, be less clear through Zoom than in person.

Cross-X, Prep, and Tech: Tag-team CX is fine but it's part of your speaker point rating to give and answer most of your own cross. I think that finishing the answer to a final question during prep is fine and simple clarification and non-substantive questions during prep is fine, but prep should not be used as an eight minute time bank of extra cross-ex. I don't charge prep for tech time, but tech is limited to just the emailing or flashing of docs. When you end prep, you should be ready to distribute.

Strategy Points: I will reward good practices in research and preparation. On the aff, plan texts that have specific mandates backed by solvency authors get bonus speaks. I will also reward affs for running disads to negative advocacies (real disads, not solvency deficits masquerading as disads -- Hollow Hope or Court Capital on a courts counterplan is a disad; CP gets circumvented is not). Negative teams with case specific strategies (i.e. hyper-specific counterplans or a nuanced T or procedural objection to the specific aff plan text) will get bonus speaks.

Hello debaters!

I am Byoung Chul Park. Since I am a parent judge, I would like it if you all talked slowly and clearly explain arguments.

Please disclose your cases and rebuttals, and I would like it if you do not read advanced theoretical/philosophical arguments.

Judging Criteria - Organization, Evidence, and Refutation.

Add me to the email chain: mekbp1004@gmail.com

In a round, I prefer loud, clear, concise speech. I appreciate arguments that get to the point and spoken relatively slowly and clearly. Empirics are extremely important. I am a parent judge so I will not be familiar with debate jargon, as such, I am much more likely to vote on arguments that are thoroughly explained.

Updated for TOC Digital Series #2:

Hi. I'm a lay judge with a lot of experience on this topic.

Add me to the link chain: jyotishman@gmail.com. If you prefer to use speech drop, please help me set that up.

Please don’t spread. I’ll say “clear” for you to slow down if I don’t understand. If I continue to not understand you, I will say "clear" again before deducting speaker points.

I will vote for the debater who better defends their argument and successfully refutes their opponents.

I will score you based on your reasonable arguments connected with good evidence. Please make sure you signpost before moving on, and your contentions should be structured in an orderly fashion.

Frameworks should be easy to understand, and please explain in your speech what the effectiveness of doing the aff or neg has, and tie that in with your value and value criterion.

I will take notes on each speech and will keep time (6-3-7-3-4-6-3). I will stop taking notes on your speech once my timer ends. Any arguments made after that will not be evaluated. Any new args made after the 1AR for the aff, and 1NC for the neg will not be recorded and used to decide who wins/loses the debate. Please do not have any jargon that is hard to understand, and please explain everything in detail (especially in the rebuttal speeches).

Debate should be a safe, respectable, and welcoming environment for everyone. With that said, I will NOT TOLERATE any demeaning behavior during the round.

Good luck, and happy debating!

Please speak clearly and not too fast. Have logical connections between your arguments and impacts.

pendyala.neha@gmail.com

Send email chain stuff here: elijahpitt123@gmail.com

tl;dr

1 - K

2- Larp/T

3 - fw/theory

4 - tricks

General: I'm most comfortable w/ K debate and did it throughout my junior and senior year of high school, but I'll evaluate anything as long as it is explained and impacted out well. I probably have a high threshold for tricky arguments, so if you're going to go for them in front of me just explain them clearly.

K's: I am most familiar with identity politics literature, but I'm fine with hearing any kind of K debate as long as it is explained and fleshed out well. I think a big problem with K debate generally is a lack of proper explanation of the methods, both on the aff and K flow. The 2NR/2AR should have a fleshed out, contextualized method, with an explanation of how this solves back for the offense. Further, the articulation of the K in rebuttals shouldn't just be rereadings of the taglines; detailed, contextual explanations are preferred and this will be reflected in speaks.

LARP: Go for it! I have a pretty strong understanding of this kind of debate and enjoy good LARP debates. I'm fine with evaluating anything here, just note that I might not be well-versed in topic literature so I'd err towards over-explanation with esoteric terms or concepts. Also, very contextual weighing will help you win ballots and get better speaks.

T: Go for it. I get a little tired of generic T debates however, so try to have specific, strong abuse stories rather than reading generic interps. I'll vote on T-FW but I am probably tired of hearing it the most, so creative standards/abuse stories are probably going to benefit you here.

FW: I'm okay with evaluating FW debate, but if you are a very technical FW debater, I'm probably not the judge for you. Err towards overexplanation and do very clear weighing in terms of meta-ethical issues and FW hijacks.

Theory: I am fine with voting on theory if there is clear abuse in the round. I don't particularly like frivolous theory debate, nor am I very proficient at judging these rounds. If you want to read friv theory I wouldn't pref me very high, but I will vote on it as long as it is explained well. Try to slow down on standards and justifications,

Tricks: Don't like them. If you are purely a tricks debater I'd strike me. I'll vote on tricks if explained VERY well but I am definitely not a good judge for this kind of debate. K-tricks are fine.

Speaks: I try to average my speaks at around 28.5. Clear speaking, good collapses, and interesting arguments will bump you up a lot. If I haven't heard your argument before, chances are your speaks will be greatly benefited. I'll only give speaks lower than a 27.5 if there is a safety issue in round (offensive speech, overt aggression, etc.).

Update for TOC Digis: I haven't judged in a bit, don't start at your top speed. I don't know anything about the topic so err towards over-explanation. Be interesting!

I am a parent judge. NSDA Last Chance is the last and only tournament I judged. I do take notes in round, but that’s not helpful if you don’t thoroughly explain arguments. Assume I know nothing about your topic.

Considering that, as well as the fact that this is an online tournament, please go slowly. Do not read K's or theory. Egregiously overcomplicated phil is also something I would rather not hear. Otherwise, feel free to read whatever positions you are comfortable with as long as you are confident you can convincingly explain it to someone with no prior knowledge. I will vote on technicalities (arguments that go conceded), but you need to point it out and implicate it in the round. I do not know about niche debate jargon. If you’re looking to get extremely progressive, don’t put me higher than a 4. Give me a clear ballot story. I value persuasive speaking. Keep your own time! I'm a judge, not your timekeeper.

Speaking points: I will deduct points for disorganization and being inconsiderate.

Pronouns: She/her

• I am a lay parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly. Spreading won't help.

• I request you to keep your own time.
  

• Off time road maps are preferred. Deliver organized speeches.

• Stay away from overly technical, high-leveled debate jargon.

• I do take notes throughout the round so emphasize your important contentions/points.

• Clearly state voting issues in your final speech.

If you would like to share your cards, please email me at sreerao at hotmail dot com

I am a parent judge with 5 years of experience.

I expect the participants to speak slow but most importantly clearly

I want to understand the debate so explaining arguments help me understand why you should win more.

Respect other participants and I will respect you

add me to any email chains

ajayrawal@hotmail.com

Winner of last year's CFL in policy debate!!!!!

(Assistant) Coach @ Shawnee Mission South

Put me on the email chain :) jrimpson123@gmail.com

TLDR:

Judge instruction, above all else, is super important for me – I think this looks differently depending on your style of debate. Generally, I think clear instruction in the rebuttals about where you want me to focus my attention and how you want me to filter offense is amust. For policy teams I think this is more about link and impact framing, and for more critical teams I think this is about considering the judge’s relationships to your theory/performance and being specific about their role in the debate.

For every "flow-check" question, or CX question that starts with a variation of "did you read..." I will doc you .1 speaker points. FLOW DAMNIT.

General:

I am flexible and can judge just about anything. I debated more critically, but read what you're most comfortable with. I will approach every judging opportunity with an open mind and provide feedback that makes sense to you given your strategy.

I care about evidence quality to the extent that I believe in ethically cut evidence, but I think evidence can come in many forms. I won’t read evidence after a debate unless there is an egregious discrepancy over it, or I've been instructed to do so. I think debaters should be able to explain their evidence well enough that I shouldn’t have to read it, so if I'm reading evidence then you haven't done your job to know the literature and will probably receive more judge intervention from me. That being said, I understand that in policy debate reading evidence has become a large part of judging etc, because I'm not ever cutting politics updates be CLEAR and EXPLICIT about why I am reading ev/ what I should be looking for.

Will have a high threshold for voting for out-of-round violences, but if provided with receipts it's not impossible.

Please know I am more than comfortable“clearing”you. Disclosure is good and should be reciprocated. Clipping/cutting cards out of context is academic malpractice and will result in an automatic loss.

___________________________________________________________________

Truth over Tech -OR- Tech over Truth

For the most part, I am tech over truth, but if both teams are ahead on technical portions of the debate, I will probably use truth to break the tie.

Framework

I think debates about debate are valuable and provide a space for confrontation over a number of debate's disparities/conflicts. A strong defense of your model and a set of specific net-benefits is important. Sure, debate is a game, education is almost always a tiebreaker. Fairness is a fake impact -- go for it I guess but I find it rare nowadays that people actually go for it. I think impact-turning framework is always a viable option. I think both sides should also clearly understand their relationship to the ballot and what the debate is supposed to resolve. At the end of the debate, I should be able to explain the model I voted for and why I thought it was better for debate. Any self-deemed prior questions should be framed as such. All of that is to say there is nothing you can do in this debate that I haven't probably seen so do whatever you think will win you the debate.

Performance + K Affirmatives

Judge instruction and strong articulation of your relationship to the ballot is necessary. At the end of the debate, I shouldn't be left feeling that the performative aspects of the strategy were useless/disjointed from debate and your chosen literature base.

Kritiks

I filter a lot of what I have read through my own experience both in and out of academia. I think it’s important for debaters to also consider their identity/experience in the context of your/their argument. I would avoid relying too much on jargon because I think it’s important to make the conversations that Kritiks provide accessible. I have read/researched enough to say I can evaluate just about anything, but don't use that as an excuse to be vague or assume that I'll do the work for you. At the end of the debate, there should be a clear link to the AFF, and an explanation of how your alternative solves the links -- too many people try to kick the alt and I don't get it. Links to the AFF’s performance, subject formation, and scholarship are fair game. I don’t want to say I am 100% opposed to judging kicking alts for people, but I won’t be happy about it and doubt that it will work out for you. If you wanna kick it, then just do it yourself... but again I don't get it.

Any other questions, just ask -- at this point people should know what to expect from me and feel comfortable reaching out.

Goodluck and have fun!

About me:

I am a parent judge. My child debates in Policy.

This is my first year as a judge so please bear with me as I get up to speed.

I prefer well-paced speak, don't spread. Do not rush, if I don't understand you I can't correctly evaluate your performance.

Use of credible evidence and analysis is important to me.

During cross examination, be respectful to your opponent. Rebuttal should be right to the point, refutation can be sharp but be polite.

I value debate skill and truthful arguments equally.

Hi o/

I'm currently an undergrad at UC Berkeley and an assistant Speech and Debate coach. I'm a former debater who mainly competed in Parliamentary debate for Claremont High School. Alongside that, I've competed in and/or judged LD, PF, Worlds, BQ, Congress, and several speech events (mainly Impromptu/Extemp). I always appreciate a competitive and respectful round so I'm looking forward to hearing what you have to say!

General Debate Notes

Please focus on your links! I believe they are just as/more important than your cards/impacts. Arguments that depend on well-thought out logic are always more interesting to listen to than a random card without much analysis from the debater. I weigh magnitude and probability heavily, meaning I will not vote for your nuclear holocaust argument just because you tell me to based on a 0.0000000001% chance. Please provide a roadmap and signpost in each speech! I want to be able to flow your case/refutations as accurately as possible and it's difficult when you spew random facts at me for 7 minutes. Remember, you could have the most beautiful argument to ever be conceived of in human history, but if I don't know where/how to flow it I can't give you credit. Lastly, be respectful! Especially during POIs and cross. That also means avoid making faces or facepalming while your camera is on, I'll probably tank speaks if a debater is being disrespectful throughout the round.

Kritiks & Theory

I'm open to hearing these arguments as long as you can justify them. There are definitely rounds where these arguments are necessary and will impact my decision. I'm not the most familiar with K's so please explain each component to me! If there's one thing I hate more than spreading, it's frivolous theory/k's that you wrote at camp 5 months ago and decided to shoe into your case. Make sure the K actually makes sense for the specific round, not one that you already decided to run before the topic is even announced. (It's an exclusionary tactic against new debaters and makes me sad ). Don't feel pressured to run these arguments either, you don't need to use jargon or this structure to explain why a definition or argument is abusive!

Speaking

I'm pretty generous when it comes to speaks. If you make me laugh I'm probably going to boost your speaks too. Be respectful to your opponents, being rude is an easy way for me to dock your speaks without feeling very bad. Don't Spread, Don't Spread, Don't Spread.

If you have any other questions feel free to ask them in round! :)

glhf

Hello, I'm Lucas, a former debater with experience in world schools and congress formats. As a judge, my focus is on several key aspects:

1. Case Interaction: I highly value debates where teams actively engage with each other's arguments. This means directly responding to your opponent's points and demonstrating how your case stands in relation to theirs. Merely presenting your case without this interaction will not suffice.

2. Organization and Clarity: A well-structured argument is crucial. I appreciate arguments that are logically organized and clearly presented. This helps me follow your line of reasoning and understand the crux of your arguments.

3. Quality over Quantity: Please prioritize the quality of your arguments over the quantity. I favor depth over breadth. Overloading with too many points can be counterproductive, as it can lead to superficial treatment of important issues.

4. Speaking Style: While I do value clear and confident delivery, the substance of your argument is far more important to me. Don't worry too much about rhetorical flourishes or a highly polished style; focus instead on the strength and clarity of your argumentation.

5. Spreading: I prefer that debaters do not rely heavily on spreading during the round. While I understand its role in debate, I cannot guarantee that I won't miss information if the debate is overly reliant on this technique. Ensure your arguments are clear and well-explained without the need for rapid speech.

6. Evidence and Examples: While empirical evidence and examples can strengthen an argument, I also value logical reasoning and theoretical frameworks. Make sure your evidence supports your claims effectively, and explain its relevance to your overall argument.

7. Respect and Decorum: Maintain a respectful attitude towards your opponents and the debate process. Civility is key in any debate, and I expect all participants to adhere to this principle.

I am a parent judge so no Spreading, I will vote of whatever argument makes more sense and seems to be winning in this round.

Hello! My name is Davis Shedd. I go by whatever pronouns. I debated all 4 years of High School, reading primarily the K. My favorite K's to read and the K's I'm most familiar with are Cap, Queer Theory, Set Col, some pomo, and Deleuze. However, I am familar with a lot of critical literature so feel free to read whatever you want. I feel like doing more on the about me section is stupid and isn't useful information, but if you want to know anything else in particular feel free to email me and ask or just check the wiki or tab or sum :)

email: davis.shedd@duke.edu

(put me on email chain if thats what u are doing. in online debate ive seen ppl using file share. if u want to do that thats fine with me)

feel free to contact me with any questions!

Quick Pref:

tech > truth

K: 1

Theory: 2

Phil/Tricks: 3

Larp: 4

I will vote on literally anything at all as long as it has a link, warrant, and impact and is clearly articulated and contexualized within the round. I will not however, vote on blatantly harmful arguments that are racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. If you read these in front of me, I will immediately drop you. Similarly, if you say anything harmful in round to either your opponent or myself, I will give you an L0. Speed is totally fine with me, just make sure your opponent is okay with speed and make sure the space is safe for them. Spreading super fast at your opponent and not making any arguments simply because they wont be able to keep up and catch everything is dumb, harmful, and is not a good look for you. If you do this, I will tank your speaks. Read whatever you want - debate well and I will vote for you. It's just a debate round - have fun with it, do your thing, and chill.

Background ---

UH '26

Conflicted against Seven Lakes HS, Barbers Hill HS, and anyone in Break Debate.

Policy debater at the University of Houston 1x NDT qualifier

Coach for Seven Lakes HS and Break Debate

Put me on the email chain --- debatesheff@gmail.com

If I am judging PF also put sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com

Overall perspective ---

Please don't call me judge---Bryce is fine

I will vote on anything. I have done extensive policy and K debate so it is naturally my preferred styles. I am open to other styles of debate and will vote on anything just might be less comfortable.

I hate deadtime in debates. It makes me increasingly frustrated when there isn't a timer running and it seems like no one is doing anything. To minimize this please have the email chain with the speech doc sent AT START TIME.

thoughts---essentially the same for policy and LD.

--- K affs being vague and shifty hurts you more than it helps. I'm very unsympathetic to 2AR pivots that change the way the aff has been explained. Take care to have a coherent story/explanation of your K aff that starts in the 1AC and remains consistent throughout the debate

--- Inserting rehighlightings is fine as long as you explain why it matters in the speech. I usually read ev while making decisions.

--- I'm more convinced by affs that commit to, and defend, an action coming out of the 1ac.

--- Ks should prove the plan is a bad idea.

--- I'm not convinced by CP theory arguments like condo or PICs bad. Private actor fiat, multi-actor fiat, or object fiat definitely have merit.

--- I default to judge kick unless 1ar and 2ar convince me otherwise.

--- I will not adjudicate anything that didn't happen in the round.

--- New affs bad is a bad argument.

--- Qualified authors & solid warrants in your ev are important. Evidence comparison and weighing are also important. In the absence of evidence comparison and weighing, I may make a decision that upsets you. That is fundamentally your fault.

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.

Leland '22 Michigan '26

conner.shih.debate@gmail.com

Judging should be all tech, no truth. The only thing that factors into my decision is what has been said by the debaters. That means 'I don't care what arguments you go for or how many off you read in the 1NC.'

K in high school, policy in college. Do the better debating and you will win.

You can insert rehighlightings as long as its implication is explained. Recuttings of parts of the article not originally present in the card should be read.

I will not vote on events that occurred outside of the round or personal callouts.

Condo is good. Judgekick is good. Plan text in a vacuum is good.

Fairness is good. It is an independent impact.

Big fan of the perm double bind. Not a fan of Kant.

Link uniqueness is important. You should read cards.

Hi!

My name is Alexis Sibanda (she/her)

Education:

Coppell High School '23 (Debated policy for 3 years and LD for 1 year)

RPI '27 (pursuing a B.S in Physics and Mathematics with a Pre-Law minor)

Debate Teaching/Coaching:

• Middle School Debate Instructor at Coppell Debate Academy (22-23)
• LD Instructor at Mean Green Comet Debate Camp (Summer 2023)

Please add me to the email chain: ratisibbs@gmail.com

General Info:

Firstly, BE RESPECTFUL — Don't do anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or un-inclusive - Debate should be a space in which people feel comfortable to exist as themselves and put themselves out there. I will not hesitate to take action if it gets out of hand whether that means docking speaks, voting a team down, or reporting behavior, but y’all should be fine as long as you keep respect in mind. :)

Speaks:

Feel free to spread, just make sure you’re clear. I'll say clear if I can't understand. I’m not too much of a stickler with speaks just keep clarity, organization, and good argument engagement in mind and high speaker points will likely follow.

Notes:

Feel free to ask any questions you want in round or even through email. I will make sure to answer to the best of my ability! All in all, just make sure you’re having fun! That’s the most important part. :)

Policy Debate/LD:

Topical Policy AFFs:

I completely understand these debates, so go for it! I’m chill with any type of argument as long as they are articulated well. Make sure to weigh the arguments and explain the story of your impacts under your articulated framework. Telling a clear link story is key to these debates!

T:

Go for it! I’m very middle of the road on this. Whoever does the better articulation of why their interp and impacts are better gets my vote on this flow. Don’t just assume that because you win the flow you win the debate. Make sure to articulate as to why this matters and affects the rest of the debate if you want a ballot off of this flow as I am less likely to vote solely on T w/o any type of explanation of that.

Kritiks:

I enjoy K debates! Feel free to go for it (as long as you know what you are doing). I'm a K debater and read policy positions so I get both. I run Black nihilism, afropess, black fem, afrofuturism, etc. but I’m pretty well versed in most lit bases that people tend to read with more familiarity in identity ks but I can still evaluate most others too. Make sure to explain to me what ur scholarship says in your rebuttals especially: I won’t do the work for u. Articulating the story of the K in context with the debate is vital to a ballot.

World Schools:

In WSD, I am a pretty neutral judge. Though most of my debate experience is in policy debate and LD, I also have some experience with judging WSD rounds from working at Coppell Debate Academy and stuff over the years so I have a decent understanding of it. Honestly, just do you and you should be fine.

Style: keep clarity, organization, and good argument engagement in mind and you should be fine. Be persuasive.

Content: TL;DR - Warrant/Claim/Impact, extensions, weighing, and clash. Every argument has to be fully formed and made explicitly. Don't make me have to intervene in order for the argument to make any type of sense. Explain what it is why it will happen and why I care (heavy on the why I care as that piece will implicate its level of importance on my flow and how I formulate my ballot). Make sure that we are extending our arguments throughout the debate. I don't want to have just random floating arguments on my flow by the final speech I should be able to draw a line back to wherever they came from.

Strategy: Everyone should engage in POIs. Take at least 1-2 per speech and the opposing team should be asking multiple. However, don't be asking them so many that they are unable to complete their speech. Be intentional about the POIs you're making. Make sure you are actively doing something to poke holes in your opponents' arguments or set up your own arguments, etc. Make sure that they are doing something. World Building and world comparison is key.

For the most part, these are my thoughts but feel free to ask me any questions and I would be happy to clarify my stance on anything. Thanks so much. All in all have fun!

This is my second year regularly judging speech and debate tournaments as a part-time teacher of the sport.

My college major was in history and I have an ongoing career conducting public policy research across economic, educational, and environmental fields.

I do my best to flow throughout all debate speeches and ultimately weigh your arguments on their magnitude, timeframe, and probability.

The quantity and quality of your evidence as well as the logic chaining of your arguments will be the most important components in my consideration of these factors while regular road-mapping and a clear speaking voice will help me avoid mistakes in making objective evaluations.

I do not flow during or take into consideration any arguments made during cross.

Please make any pre-speech organizational or road-mapping statements within your allotted speaking time.

General:

pronouns: he/him

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain: matthewsaintgermain at gmail.

If you are going to be speed reading analysis, especially in rebuttals, send your speech doc. I'm 47 years old and have been in very loud bands and worked in nightclubs for decades. I hate to admit that I don't have the hearing I once did and it has become prohibitive for me to hear the blender of paragraphs coming out of your mouth at auctioneer speeds that generally isn't tagged nor signposted and is just huge chunks of long, run-on sentences that I in real time have to paraphrase in my head into something discernible as I'm flowing it and hearing you already make new, run-on sentences to subsequently paraphrase. Help me help you. Sending your doc does not hurt you. If you don't send this you get what you get and no amount of post rounding is going to demystify my decision appropriately for you.

REPLY ALL.

Affirmatives should have the email chain up and ready to roll immediately upon getting settled in the round. Please do not wait for everyone to arrive to start this. No "oops, I forgot" 1 minute before the round starts please! Unpack your stuff and get on this immediately, preferably sending a blank test email ASAP to make sure we're not having connection issues right before you stand up for 1AC. Also please only use an email chain and not the file drop and please do not send me a live doc as I flow on my computer (a Mac, so please send pdfs) and working from a file that people are updating live causes issues on my end so create a copy of your doc and send so I can view it without issue. I have multiple screens up optimized to flow the round and fill out the ballot via web browser split screen with a spreadsheet program and having to search for your evidence or view it outside of a browser before your speech messes my whole deal up. Despite all this being clear in my paradigm for some time now people keep ignoring it so it seems as if I have to give you justification for why this is important and it is because doing it any other way causes all my screens to get totally out of order as well can cause system resources to go wild. Having to minimize a screen to open up a word editor to then maximize and place back in my dual screen takes time and then rearranges the order of all my windows meaning in the time I'm trying to accomplish this while muted, debaters often go "I'll start if i don't hear from anyone in 3... 2..." and I'm now scrambling to try and find the window that Mac has decided to randomly change position in my window swipe order meaning where I think it is it isn't, and by the time I find it to unmute myself y'all are already speaking despite me not being ready and struggling to tell you this because of your choices to send me stuff that does not comport with my set up. Please keep things easy for me by running an email chain where you send pdfs, not doing this tells me you haven't read the very top level of my paradigm.

Former Edina High School (MN) policy debater (1991-1995) and captain (1994-1995). Former Wayzata High School (MN) policy coach (2019-2022).

I have judged just about every year since then for various high schools in the Twin Cities metro, including Edina, Wayzata, Minnetonka, and South St. Paul, from 1995 to present, with only two years off, just about 27 years. Please note, however, that this has not meant coaching on those topics up until 2019 through the end of the 2021-2022 season.

I'm versed in plenty of debate theory but I'm still catching up on nuance of newer nomenclature so get wild on the meta jargon at your own peril. Especially on critical theory arguments, you would do well to SLOW WAY DOWN and explain yourself thoroughly as while these things may be crystal clear to you, I'm not reading theory or complex philosophy In my free time so stuff like telling me to look beyond the face and totalizing otherness isn't going to immediately jog my "oh, yeah, that stuff" part of my dusty closet of a brain as you're going a million miles an hour with almost zero audible indication of where tags or analysis begin or end with relation to the evidence you're blazing through. I am 45 years old, I played in bands and have worked in rock clubs for years which has impacted my hearing, and especially over the Internet, speed reading complex philosophy through whatever variable quality mic you have often results in a kind of unintelligible din that is not helping you. You may in fact say it is actively hurting you. SLOW DOWN. This is an issue of accessibility and ability. If you're doing this and not sending the analysis that you're straight up reading from a file but expect me to somehow jot down multi-syllabic, college-level philosophical words while you triple-auctioneer speed over the internet, I mean, you're gonna get what you're gonna get, and no amount of post-rounding questions about things that were so clear to you is going to demystify what I humanly was able to get down. I need to stress this. If you're going philosophical and going even moderately fast, you're probably going to lose. Acting shocked after the round isn't going to change what you could have easily adapted to before the round started.

Unless you're theorizing it on the fly, send me everything you read, not just evidence. There is no material audible difference for the listener between you reading evidence and you reading analysis as fast as humanly possible. Both are just a kind of variable din regardless of the content.

My primary focus has been and continues to be Policy debate on the high school level, and that's where probably about 85% of my judging work has come. But I have ample experience judging circuit-level LD and PF through breaks alongside college debate and am more than comfortable adjudicating these different forms of debate.

This paradigm is a constant work in progress.

Across Policy/PF/LD:

Dear debaters: I want to up front set your mind at ease by saying that debate, as I see it, is a club that by the start of your very first round, you are all a valued member of. The fact that you gathered up all your anxiety and worries and excitement and talent and got up and gave your very first speech, it's totally awesome. To me, you are part of a distinct kind of people, different from all the non-debate people, and as such, I want you to both embrace failure as a growth methodology as well as let go of any worries or judgments or preconceived notions about whether or not you belong here. You absolutely do. Please, not only feel okay making mistakes here but look for opportunities to make them! Take chances, especially in your first two to three years of debate. This debate stuff can honestly be mentally rigorous at times, but it's all about a kind of shedding of your prior self and any of the BS put on you in your lives outside of debate. Here you're on the team so any and all advice given to you is purely about building you up even if it feels like criticism. Only internalize what you need to fix, not that it means anything about you. I've learned over nearly 30 years of judging and coaching that while there are kids whom take to this immediately, that there are also kids who seem like they can't handle this at all and drop terrible rounds in their first year or even two, whom end up becoming TOC and Natty quals debaters that blow you away. I've seen it over and over. Debate (and especially policy debate) is a gauntlet that takes years to develop your skills, and so long as you stick with it, you'll succeed. The fact that you are here means that you're already one leg up on winning arguments in regular meatspace as is, but stick with it and it'll change your life over a myriad of domains.

If you think I'm not paying attention to you, you're wrong. I have probably one of the most detailed flows you're ever going to see, which you won't, but you get my drift. I just try very hard to look almost disinterested so you don't really know what I'm thinking and so it won't mess with you, though there are points where something does trigger a response and you should notice that, but anything else is just me trying to give you nothing visual to go off of. Just never confuse it with anger or indifference or whatever. Like, if you do something egregious, you'll know because I'll tell you. Otherwise, there's no subtext or hidden meaning behind anything I'm relaying to you as I'm extremely direct. I promise you I don't hate you.

Time yourselves, across all levels of debate, including novices. Y'all can handle this and take responsibility for each other by keeping tabs on both your and your opponents time.

Straight up don't go whole hog on disclosure. There was no disclosure when I debated. There wasn't even really "let me see your evidence" my novice year. You went in raw dog and dealt with it. That's not to say that I don't understand the whys here, it's just that I really don't find them compelling versus the debate we still could have with you ripping through open ev quick-like. If your opponent is being intentional here, didn't disclose or did something different than what their wiki said or what they told you, I think you have a path to argue presumption tilting your way but I still really need you to debate the actual debate rather than dumping a ton of time into an argument I would honestly feel dirty voting for. If you want to run disclosure, honestly do not spend more than 30 seconds in a constructive or rebuttal on it. Make your violation, set your standard, show how they violate, move on to actual substantive issues. You're just never going to win a "5 min on disclosure in 2NR" strat with me. Do other stuff.

If your Neg strat involves multiple off and post Aff-response you kick out of a ton of stuff that the Aff responded to and just go for something that was severely undercovered, yes, I'll still maybe vote for this because technically you are winning, but this won't engender good speaks, and the other team really has to mismanage it. I don't believe this is all that educational of a debate (hint: there's an in-round arg here) and I think smart Affirmative teams should challenge this strat within the confines and rules of the round (meaning I think there's an argument you can construct, esp w/in policy, to check against this strat in your 2AC/1AR). To be clear, I am not anti-speed whatsoever, but a straight dump strat and then feasting on the arg that they had at the bottom of the flow with few responses is just like meh. It's honestly poor form. You're telling me you cannot beat this team heads up on the nuts and bolts argumentation. Affs are responsible for handling this, no doubt, but we're walking a fine line here when it comes to previous exposure and experience, and if it's clear this is not a breaks team and your whole strategy is just making debate less educational for them by spreading them out of the round, I'm not going to dole you out rewards beyond the technical win.

Unless the other team insults your character, microaggression/community critiques are an almost auto-loss for me for the team that runs them. If one team is being a bunch of dongs, I may say something in round, but if I don't it's because it has not risen to the level wherein my intervention is necessary. Otherwise, this is something to solely bring up with your coaches and bring to tab; it's not in-round argumentation PERIOD and turning it into offense is well beyond problematic to me. My degree is in psychology and this greatly informs my position on this across a variety of domains, and one of the central reasons is argumentation like this used as offense almost entirely is not followed up with any kind of tournament debrief between tab and the two teams and their coaches. Because no one wants to nor cares about that in these rounds where the offense is beyond subjective. If these are such severe circumstances that you're claiming rises to the level of an ethics violation, there's a process here that involves a lot of parties and time and I've yet to see this happen at all in rounds where the violation is tenuous at best. As one of the judges in both the '22-'23 MN State Final Round in policy between Eagan and Edina and '20-'21 Nat Quals policy round between Rosemount and Edina, I rejected both of these arguments with prejudice. Character assassinating a kid in round will *NEVER* fly for me and if this kid is such a well known problem, then coaches, tab, and the state high school league must be involved before they even sniff the morning bus to the tournament, let alone in the round itself. This has nothing to do with the Role of the Ballot and is extrinsic to why we're here to debate. Again, I will not have rounds I judge turn into character assassinations of individual debaters just because you don't like their personality. If they drop something offensive, like actual name calling, I'll even bring it to tab, but a little friendly sparring does not make the activity unsafe and not liking how someone speaks or their intonation sets a precedent that makes it even harder for neurodiverse kids (and adults) to participate. Make no mistake, this is not a "kids these days are too soft" boomer doomer arg. It's expressly about protecting everyone and not having DEBATE rounds devolve into some inquisition about a teenager's however unsavory-to-you approach. Racist, sexist, ableist, etc. comments are squarely different from this, though I believe teams who make an honest mistake and apologize should not be rejected and we should continue to move on, with the understanding that I'll likely mention something to your coaches to make sure the mistake is noted beyond the confines of the round.

*

*

Policy:

I view the intent of debate to be about education while simultaneously playing an intellectual game. I think that the word education itself is up for debate, but I would tend to view it as both mastery of epistemology and praxis. I am open to a discussion of that truth but I enter the world of debate with a certain set of beliefs about larger issues that should the round conform to that precondition, I am likely to vote there.

I would outwardly suggest that I am a tabula rasa judge who will vote for anything (that isn't reveling in things that make all debaters unsafe and are conscientious of specific situations that tend to be more unique for particular populations), but if you pinned me down on what I tend to think of when I think "policy debate," I would likely default to being a policymaker who attempts to equally weigh critical debate, meaning if the analysis/evidence is good, I can be persuaded to buy "cede the political," but it's not my default position.

Within the realm of policy, I believe a lot is up for grabs. The rules themselves are up for debate, and I think this can be a wonderful debate if you really want to go there. And just because I say I'm a policymaker doesn't mean that I'm against critical arguments; quite the contrary. I will vote on anything so long as the reasoning for it is sound. My preference is to hear about a subject that the affirmative claims to solve and why I should or should not vote for it. If that means that the policy entrenches some problematic assumption, that's 100% game; if it means something beyond the USFG, that's also fine.

Brass tacks, I'm not going to deny it: you give me a solid policy style round, I'm gonna love it. But I'm right there with you if you want to toss all that aside. As a debater, I chose to run arguments (borders K in 94/95) for an entire season that over half of my judging pool rejected on face as a valid form of argumentation with some making a drammatic display of holding their pen in the air while I was speaking and placing it on the table and then folding their arms to let me know just how horrific my choice of argumentation was. So for critical teams know that outside of Donus Roberts in the back of the room, I was a K debater who intentionall ran Ks in front of judges that thought I was ruining the activity and exacted punishments against me throughout my entire senior year basically destroying my experience. These were grown ass adults. While I might hedge towards policy as policy, I was a K debater myself so I am open to anything. I ran what I wanted to run, and I think the debaters of today in policy should run what they want to run, and our job as judges is to fairly adjust to how the activity adapts while connecting the activity to the constructs that best define it. That said, the further you diverge from the resolution on the aff, the more neg presumption is not just fair, but warranted.

I believe debate is also much more about analysis of argumentation than just reading a bunch of evidence. It's awesome you are able to quickly and clearly read long pieces of evidence, but absent your analysis of this evidence and how it impacts the round/clashes with the other team's argumentation, all you've done is, essentially, read a piece of evidence aloud. I need you to place that evidence within the context of the round and the arguments that have been made within it. I don't need you to do that with ALL the evidence, just the pieces that become the most critical as you and your opponents construct the round. Your evidence tells the story of your arguments, and how far they'll go with me.

If you hit truth, I'm there with you, but I can't make the arguments for you (I lean more truth than tech but I just can't make the arguments for you). When rounds devolve into no one telling me how to adjudicate the critical issues, you invite me to intervene with all my preconceived notions as well as my take on what your evidence says. To keep me out of the decision, I need you to tell me why your argument beats their argument based on what happened in the round (evidence, analysis, clash). I need you to weigh for me what you think the decision calculus should come down to, with reasons that have justification within the sketch of the round.

If you're a critical team reading this, know I've voted for K affs, poetry affs, narratives, and the like before. I'd even venture to guess my voting record on topics venturing far from the resolution is probably near 50/50. But I will buy TVA, switch-side and the like if they're reasonably constructed. The further you are from the resolution, the more I need you to justify why the ballot matters at all.

I believe line-by-line argumentation is one of the most important parts of quality debate. Getting up and reading a block against another team's block is not debate. Without any form of engagement on the analysis level, the round is reduced to constructives that act like a play. I want you to weave the evidence you have in your block into the line-by-line argumentation. This means even the 1NC. Yes, you are shelling a number of arguments, but you do have the ability as a thinking brain to interact with parts of the 1AC you think are mistagged, overstated, etc.

2AC and 2NC cause significant in-round problems when they get up and just group everything or give an "overview" of the specific arguments and then attempt line-by-line after I've flowed your 15 arguments on the top of the flow. Don't do this. Weave case extensions within the structure of replying to the 1NC's arguments.

The strongest Negative critical argument to me is "One Off" in the 1NC and then just horizontally eating that team alive the whole round on this one argument. I don't care how good the Aff is, "ONE OFF" uttered as the roadmap in 1NC sends chills down anyone's spine. Honestly, I HATE "6 off" and then feasting on the one arg the Aff fumbles. As I grow older, I'm less and less and less inclined to dole out the win on this strat. I also probably am not the best judge to run condo good against if the way you operationalize stuff is a pump and dump strat.

The following specific speech comments of this paradigm are more focused for novice and junior varsity debaters. At the varsity level, all four debaters should feel free to engage in cross ex, though, if you are clearly covering for a partner who seemingly cannot answer questions in varsity, that's going to impact their speaks and you highlighting it by constantly answering first for them is kinda crappy, kid.

Specific Speech Thoughts:

Cross Examination:

I do not like tag team cross ex for the team that is being questioned. Editing this years on, and I think the way this is phrased is misleading. A digression: some of the best cross-exes I've ever seen involved all four debaters. That said, the time was still dominated by those who were tasked with the primary responsibilities. And I think saying "I do not like tag team cross ex" makes it seem like I would be against the thing I just described as being great. This is only meant regarding scenarios in which it is clear one person is taking over for another for whatever reason. Taking over for your partner without allowing them the opportunity to respond first makes it look like they don't know what they're talking about and that you do not trust them to respond. Further, doing this prevents your partner from being able to expertly respond to questioning, a skill that is necessary for your entire team to succeed. I have little to no qualms about tag team questions, meaning if it's not your c/x and you have a question to ask, you can ask it directly rather than whispering it to your partner to ask. Again, however, I would stress you should still not take over your partner's c/x. Also, I'm generally aware when it's a situation where there is a pull up and the team has to make due. Obviously speaks will be attenuated, but also do think this is some kind of "I'm angry at you," deal. I can generally recognize in these scenarios and don't worry if you're trying to help your pull up.

Further, there is no "preparatory" time between a speech and cross ex. C/x time starts as soon as speech time ends.

Global (all speeches):

• I was an extremely fast, clear, and loud debater. I have no issue with real speed. I have an issue with jumblemouth speed or quiet speed. I especially have an issue with speed on a speech with little to no signposting. Even if you are blindingly fast, you should ALWAYS slow down over tags, citations, and plan (aff or neg). Annunciate explicitly the names of authors. Seriously... "Grzsuksclickh 7" is how these names come out sometimes. Help me help you.

• Need to be signposted in some way. This means, on a base level, that you say the word "NEXT" or give some indication that the three page, heavily-underlined card you just read had an ending and you've begun your next tag. Simply running from the end of a piece of evidence into more words that start your next tag line is poor form. It makes my job harder and hurts your overall persuasion. Numbering your arguments, both in the 1AC and throughout the round, goes a long way with me.

• Optimize your card tags to something a human can write/type out in 3-5 seconds. Your paragraph long tag to a piece of evidence hurts your ability for me to listen to your evidence. No one can type out: "The alternative is to put primary consideration into how biopower functions as an instrument of violence through status quo education norms. Anything short of fundamentally questioning the institution of schooling only reifies violence. The alternative solves because this analysis opens space for discovery and scholarship on schooling that better mitigates the harms of status quo biopolitical control" within about 5 seconds, while you are reading some dense philosophical stuff that we ostensibly are supposed to listen to while trying to mentally figure out how to shorthand the absurdly long tag you just read. And yes, that's a real tag and no, it's not even close to the longest one I've heard, it's just the one I have on hand.

• The ultimate goal is to not be the speech that completely muddles/confuses the structure of the round.

1AC

• It's supposed to be a persuasive speech. It's the one speech that is fully planned out before the round. You should not be stuttering, mumbling, etc. throughout it. You've had it in your hands for an ample amount of time to practice it out. Read it forwards and backwards (seriously... read your 1AC completely backwards as practice, and not just once but until you get smooth with it). It's your baby. You should sound convincing and without much error. If you are constantly stumbling over your words, you need to cut out evidence and slow down. Tags need to be optimized for brevity and you should SLOW DOWN when reading over the TAG and CITATION. And you should be able to answer any question thrown at you in c/x. 2A should rarely, if ever, be answering for you.

1NC

• Operates much like a 1AC, in that you have your shells already fully prepared, and only really need to adjust slightly depending on if the 1AC has changed anything material. If you are just shelling off case, then you are basically giving a 1AC, and you should be clear, concise, and persuasive. As with 1ACs, if you are stumbling over yourself, you need to cut out evidence/arguments. If you are arguing case side, you need to place the arguments appropriately, not just globally across case. Is this an Inherency argument? Solvency? Harms mitigation? Pick out the actual signposted argument on case and apply it there. As with 1A, your 2 should not be answering questions for you in c/x.

2AC

• If the 1NC did not argue case, I do not need you to extend each and every card on case. "Extend case," is pretty much all I need. Further, this is a great opportunity to use any of the 1AC evidence against the off-case arguments made. Did you drop a 50 States Bad pre-empt in the 1AC? Cross-apply it ON THE COUNTERPLAN. I don't need you extending it on case side which literally has zero ink from the 1NC on it. KEEP THE FLOW CLEAN.

• You should be following 1NC structure, and line-by-lining all their arguments. Just getting up and reading a block on an argument is likely going to end up badly for you, because this is shallow-level, novice-style debate, that tends to miss critical argumentation. I need you to *INTERACT* with the 1NC argumentation, and block reading is generally not that.

2NC

• First and foremost, you need to make sure you are creating a crystal clear separation between you and the 1NR in the negative block. Optimally, this means you take WHOLE arguments, not, "I'm gonna take the alt on the K and my partner will take the rest of the K." Ugh. No. Don't do this. Ever. It's awful and it ruins the structure and organization of the round. If there were three major arguments made in 1NC, let's say T, K, and COUNTERWARRANTS, you should be picking two of those three and leaving the third one completely untouched for the 1NR to handle.

• Use original 1NC structure to guide your responses to 2AC argumentation. Like the above, you should not be reading a block to 2AC answers. You need to specifically address each one, and using the original 1NC structure helps keep order to the negative construction of argumentation.

1NR

• Following from the above, you should not be recovering anything the 2NC did, unless something was missed that needs coverage. You should be focused on a separate argument from the 2NC. As above, don't just get up and read a block. Clash! Line-by-line! Make the 1AR's job harder.

1AR

• The hardest speech in the game. This is a coverage speech, not a persuasive speech. By all means, if you can be persuasive while covering, great, but your first job is full coverage. You do not need to give long explanations of points. Yes, you do need to respond to 2NC & 1NR responses to 2AC argumentation, but much of the analysis should have already been made. Here's where you want to go back and extend original 1AC and 2AC argumentation, and you only need to say "Extend original 1AC Turbinson 15, which says that despite policies existing on the books in the SQ, they continue to fail, everything the Negs argued on this point is subsumed by Turbinson, because these are all pre-plan policies." The part you don't need to do here is get into the *why* those plans fail. That's your partner's job to tell the big story. Again, if you are good enough to pull this off in 1AR, that's amazing and incredible, but no one is expecting that out of this speech. All judges are looking for from the 1AR is a connection from original constructive argumentation to the 2AR rebuttal. Rounds are generally NEVER won in 1AR, but they are often lost here. Your job, as it were, is essentially to not lose the round. Great 1ARs, however, begin to combine some of the global, story-telling aspects of 2AR on line-by-line analysis. But one thing none of them do is sacrifice coverage for that. Coverage is your a priori obligation and once you master that, then start telling your 1AR stories.

• Put things like Topicality and the Counterplan on the top of the flow.

2NR & 2AR

• Tell me why you win. Weigh the issues and impacts. Tell me what they are wrong about or analysis/argumentation they dropped. Frame the round.

Specific Argumentation

Topicality

• I tend to believe that any case that is reasonably topical is topical. You have to work hard to prove non-topicality to me, but that does not mean I will not vote for it. 2AC should always have a block which says they meet both the Neg definition and interpretation, as well presents their own definition and interpretation.

Kritik

• And as a bit of history, when I was a debater, the Kritik was an extremely divisive argument, with more than half of the judges my senior year (1994/95) demonstrably putting their pen down when we'd shell it and would refuse to flow or listen to it. We decided that we were not going to adjust for these judges and ran the K as a pretty much full time Negative argument and we were the first team in the State of Minnesota debate to do this. This made sense at the time as the topic was Immigration and a solid 75% of the cases we hit were increased border partrol, or ID cards, or reducing slots, etc. So, I'm quite familiar with the argumentation and I'm sympathetic to it. But I also feel it is overused in a sense when much more direct argumentation can defeat Affs and I would venture to guess many of the authors used in K construction would not advocate its use against Affs which seek redress for disadvantaged groups. I want you to seriously consider the appropriateness of the link scenario before you run a K.

• Negs need to do a lot of work to win these with me. It can't just be the rehashing of tag lines over and over and over. You need to have read the original articles that construct your argumentation so you can explain to me not only what the articles are saying, but are versed on the rather large, college-level words you are throwing around. Further, I find kritiks to be an advocacy outside of the round. I find it morally problematic to get up in the 1NC and argue "here are all these things that impact us outside of the round because fiat is illusory" and then kick out of this in the 2NR.

• I also want you to seriously consider the merit of running these arguments against cases which seek to redress disadvantaged groups. While I get the zeal of shoving it down some puke capitalist's throat, I question whether running said argumentation against a case which seeks, for example, to just provide relevant sex education for disabled or GLBTQ folx as appropriate. You're telling me after all these years of ignoring educational policy which benefits straight, cis, white guys that *now's the time* to fight capitalism or biopower or whatever when the focus on the case is to help those who are extremely disadvantaged in the SQ. This is an argument that proffers out-of-round impacts and I certainly understand the ground that allows this kind of argumentation to be applied, but a K is a different kind of argument, and I think it runs up against some serious issues when it attempts to lay the blame for something like capitalism at the feet of people who are getting screwed over in the SQ.

• I'm going to copy my friend Rachel Baumann's bit on the identity K stuff: "I will also admit to being intrigued with the culture-based positions which question the space we each hold in the world of debate. I have voted both for and against these arguments, but I struggle with which context would be the appropriate context in which to discuss this matter. The more I hear them, the less impressed I am with identity arguments, mostly because, again, I struggle with the context. Also, there is the issue of ground. Saying "vote against them because they are not... X" (which is an actual statement I heard in an actual round by an actual debater this year) seems just as constraining as the position being debated, and does not provide the opposing team any real debatable ground."

Case

• I will vote on IT ALL. Their barrier is existential? Well, that's an old school argument and I will totally vote on an Aff not meeting their prima facie burden, and I will not find it cute or kitsch or whatever. It is a legitimate argument and I am more than happy to vote there, but you have to justify the framework for me.

• Negatives must keep in mind that unless you have some crystal clear, 100% solvency take out, you are generally just mitigating their comparative advantage. Make sure that you aren't overstating what you are doing on case and that you weigh whatever you are doing off case against this.

Theory

• Also into it all and will vote on it. I think Vagueness and Justification and Minor Repairs all are quite relevant today with how shoddily affirmatives are writing their plans. Use any kind of argumentation that is out there, nothing is too archaic or whatever to run. Yes, this means counterwarrants!

*

*

Lincoln Douglas:


Much of the above for Policy crosses over into LD. I often sit in LD rounds where the criterion and value are mentioned at the front end of the debate and then never again. It would seem to me that these help bolster a framework debate and you're asking me to lock into one of these in order to influence how I vote, so then never really mentioning them again, nor using them to shape the direction of the debate always confuses the heck outta lil ol' me. Weigh the issues, write the ballot for me. Not locking argumentation down forces me to go through my flows and insert myself into the debate. Will vote on critical argumentation on either side (check my responses on 'distance from the resolution' up in the policy part, applies here as well) and you can never go too fast for me so don't worry.

*

*

Public Forum:

The requisite "I'm a policy coach, you can do whatever with me in PF" applies. Just tell me how to vote.

Adapted from a fellow coworker:

Likes

- Voters and weighing. I don't want to have to dig back through my flow to figure out what your winning arguments were. If you're sending me back through the flow, you're putting way too much power in my hands.

- Clear sign posting and concise taglines.

- Framework. If you have a weighing mechanism, state it clearly and provide a brief explanation.

- Unique arguments. Debate is an educational activity, so you should be digging deep in your research and finding unique arguments. If you have a unique impact, bring it in. I judge a lot of rounds and I get tired of hearing the same case over and over and over again.

Dislikes

-Just referencing evidence by the card name (author, source, etc.). When I flow, I care more about what the evidence says, not who the specific source was. If you want to reference the evidence later, you gotta tell me what the evidence said, not just who said it.

-SPEED. I'm a policy coach. There is no "too fast" for me in PF. Seriously. There's no way possible and anti-speed args in PF won't move me in the slightest. Beat them heads up.

-Evidence misrepresentation. If there is any question between teams on if evidence has been used incorrectly, I will request to see the original document and the card it was read from to compare the two. If you don't have the original, then I will assume it was cut improperly and judge accordingly.

-Don't monopolize CX time. Answer quickly the question asked with no editorializing.

-"Grandstanding" on CX. CX is for you to ask questions, not give a statement in the form of a question. Ask short, simple questions and give concise answers.

-One person taking over on Grand CX. All four debaters should fully participate. That said, I really don't need any of the PF niceties and meta communication. Just ask away. Seriously. The meta performance of cordiality seems like a waste of time in a format with the least time to speak.

-K cases. I'll vote for em. K arg's same. If you hit a K arg, don't deer-in-headlights it. Think about it rationally. Defend your rhetoric and/or assumptions. Question the K's assumptions. Demand an alternative. Does the team running the K bite the K themselves? What's the role of the ballot under the K? There's plenty of ways to poke a sharp stick at a K. Simply sticking your head in the sand and arguing "we shouldn't be debating this" is not and will never be a compelling argument for me and you basically sign the ballot for me if the other team extends it and goes for the K with only your refusal to engage it as your counter argumentation.

General

-Evidence Exchanges. If you are asked for evidence, provide it in context. If they ask for the original, provide the original. I won't time prep until you've provided the evidence, and I ask that neither team begins prepping until the evidence has been provided. If it takes too long to get the original text, I will begin docking prep time for the team searching for the evidence and will likely dock speaker points. It is your job to come to the round prepared, and that includes having all your evidence readily accessible.

-If anything in my paradigm is unclear, ask before the round begins. I'd rather you begin the debate knowing what to expect rather than start your brutal post round grilling off with one-arm tied behind your back. ;)

Weighing

I do bring a policy comparative advantage approach to PF. In the end I believe there are two compelling stories that are butting heads and which one both 1) makes the most sense, and 2) is backed up by argumentation and evidence in round. I am pretty middle of the road on truth vs tech, requiring a lot less when the arg aligns with the truth, but if you are cold dropping stuff there's no amount of reality I can intervene to make up for that. You are each attempting to construct a scenario to weigh against the other and I'm deciding which one makes more sense based on the aforementioned factors. Point out to me how you've answered their main questions and how your evidence subsumes their argumentation. Point out your strongest path to victory and attempt to block their road. Don't just rely on thinking your scenario is better, you must also harm theirs.

No one really gets their full scenario, it's all a bunch of weighing risk and probability and if you can inject doubt into the other teams scenario, it goes a long way towards helping weigh the risk of your scenario against yours. Keep the flow clean and do this work for me and you'll get your ballot.

kentucky '25

annastockstill11@gmail.com

- please please format the email chain correctly -- tournament name -- round # -- name (aff) vs name (neg)

POLICY

- do what you want, i genuinely don't care what you run and will listen to every argument within reason

- make my ballot for me -- don't make me have to debate the round for you because i won't -- tell me why i'm voting aff/neg and what i'm voting on

- cx is binding and i will flow it

- i enjoy watching methods debates but am probably a better judge for clash rounds

- the case debate is under-utilized in most debates

- i love impact turns (please nothing offensive though)

- condo is probably good - i can be persuaded otherwise but if it's less than 5 it will be an uphill battle

- i LOVE a good T debate

- "better team usually wins |---x---------------------| the rest of this" -- dave arnett

+0.1 speaks if you can make me laugh

- have fun and if you have any questions, just ask!

PF

coach for ivy bridge academy

- explain your arguments well -- i will never vote on an argument that i don't get a full explanation of

- crossfire is binding and i will flow it

- final focus should be writing my ballot for me -- tell me why i should vote pro/con and what arguments i'm voting for

LD

- i have limited experience judging/coaching LD and will judge it like its a short policy round

- i'm probably better for k or larp rounds

- i'm not sure why teams think that perm double bind is sufficient enough to win a round on

- i do not like voting on egregious theory but i begrudgingly will - that being said if theory/tricks comprise your core strat i will not be pleased

- since LD rounds are pretty short, i prefer when you really commit to one strategy

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.

*Updated November 2023*

CONTACT INFORMATION

Email: thurt11@gmail.com

LD NOTE

I've been in debate for fifteen years as a competitor, judge, and coach. In that time, I've almost exclusively done policy debate (I think I've judged <10 LD rounds ever). That's to say, judging LD at the Glenbrooks will be a bit different for me.

I don't think you'll need to dramatically adjust how you debate. In fact, I'd prefer to judge you in your best style/approach/form. Relatedly, I don't think I'm particularly ideological, and I'm like not a bus driver or parent who has been dropped into the judge pool. That said, be aware of my still-developing topic knowledge, norms of LD, and theory. I will do my best to resolve the debate before me. That said, folks should know that I'll likely have many idiosyncracies of someone who has basically always been in policy debate.

PF NOTE

Much of what is said about LD is true here too. Some thoughts on evidence that I stole from Greg Achten:

First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence. The only exception to this is if one team chooses not to participate in the email thread and the other team does then all time used for evidence exchanges will be taken from the prep time of the team who does NOT email their cases.

PERSONAL BACKGROUND/INTRODUCTION

I debated for four years at Marquette University High School in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Go Packers/Brewers/Bucks! In college, I debated for four years at Michigan State University, earning three first-round bids and a semifinals appearance at the NDT.

Currently, I work on the non-debate side of Michigan State, doing education data analysis, program evaluation, and professional development. On the side, I coach for Georgetown University. I still love debate, but it is no longer my day job. Given that, I'm not a content expert on this topic like some of your other judges might be.

More generally, any given debate can get in-depth quickly, so you should be careful with acronyms/intricacies if you think that your strategy is really innovative or requires a deep understanding of your specific mechanism. Teams sometimes get so deep in the weeds researching their business that they forget to provide a basic explanation for the argument's context/history/background. Instead, they jump into the most advanced part of the topic. If something is creative, that's an issue because it's likely the judge's first time hearing it.

Everyone says it and almost no one means it, but I think that you should debate what you care about/what interests you/what you're good at doing. In other words, put me in the "big-tent" camp. All of the stuff below is too long and shouldn't impact your debating (maybe besides the meta issues section). It really is just my thoughts (vs. a standard), and is only included to offer insight into how I see debate.

META ISSUES/ABBREVIATED PHILOSOPHY/STRIKE CARD ESSENTIAL

1. Assuming equal debating (HUGE assumption), I'm *really* bad for the K on the neg/as planless aff. I find myself constantly struggling with questions in decision-time like: Does the neg ACTUALLY have a link to the plan's MECHANISM or even their SPECIFIC representations? What is the alternative? How does that advocacy change the extremely sweeping and entrenched problems identified in the 1NC/2NC impact evidence? If it's so effective, why doesn't it overcome the links to the plan? If the alt is just about scholarship/ethics/some -ology, how does that compare to material suffering outlined by the 1AC? This year, some of these biases are accentuated by the "disarm" and negative state action planks of the topic. On the affirmative, I think there are many creative ways to critically defend the idea of ending nuclear weapons (especially by the "United States" rather than the "United States federal government"). On the negative, I have hitherto been unimpressed with the Ks of "disarm" (like the ACTUAL "We end the nukes and dismantle them because they risk horrific US first use/nukes are bad" disarm) I've seen.

In the end, when I vote negative for Ks or affirmative for planless affs, it's generally because the losing team dropped a techy ballot like ethics first, serial policy failure, or "we're a PIK." Do you, don't overadapt, and feel confident that I approach every debate with the intention of deciding the question of "who did the better debating?" REGARDLESS of the subject of the debate. Relatedly, know that I'm excited to have the chance to evaluate your arguments (even if it's really late and I'd rather not be judging at all in the abstract) basically no matter what you say. Instead, I would take my above biases as things to keep an eye out for from your opponents/come up with novel responses to/overcover/etc.

2. College debate made me more oriented to tech than truth. In my experience as a debater and judge, ignorance of tech resulted in a callous dismissal of arguments as “bad” and increased judge intervention to determine what is “correct” instead of what was debated in the round and executed more effectively. That said, truth is a huge bonus, and being on the right side makes your task of being technically proficient easier because you can let logic/evidence speak a little for you.

3. I care about evidence quality - to an extent. Debate is a communicative activity, and I'm not going to re-read broad swaths of evidence to ensure that your opponents read a card on all their claims. To be clear, I do think that part of my role in judging is comparing evidence *when it's contested and through the lens with which it was challenged.* Put concretely, if your 2NR says "all their evidence is trash and doesn't say anything" or is silent on evidence comparison, I'm not gonna be doing you any favors and looking at the speech doc. I'm certainly not going to be reading un-underlined text in 1AC/1NC cards without explicit direction of what I'm looking for. Instead, if you're like "Their no prolif cards are all before Kishida and only talk about means vs. motive," I'm happy to read a pile of cards, looking to assess their quality on those two grounds. If that sounds time-consuming for your final rebuttals, it is. You should create time by condensing the debate down to the core issues/places of evidentiary disagreement.

4. Every round could use more calculus and comparisons. The most obvious example of this thesis is with impact calc, but I think there is a laundry list of other examples like considering relative risk, quality of evidence, and author qualifications. As a format, any of these comparisons should have a reason why your argument is preferable, a reason why that frame is important, and a reason why your opponent’s argument is poor/viewed through a poor lens. In the context of impact calc, this framework means saying that your impact outweighs on timeframe, that timeframe is important, and that while your opponent’s impact might have a large magnitude, I should ignore that frame of decision-making. Engaging your opponents’ arguments on a deeper level and resolving debates is the easiest way to get good points. Beyond that, making a decision is functionally comparing each team’s stance/evidence quality/technical ability on a few nexus questions, so if you’re doing this work for me you will probably like my decision a lot more.

5. I hold debaters to a high standard for making an argument. Any claim should be supported with a warrant, evidence, and impact on my decision. Use early speeches to get ahead on important questions. For instance, I won’t dismiss something like “Perm do Both,” but I think the argument would be bolstered by a reason why the perm is preferable in the 2AC (i.e. how it interacts with the net benefits) instead of saving those arguments for the 1AR/2AR. By the way, you should consider this point my way out in post-rounds where you're like "but I said X...It was right here!" For me, if something is important enough to win/lose a debate, you should spend a significant amount of time there, connect, and make sure your claim is *completely* and *thoughtfully* warranted.

6. All debates have technical mistakes, but not all technical mistakes are equal or irreversible. Given those assumptions, the best rebuttals recognize flaws and make “even if” statements/explain why losing an argument does not mean they lose the debate. I think debaters fold too often on mistakes. Just because you dropped a theory argument doesn’t mean you cannot cross-apply an argument from another theory argument, politics, or T to win.

7. I'm a bad judge for yes/no arguments like "presumption," "links to the net benefit absolutely," or "zero risk of X." I think the best debaters work in the grey areas.

8. Things people don't do enough:

a) Start with the title for their 1NC off case positions (i.e. first off states)

b) Give links labels (i.e. our "docket crowdout link" or "our bipart link")

c) Explain what their plan actually does - For instance (in college), what nuclear forces do you disarm? Who does it? What is the mechanism? I've decided that if the aff is vague to an egregious extent, I'll be super easy on the negative with DA links and CP competition. Aff vagueness is also a link to circumvention and explains why fiat doesn't solve definitional non-compliance. I will say, I'd rather lacking aff clarity (e.g. when aff's include resolutional language in their plan and say "plan text in a vacuum") be resolved by PICs/topic DAs than by T. I don't think that the negative gets to fully define the plan or have some weird positional competition vision for T even if I think 2As frequently dance around what they do. Punish affs for ambiguity and lazy plan writing for the purposes of T on substance!

d) Call out new arguments - I don't have sympathy if you *wish* you said no impact in the 2AC. There are times that I wish it existed, but there isn't and can't be a 3AC. I will say that for mostly pragmatic reasons, I'm not to the point of reviewing every new 1AR argument. I'll protect the 2NR for the 2AR, but you have to do the work before that.

9. Random (likely to change) topic thoughts:

a) Both sides are likely to get to some risk of Russia and/or China nuke war. The best 2Ns/2As will dehomogenize these impacts based on scenarios for escalation and their internal links.

b) Be careful your UQ CP doesn't overwhelm the link to your DA. Sometimes the neg goes a bit too far. I do love a good UQ CP though!

c) This is a rare topic where I'm less interested in process stuff! Who would've thought?

d) Debated equally, I'm 60/40 that we should include NFU subsets and "disarm" actions that fall short of "elimination/abolition." I get the evidence is good. I'd just abstractly rather have these arguments as affs than PICs/would prefer a bit more than the smallest topic since single payer.

GENERIC DISPOSITIONS

Planless affirmatives – The affirmative would ideally have a plan that defends action by the United States (least important). The affirmative should have a direct tie to the topic. In the context of the college resolution, this means you would have a defense of decreasing nukes/their role (pretty important). The affirmative MUST defend the implementation of said "plan" - whatever it is (MOST important). While I will NOT immediately vote negative on T or “Framework” as a procedural issue, if you don’t defend instrumental implementation of a topical plan *rooted in the resolutional question*, you will be in a tough spot. I’m especially good for T/Framework if the affirmative dodges case turns and debates over the question if nukes are good or bad. In particular, I am persuaded by arguments about why these affirmatives are unpredictable, under-limit the topic, and create a bad heuristic for problem-solving. Short version is that you can do you and there is always a chance I’ll vote for you, but I’m probably not an ordinal one for teams that don’t want to engage the resolutional question.

I do want to say that at tournaments with relaxed prefs, I will do my absolute best to keep an open mind about these assumptions. That shouldn't be read as "Thur says he's open to our planless aff - let's move him up to push down 'policy' people." It should be read as if I come up at one of these tournaments, you might as well do what you're most comfortable with/what you've practiced the most instead of over-adapting.

Critiques—Honestly, just read the first point in the "meta issues" section. I understand neolib/deterrence/security pretty well because they were a big part of my major. If you want to push against my confusion on the K (as a concept), you need to have specific links to the plan’s actions, authors, or representations. Again, trying to be honest, if you're itching to say Baudrillard, Bataille, Deleuze, death good, etc., I'm not your guy. On framework, the affirmative will almost surely be able to weigh their 1AC (unless they totally airball), and I'm pretty hesitant to place reps/scholarship/epistemology before material reality. One other thing - substitute out buzzwords and tags for explanation. Merely saying "libidinal economy" or "structural antagonism" without some evidence and explanation isn't a win condition.

In terms of being affirmative against these arguments, I think that too often teams lose sight of the easy ballots and/or tricks. The 1AR and 2AR need to “un-checklist” those arguments. In terms of disproving the critique, I think I’m pretty good for alternative fails/case outweighs or the permutation with a defense of pragmatism or reformism. Of those 2 - I'm best for "your alt does nothing...we have an aff..."

Case- I’m a huge fan. With that, I think that it’s very helpful for the neg (obviously?). I believe that no matter what argument you plan to go for, (excluding T/theory) case should be in some part of the 2nr. In the context of the critique, you can use case arguments to prove that the threats of the 1AC are flawed or constructed, that there are alternative causes to the affirmative that only the alternative solves, or that the impacts of the affirmative are miniscule and the K outweighs. For CPs, even if you lose a solvency deficit, you can still win because the net benefit outweighs the defended affirmative. Going for case defense to the advantage that you think the CP solves the least forces me to drop you twice as I have to decide the CP doesn’t solve AND that the case impact outweighs your net-benefit. That seems like a pretty good spot to be in.

CP- My favorite ones are specific to the 1AC with case turns as net benefits. Aside from that, I think that I am more inclined than most to vote aff on the perm when there is a trivial/mitigated net benefit vs. a smallish solvency deficit, but in the end I would hope you would tell me what to value first. I had a big section written up on theory, and I decided it's too round-dependent to list out. I still think that more than 2 conditional positions is SUPER risky, functional > textual competition, competition is dictated by mandates and not outcomes (i.e. CPs that are designed to spur follow-on are very strategic), judge kick is good, consult/condition/delay/threaten generally suck, and interpretations matter A LOT.

Topicality- People have started flagging violations based on things not in the plan (solvency lines, advocate considerations, aff tags, 2ac arguments, etc.). This is a bad way to understand T debates. The affirmative defines the plan, positional competition is bad, plan text in a vacuum makes sense, and the way to beat teams that include resolutional language in the plan is on PICs not T.

I default to reasonability, but I can be convinced that Competing Interpretations is a decent model. The negative does not need actual abuse, but they do need to win why their potential abuse is likely as opposed to just theoretical. That is, I'll be less persuaded by a 25-item case list than a really good explanation of a few devastating new affirmatives they allow. If I were to pick only one standard to go for, it would be predictable limits. They shape all pre-round research that guides in-round clash and ensure that debates are dialogues instead of monologues. Finally, as a framing point, I generally think bigger topics = better.

SPEAKER POINTS

They're totally broken...

I'll try to follow the below scale based on where points have been somewhat recently.

29.4 to 29.7 – Speaker Award - 1 to 10

29.2 to 29.3 – Speaker Award - 11 to 25

28.9 to 29.1 – Should break/Have a chance

28.4 to 28.8 – Outside chance at breaking to .500

28 to 28.3 – Not breaking, sub-.500

27 to 27.9 – Keep working

Below 26 – Something said/done warranting a post-round conversation with coaches

Please no spreading. I look for strong voters, good clash, and signposting. Crossfire/cross ex periods are not flowed.

Email: sarithavankayala@gmail.com

I'm a Lay Judge. So, avoid running DA's, counterplans, plans, theory, critics, and other technical arguments. Speak clearly with good enunciation for me to best understand what you are talking about. If you speak very fast, I may not catch your actual intention

Bring the VOLUME, not the PACE! In other words, try to SPEAK CLEARLY and LOUDLY, but not FAST!

Don't use buzzwords, i wont be able to understand debate jargon.

Keep it structured like an argumentative paper! (Intro, three points, conclusion [with several sub-points in your main points])

To ensure that I catch all the most important parts of your case (like the value, value criterion, and each of your contentions), try to slow down and emphasize when you are introducing your framework and each of your contentions. Throughout your entire case, speak clearly.

Do your thing. Just keep your flow going and do your best; anything works! Depict good communication skills and try to elaborate as much as you can on your arguments!

I like a good cross fire.

Be nice! :) Any rudeness, discrimination, or any negative comments will NOT be dismissed but will be used AGAINST you during your rounds.

Make strong weighing arguments and explain clearly why your contentions fit the winning framework better than the opponent's contentions.
Keep track of time and maintain formality throughout the round.

I am looking forward to judging your debates. Good luck debaters!

I have an extensive history in debate. I did LD in high school and CEDA in college. I have coached NPDA, IPDA and BP as well as a full spectrum of speech events. I am currently the Director at the University of Washington Bothell.

I prefer clash debate. I don't mind speed as long as everyone in the competition is happy with that. Debate should not leave anyone out. Make sure to meet criteria. After that, I try to be tab and judge on what the debaters bring into the round.

email: verma_classes@outlook.com

Parent lay judge with not much experience judging circuit debates. 

Please be clear in your speeches for me to follow you and flow. Also, please provide docs.

Above all, be kind.

I am a parent judge and new to LD.  It is important that debaters speak clearly and in a conversational speed.

I care most about the round being safe, so let me know if you need any accommodations beforehand (FB message me or email me at keyu.vijapure@gmail.com).

Debate how you're comfortable. I’m tab, so feel free to read anything non-exclusionary, including progressive arguments (but make sure you explain them and don’t spread cuz I can’t keep up with that).

Dropped defense will stick, even if unextended (as long as it hasn’t been frontlined by your opponents).

Hi. I am a lay judge for pf (all other events, treat me as a VERY lay judge) , don't spread, run prog, or run silly args. Still a truth > tech judge except that I can flow and vote based off that.

I understand basic stuff like basic weighing terms (magnitude, probability, scope, timeframe), but definitely not K's, theory, trix, framework, etc. My daughter did debate from her freshmen year to senior year, and now is in college. My son is currently debating as well.

I value clarity over speed. However, please don't spread, even if you are very clear. I can't understand it that well, and can't flow that fast. I also WILL NOT accept speech docs.

Don't run 20 contentions. Focus on a good amount. (Quality > Quantity!)

An argument/contention is claim, warrant, impact. No impact, no warrant, no claim -> no argument.

Be nice. Not doing so might impact speak point if that's in the tournament I'm judging.

PLEASE WEIGH AND EXTEND!
Or else, what am I going to vote based off of?

If I'm interested, I might ask for cards after the debate is over. If you miscut it or powertag it, I might drop you.

No matter how good this paradigm is at english, my first language is not english. Please don't use too superflouous words (get what I did there)? I understand stuff like card, contention, block, but not turn, nonunique, delink, or stuff like that.

P. S. This was made by his son because his previous one was 28 words. In round, his english will not be this great, and he definitely won't make puns. Don't expect your RFD or comments to be this great either. Use the following example to see his paradigm expressed by him alone.

His previous paradigm was:
The following is what I will consider more valuable in the debate: clarity over speed, quality over quantity, argument = claim with warrant, attitude=nice to others

My name is Zi Wang (Zee).

I'm a parent judge. I'd prefer traditional debates over progressive and normally don't vote on tricks, Ks, theory, etc. Please don't go too fast and make your arguments clear. Make sure that you weigh and give clear voters.

Tech>Truth

Email: ziwangdebate@gmail.com

he/him/they/them

wvontrez@gmail.com

For college debate, use this email: debatecsuf@gmail.com

CSUF 22

Coach @ Harvard Westlake

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

S Tier - LARP, Plan v K
A tier - Clash of Civs
B tier - K v K, Phil
C tier - Theory debates, Trix

D/F tier - memes

I did policy debate for 4 years at Downtown Magnets (shout out LAMDL) and 4 years at Cal State Fullerton. I debated mostly truthy performance debates and one-off K strats in high school and debated the K in a very technical way in college. Currently coach flex teams in LD.

I would say my debate influences are Jared Burke, Shanara Reid-Brinkley, Jonathan Meza, Anthony Joseph, Travis Cochran, Toya Green, and Scotty P.

TLDR: I will vote for anything, as long as it's impacted out. The list of preferences is based on my comfort with the argument. Fine with speech drop or email chain.

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

General

I think debate is a game that can have heavy implications on life and influence a lot of things

Tech > Truth, unless the Tech is violent (racism good, sexism good, etc.)

Good for all speeds, but clarity is a must

I default my prioritization to theory, T, and then substance. This can be changed if argued

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

Theory

Disclosure is probably good, can vote on the impact turn though

Yes competing interps, lean no RVIs, DTD

Shells need an interp, violation, standards, voter

Reasonability OK but explain why you are reasonable

Need a good abuse story/how does my ballot set norms? Why does my ballot matter? How does this implicate future debates?

I think condo is good

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

LARP

Absurd internal link chains should be questioned

Default util

No zero-risk

Uniqueness controls the link

Impact turns are good

Perms are tests of competition, not new advocacies

Yes judge kick

New evidence in NR as long as it's a logical extension of the NC. I'm okay with the 2AR doing this as well to check back, but it may not be strategic.

Will read evidence if told to do so

Quality ev > Card dump of bad ev

CPs need to compete on a functional and textual level

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

K

I have a reading background in several critical literature bases. I am most read in anti-capitalist theory, afro pessimism, fugitive black studies, settler colonialism, and Baudrillard. For the sake of the debate, assume I know nothing and explain your K.

Winning theory of power important

Perm solves the link of omission

Specific link > state bad link

Contextualized link > state bad link

Affs should weigh the aff vs. the K, negs should tell me why this isn't possible OR deal with affs impacts.

Extinction outweighs debate probably good here

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

K Affs

I appreciate affirmatives that are in the direction of the topic. Affs that don't defend any portion of the resolution need a heavy defense of doing so

I try not to have a leaning into T-FW debates, but I find myself often voting negative. Similar to Theory/T, I would love to hear about the affirmative's model of debate compared to the negative's. Impact turns to their model are awesome but there is a higher bar if I don't know what your model is.

Read a TVA -- Answer the TVA

Fairness is an impact. Clash is important. Education matters

KvK debates are super interesting, but I hate when they become the Oppression Olympics. Perms are encouraged. Links of omission are not. Contextualize links to the affirmative and clearly tell me how to evaluate the round.

Presumption isn't gone for enough in these debates

Lean yes on perms in KvK/method debates

Performances should be used offensively. I will flow your poems/videos/whatever, just have a defense of it and utilize it to win

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

Phil

I think phil AC/NCs are interesting

Explain it well and you will be fine

Default epistemic confidence if the AC is phil

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

Tricks

Do not hide tricks

Answer them

Preferably not extempted

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

Speaker Points

Pretty much summed up here

If you make a joke about Jared Burke, +.1 speaker point

Okay SO this paradigm was really outdated since the last time I updated it. No longer a PF stickler.

Instructed at NSD 2023

Grands -- I have recently learned what the topic is. Please overexplain. Please be good on the flow so I can be happy voting for you. I think there is a comfortable middle ground for you to not split the panel.

IDCA: Same things in CX as in LD, more ideologically disposed against tricks -- have not judged many rounds on the hs topic so please overexplain.

TL;DR: Pref me high if you have proficient technical and interesting debates (Policy and Kritikal). It doesn't really matter what I evaluate, pretty 50/50 on TFWK and Non-T Affs. I find Phil a perk of LD debate but still please provide a substantive explanation on why I should be voting for you. Please have better theory debates. (Also good for an agreed upon Trad round)

I FLOW BY EAR: (meaning I don't backflow the doc if I don't feel like it) I tap out at around 340 WPM, signpost if you really want something heard. You can ask to see my flow after round.

Yes I want to be on the chain, send the doc on time or early: davidwu2027@u.northwestern.edu

Please slow down for online debate.

Hi! I'm David, a first year debating at Northwestern. I've been doing debate for about 8 years. I've done literally every style of debate, thinking about NDT-CEDA right now.

You can spread, be as progressive as you want, literally make whatever argument you want in round as long as it doesn't support any isms. If you do, I will probably instantly drop you with an L 25.

Pref me (How good I am at evaluating rounds (I can trust my evaluation in everything but dense phil)

1 - K, Performance, IdPol, Baudrillard

2 - Pomo, Theory, CX

3 - Trix

4 - High Off (please don't make me flip through 9off)

5 - Your Phil literature, including Kant, Trad

For LD

Literally any form of disclosure is probably a good practice. Please send out your docs ASAP. I'm pretty tabula rasa as a judge. I'm also not very expressive but when I do emote you should very well keep note of it. If you're reading non-black afropess "I will watch you like a hawk" (stolen from someone else's paradigm). I'll yell clear once then your speaks can take the hit. If I didn't flow it it didn't happen.

Defaults (Literally can be changed with a line)

Neg on presumption.

The Aff should probably be topical.

Condo is fine.

Theory is DTA, no RVI.

Whatever framing comes first.

Perfcon is fine.

Debate in general is okay otherwise you wouldn't be participating in it.

CP's have to be both functionally and definitionally competitive.

Okay with postrounding. I did it "a lot" but only in a respectful manner up until the time people have to go for their next round. I should be able to defend my decision if I made it.

I'm pretty easy with speaks. Probably around a 28.5 or above but speaking is all ethos and speaks are always going to be arbitrary. They're up to MY discretion so do things that make ME happy and you'll probably see it reflected in your speaks (even though you might not pick up the ballot). The two are also correlated.

For PF

Do literally anything. Go crazy. I want to see PF modernized and people reading security K's or weapons K's are literally the start of it. I spent 3.5 years thinking about what it meant to be a PF debater only to come back to look at it from a progressive debater's perspective.

Defense is never sticky.

Just make sure your version of debate is accessible. If it functionally isn't (spreading over a team that clearly never has faced it) you're probably not gonna like how I end up evaluating the round.

I vote off the flow and give you speaks based on your ethos. Means a LPW is possible. I probably have the most experience reading about international and foreign affairs but I'm not gonna pretend like I have personal icks in round.

Debate is problematic, most of all in PF so I think that there are definitely things that you can do to make the debate experience better for everyone.

I have a REALLY high threshold for voting on theory in this format, needless to say if you execute it like an LD debater I'll be happy to vote for you.

I actually read evidence so if you misrepresent your cards then I will drop you for it. If you read off cut cards ALL THE BETTER!

Signpost and give judge instruction. I want to intervene as little as possible but if your opponents literally instruct me to read a piece of evidence in round then I WILL read it.

I have a lot of people I looked up to in PF. I think smart warranting and good fundamental evidence/knowledge outweighs literally any poorly or mediocrely interpreted card. It's just disappointing to see people just read over the same pre-cut blocks without making better or more intuitive pieces of argumentation.

I really loved PF when I debated it. I thought it was the best thing in the world but I truly believe that it can be better. I think that the reason that I keep coming back to debate is because I fundamentally believe that it is a good thing.

For literally any other event:

I judge to keep track of and identify the best performance, argumentation, and reasoning made in round, but IF I DONT NOTICE IT, keep track of the nuances, PLEASE explain to me. It's critical that I understand the intention of your arguments along with the arguments that you make.

I will bring a commitment to impartiality, rigorous analysis, and clarity in my decision-making. My goal is to assess each argument based on its merit and relevance to the resolution, giving weight to the use of evidence and logical reasoning. I believe in providing equal opportunities for both sides to present their case, and I will strive to maintain a fair and impartial approach in all my evaluations. I prioritize the depth and quality of analysis over the quantity of arguments presented. I value well-developed arguments that demonstrate a thorough understanding of the topic, achieved without the reliance on speed reading techniques.

Hello!

I started to learn LD debate in the summer of 2021. I am a parent judge. I’ve worked in the IT industry for over two decades.

You should speak at a conversational speed and convince me with evidence and reasoning for why I should vote for your side. I will not vote against you for exceeding my preferred speed, but if I cannot understand you when you give speeches (e.g. by spreading), it will not help you.

I feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case. Explain the criterion if it is uncommon. I am a traditional judge. Try not to use Kritiks, Theory or Tricks in your speeches or CX; I may not understand those types of arguments. Contentions, Disadvantages, and Counterplans are fine. Affirmatives may read Plans only if they are topical.

I prefer roadmapping and signposting before every card so that I can properly flow the debate, and I think Voting issues are necessary.

I will vote for whomever persuaded me more that they better uphold the criterion.

Happy debating!

I am a lay judge so please articulate your points and speak clearly.

I will judge based on logically constructed arguments well supported by facts. I am not familiar with technical terms, so please explain them if you use them. My preference is for a straight-forward policy debate.

My background is in economics, finance, and tech, so advanced arguments there will be effective with me. Given that, it will take something really special to move me off of utilitarianism, as Spock says "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one)."

Philosophy (like Kant) and psychology-based arguments will be harder for me to understand and follow so it will be hard for me to vote on them. Off topic arguments will not be effective with me.

(UPDATE FOR 2024 NSDA NATIONALS LD)

I am a parent judge. My child does Circuit LD. Points are given for decorum. Be respectful, be calm during CX, etc.

Please make an email chain with both codes and sides on it and include me at susannayoo2@gmail.com and your competitor!

BIO:

I am a CPA who practices corporate tax. I am socially progressive and fiscally conservative. I appreciate debates centered around what is realistic rather than far fetched possibilities. I will vote based on the quality and integrity of the debate whether I agree or not.

Thank you, and good luck!

TRUTH>TECH

General points:

1. I would enjoy seeing a util debate.
2. Clear and concise speaking and presentation is appreciated.
3. Don't jump back and forth on the flow (BE ORGANIZED), I appreciate it when y'all give road maps and OTR's.
4. Your winning ballot may be based on how well you presented your case whether your case was clear and well understood.
5. My biggest voting issues boil down to whose points make more sense and are more realistic.
6. Feel free to ask me paradigm questions!

CIRCUIT PARADIGM

Pref sheet -
1: Lay
2: LARP
3: Policy Action/Plans etc.
4: Theory
5: Kritiks
S: Anything progressive or tech

General:
Please do not spread, rather be clear and concise. Please conduct yourself with decorum and treat others with respect. Please articulate your arguments succinctly. Give me a clear and concise reason and place to vote. I value organization, and appreciate roadmaps. I am a lay judge and this is my first National Circuit tournament.

Philosophy: As a judge, my primary goal is to impartially evaluate the arguments presented by both sides of the debate. I firmly believe in the importance of logical reasoning, critical thinking, and the presentation of coherent, well-supported arguments. I strive to maintain neutrality throughout the debate and base my decisions solely on the merits of the arguments presented.

Listening Approach: I approach each debate with a commitment to active listening. I will carefully consider each speaker's points, weighing their validity and relevance to the resolution. It is essential for debaters to articulate their arguments clearly and concisely, allowing me to grasp the core of their positions.

Expectations: I expect debaters to adhere to the principles of logic and reason in their speeches. Arguments should be supported by evidence, logic, and sound reasoning rather than relying on emotional appeals or fallacious tactics. Clarity of thought and expression is key to persuading me of the strength of an argument.

Evaluation Criteria:

• Logic and Reasoning: I prioritize arguments that demonstrate logical coherence and are supported by relevant evidence.
• Clarity and Organization: Debaters should present their arguments in a clear and organized manner, making it easy for me to follow their line of reasoning.
• Relevance to Resolution: Arguments should directly address the resolution and contribute meaningfully to the debate's central theme.
• Respectful Conduct: I expect debaters to engage in civil discourse and respect their opponents, avoiding personal attacks or disrespectful behavior.

Decision-Making Process: I will carefully weigh the arguments presented by both sides, considering their strength, relevance, and persuasiveness. I may take notes during the debate to help me remember key points and evaluate the overall flow of the arguments. Ultimately, my decision will be based on which side presents the most compelling case in support of their position.

Final Thoughts: I approach each debate as an opportunity to engage with complex issues and learn from the perspectives of others. I encourage debaters to challenge themselves and each other intellectually, fostering a productive exchange of ideas that contributes to a deeper understanding of the topic at hand.

This paradigm is written mostly for LD debates, which I frequently judge. Towards the end, I have specifics for PF debates, which I also judge, though less frequently.

What preferences do you have, as a judge?

Any progressive arguments, tricks, theories, I can't evaluate. Substantive arguments only, please.

Keep in mind that I am a lay judge. Most lay judges don't have knowledge of or even interest of knowing the nitty-gritty of public debates, and I am certainly one of that kind. You can think of lay judges as ordinary Americans watching politicians debating on TV, or as jurors sitting in a civil court and watching lawyers presenting their cases.

Generally speaking, if you defend your contentions well and put serious dents on your opponent's, you would have a good chance of winning the debate.

In a neck-and-neck round where AFF is winning this argument but NEG is winning the other, I would weigh the importance of each argument. If that still cannot break the tie, it may boil down to tiny things here and there that I won't elaborate here. Fortunately, I rarely had to do a coin flip for tie-breaker.

Logistics

I prefer normal conversational speed because English is not my native language.

If you plan to spread during the debate, it's imperative that you send your scripts/docs in advance, with clear highlighting. Tabroom's doc share feature is good enough, but if you'd like to include me in the email chain, here it is: michael.zhou@gmail.com.

Along the same line, please reduce the usage of jargons to get the most credit out of your claims and arguments.

It's my habit to take notes during the debate and write comments while debaters use their prep time. The purpose is to give instant and candid feedback to both debaters from a judge's perspective and lay out my reasoning for win/lose decision. I hope that helps debaters improve their cases, sharpen their skills and prep for next rounds.

How should debaters approach constructive speeches?

A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments. I am an engineer and practice the principle of reducing complex concepts to the simplest meaningful terms. You may often hear Alert Einstein being quoted "if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Sometimes, less is more.

Arguments should each be addressed individually in a concise manner, with a clear pause before moving to the next argument.

Now, the most important thing! Arguments should be coherent. Let me give an example. If you claim US military presence is the main factor of regional instability and next second you suggest US forces be redeployed from Middle East to Indo-Pacific region, that creates a self-inconsistence. These types of logical mistakes are extremely detrimental to your case's credibility. It's like shooting yourself in the foot. Let me stress this: logics and coherency.

How should debaters approach rebuttal speeches?

I prefer each rebuttal making a brief reference to the specific issue advanced in constructive speeches.

Same as constructive speeches, rebuttals should be delivered succinctly, with emphasis on the key issues.

How should debaters approach evidence?

Citations after article introduction.

How should debaters use values, criteria and arguments to support a value position?

Build the value that is not overly complicated, relatable, and criterion should not be over technical.

What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position?

Empirical.

Here are the reasons.

I am genuinely interested in many disciplines but I rarely read philosophy books, so I can't judge if you approach the resolution from a philosophical angle.

An ideal world exists only in a utopian ideology but we are living in a real world, and an imperfect one. Countless things theoretically ideal or with wonderful intentions have led to total disasters in human history.

So I prefer empirical arguments ONLY.

Please explain your views on critical arguments.

Critical arguments should provide substantial evidence for their support.

How should debaters run on case arguments?

Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples, no paraphrasing.

How should debaters run off case arguments?

Make sure they have a purpose or illustration for the case at hand.

For PF

While most of content above is still generally relevant for PF, I am adding a couple of points specific to public forum debates that help you understand my preferences.

• Have a clearly outlined constructive speech. It would be a huge plus if you start with each of your critical points in an emphasized one-liner, because that saves me time to summarize it for you.
• I generally don't question or ask for evidence, unless your statements are outrageously contradicting with common sense or my knowledge. That does not mean the opponents won't poke holes and challenge you. Which brings my next point.
• I value quality rebuttals and that counts heavily toward decision making of who wins/loses. Meaning if you cannot refute your opponent's critical points effectively, those points will stand. You can think of this process as point reduction. Both you and your opponents start at a perfect 30-point. Every time you have a strong rebuttal, you are reducing points from your opponents. Every time you defend your constructive points well, you are reserving/keeping points for yourself.
• Last but not least, substance is more important than presentation. It's even okay to stutter during debates, and it won't count against you unless your arguments are not cohesive, which shows you are less prepared.

Hi there --

I am a lay judge and I began learning about the world of LD debate in 2022 and have a background in technical communications and writing.

I believe the essence of a strong case is built upon logical arguments backed with appropriate evidence that is concise and easy to understand. The key, hence, is to persuade me that your side is better in an efficient and effective manner, this can include leveraging tools such as clear structure, roadmaps, and signposting. I would prefer no spreading and using counter plans and am not likely to prefer theory arguments. Additionally, debate terminology is not one of my strong suit, so clarity is key.

Good luck and have fun!~