Affiliations:

I am currently coaching 3 teams at lamdl (POLAHS, BRAVO, LAKE BALBOA) and have picked up an ld student or 2. I am pretty familiar with the fiscal redistribution and WANA topics.

I do have a hearing problem in my right ear. If I've never heard you b4 or it's the first round of the day. PLEASE go about 80% of your normal spread for about 20 seconds so I can get acclimated to your voice. If you don't, I'm going to miss a good chunk of your first minute or so. I know people pref partly through speaker points. My default starts at 28.5 and goes up from there. If i think you get to an elim round, you'll prob get 29.0+

Evid sharing: use speechdrop or something of that nature. If you prefer to use the email chain and need my email, please ask me before the round.

What will I vote for? I'm mostly down for whatever you all wanna run. That being said no person is perfect and we all have our inherent biases. What are mine?

I think teams should be centered around the resolution. While I'll vote on completely non T aff's it's a much easier time for a neg to go for a middle of the road T/framework argument to get my ballot. I lean slightly neg on t/fw debates and that's it's mostly due to having to judge LD recently and the annoying 1ar time skew that makes it difficult to beat out a good t/fw shell. The more I judge debates the less I am convinced that procedural fairness is anything but people whining about why the way they play the game is okay even if there are effects on the people involved within said activity. I'm more inclined to vote for affs and negs that tell me things that debate fairness and education (including access) does for people in the long term and why it's important. Yes, debate is a game. But who, why, and how said game is played is also an important thing to consider.

As for K's you do you. the main one I have difficulty conceptualizing in round are pomo k vs pomo k. No one unpacks these rounds for me so all I usually have at the end of the round is word gibberish from both sides and me totally and utterly confused. If I can't give a team an rfd centered around a literature base I can process, I will likely not vote for it. update: I'm noticing a lack of plan action centric links to critiques. I'm going to be honest, if I can't find a link to the plan and the link is to the general idea of the resolution, I'm probably going to err on the side of the perm especially if the aff has specific method arguments why doing the aff would be able to challenge notions of whatever it is they want to spill over into.

I lean neg on condo. Counterplans are fun. Disads are fun. Perms are fun. clear net benefit story is great.

If you're in LD, don't worry about 1ar theory and no rvis in your 1ac. That is a given for me. If it's in your 1ac, that tops your speaks at 29.2 because it means you didn't read my paradigm.

Now are there any arguments I won't vote for? Sure. I think saying ethically questionable statements that make the debate space unsafe is grounds for me to end a round. I don't see many of these but it has happened and I want students and their coaches to know that the safety of the individuals in my rounds will always be paramount to anything else that goes on. I also won't vote for spark, trix, wipeout, nebel t, and death good stuff. ^_^ good luck and have fun debating

Newbie Coach for ADL

I flow.

I give pretty high speaks if you're nice.

Email Chain: Brandonchen.135@gmail.com

Ask in round if you want to know more about me

Please put me on the chain: eckhaski@berkeleyprep.org

I don't really have any preference for what you read, I enjoy all forms of debate, just have fun.

tech > truth

I am a sucker for good judge instruction. I would rather recite specific lines from the 2AR/2NR in my RFD as a filter by which I make my decision than try to independently decipher the importance of an argument relative to what your opponent is saying. Basically, good judge instruction = high speaks and prob a W

do link & impact debating

Open Cross is fine, but I would prefer it didn't happen excessively

time your own speeches

probably fine with whatever lit base you are reading, but that doesn't excuse a lack of explanation

If you have any questions before or after the round, feel free to ask/email me

Yes, email chain or speechdrop are fine. brayden.king99@gmail.com. Also, if you have any questions, feel free to email them to me and I will try to respond as promptly as possible.

If there are questions you have before round that aren’t answered in this paradigm, then feel free to ask!

Background information:

Lee’s Summit High School (MO) 2017

Missouri State University 2021 (NDT/CEDA and NFA LD)

I did debate all throughout high school and college with nearly all that experience in policy debate. I competed in NDT/CEDA tournaments for my first two years and NFA LD throughout.

I want to be able to be lazy in judging, so give me clear impact calculus and overviews, and be sure to follow the flows.

General opinions on debate:

truth over/equal to tech

It’s a game, and there are some rules to that, particularly in H.S., but that doesn’t inherently mean you need to follow them. You can make arguments and give reasons as to why some of the rules may be bad and shouldn’t be followed. E.g. Planless affs- there are many reasons why not upholding U.S.F.G. action is bad (and many why it is). These are debates that can be had. Clash and standards are key here, but don't just spout "fairness and education", especially if it's in a rebuttal. I will hold to you explaining why those are good and the impacts to them.

I probably won't have any problems with speed, but if you’re too fast or unclear, then I’ll let you know.

Policy things:

I lean on the side of extinction outweighs on impact magnitude, but good impact calculation can sway me otherwise. Especially if there was significant work done on reducing the link and/or internal links to extinction. I weigh magnitude, time frame, and probability evenly. If one side explains why extinction-level scenarios are impossible or almost impossible and the other side just says, but extinction outweighs, then the ballot will go to the former.

Impact calc is super important, so please do some!

Please explain how your CP/DA/case turns interact with the affirmative’s case and vice versa. Having a clear link and internal link chain is paramount to effectively weighing your arguments in the rebuttals.

CPs don’t necessarily have to solve all of case if the net benefit outweighs, but you should still tell me why that’s important, and make that argument yourself.

PICs are probably good, but can be abusive (especially with multiple) and, in the round, I will try to have a blank slate on the theory debate.

K things:

Clash is key. Link and perm debates are a mess if you don't know what the alternatives are or how they interact with each other.

Impacts matter! Be sure to explain how to view and weigh them.

PIKs can be legit, but there better be great explanation on how and why.

Form and Presentation:

Generally, I evaluate speaker points on how well the arguments were presented, explained, etc and less on just sounding pretty. While sounding good is still important, I would prefer a more in-depth explanation of your arguments - find a balance between speed and eloquence.

Be respectful! Debates that get excessively aggressive towards a team or specific individuals in round are not fun and are not things I want to see. Win the round by out-debating the other team, not by trying to make them look bad. I WILL dock your speaks if you act indecently and will not tolerate disrespectfulness.

Karissa Kromminga - she/her

Debated 4 years of policy at Washburn Rural - (arms sales, CJR, water, NATO)

Seton Hall University - International Relations and Diplomacy

Pls add me to the email chain: kkromminga04@gmail.com

Top Level:

Tech>truth

I love good line-by-line and case specific debating

Do whatever you need to win rounds. I have arguments that I like / don't like, but I'd rather see you do whatever you do best, than do what I like badly. Have fun. I love this activity, and I hope that everyone in it does as well. Don't be unnecessarily rude, I get that some rudeness happens, but you don't want me to not like you. I will auto vote you down for being discriminatory (racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, etc.) and I will not feel bad about it.

General rule - I need a warranted explanation of what your argument is and why it outweighs/solves whatever the other team went for in order to vote for it.

DAs:

Impact calc is super important for both the aff and the neg. All parts of the DA need to be extended in the 2NR for me to reasonably vote on it. If you only extend the link or only extend the impact I won't give it much weight. The more specific of a link the better, evidence is great, but an in-depth explanation of why the specific mechanism of the aff triggers the link is better than non-contextualized/generic evidence.

Impact turns - I love them, read them. However, this does not include death good, if you read it don't expect me to vote on it.

CPs:

Yes. That being said, I need a 2NR explanation of what the CP actually does in order to vote for it. There has to be a net benefit to the CP that the perm can't access in order for me to vote for it.

I tend to think that CPs that fiat the aff (consult, QPQ, etc) are probably cheating, or easily beat by a perm, but I will vote for them if the aff doesn't extend theory.

I won't judge kick the CP, unless I am told to.

Ks:

I am fairly familiar with the traditional K lit, so if you are reading a K outside of that assume that I am not super familiar with the lit. I have a high threshold for you reading noncontextualized blocks, especially in the 2NR/2AR. Please please please do not just spread through your blocks with no interaction, it will piss me off, and I will tune you out.

Be very clear with signposting during framework and large link walls - however, when extending links please do not just say, "extend X link" with no explanation, that means nothing to me.

K affs: I tend to lean more towards affs having a plan being good, and can be pretty persuaded by a good T push in the 2NR. That being said, I think a lot of 2N’s are bad at extending T, so you might not have that much trouble getting my ballot. I have a very high threshold for T=policing or T=genocide arguments.

K v K: This is area where I am the least familiar. If you want to have this debate, go ahead, but I'll need clear impact calc and explanations from both teams. If I don't understand what your argument is I probably won't vote for it.

T:

I love a good T debate. If you are going for T, make sure to extend your impacts and clash with what your opponent is saying. I tend to lean towards reasonability being a bad standard, but I will vote on it if it is not answered in the debate.

For T-USFG: clash>fairness. Same as above, I have a high threshold for just reading uncontextualized blocks. I think that switch-side debate solves is pretty persuasive, but only if it’s paired with a good TVA, otherwise it’s pretty hard to hedge back against a 2AR “we can’t access our lit” push.

Theory:

I think theory is usually a reason to reject the arg not the team, with condo as an exception. I think disclosure is good, and I have a low threshold for theory if an aff team refuses to disclose before the round.

Speaks:

I am fine with speed, but clarity is important. Please don't spread through analytics at top speed and expect me to catch everything. I will clear you twice, and after that I will just stop flowing. Good, strategic CX will lead to higher speaks. Flex prep does not exist, if you are asking the other team questions outside of cross I am not listening and I do not care. I will boost speaks if you give the 2NR/2AR off the flow. If you get 26 or less, you were probably incredibly rude or literally did not debate.

I flow on my computer, so if I am not typing, assume I am not flowing. Watch for nonverbals, I give them. That said, I have been told I have a RBF, so if I am not making an expression don't assume negatively.

Hello all! My name is Oliver Kuperman, and the email I am currently using is oliverkuperman@gmail.com. I tried to order this paradigm by each topic's likelihood of being important to the debate round. I hope you all will be satisfied with my judging and enjoy the round!

Respect/Best Debate Practices:

I understand it's a high-stress environment but please respect both me, your partner, and your opponent. Please don't use profanity in speeches (I am made uncomfortable by it), and CX your opponents in a relaxed and friendly tone*. I will also try to be polite to you, and I believe that in the drive to win/improve, we can forget about the basic needs.

Disrespecting others will affect your speaker points by a bit. If you feel that your unique background will make it difficult for me to access your respect levels, please let me know before or after the round via email.

Burden of Rejoinder/ Truth vs Tech/ Extensions:

I wanted to start up here because this is probably the most important thing for understanding how I judge debate rounds.

A few thoughts:

1.) Dropping an argument doesn't mean that you can't point out structurally illogical elements within the DA(an election DA that was made for an election that already occurred), make analytical statements about the DA's evidentiary quality, or point out how the cards themselves cast doubt on the aff's claims (dropping a DA with a climate impact =/= climate change having a short timeframe if the author doesn't state that last bit implicitly).

2.) If both a logically sound argument and a convoluted argument with lots of internal links are dropped, I will adjudicate the latter to have a higher probability than the former. I don't think most arguments should start at a near-certain probability.

3.) If the Aff completely drops a DA in the 1AR, the 2NR should still spend about 1:30-2:30 min explaining how the DA works and how it outweighs the Aff. Even if an argument was dropped, it doesn't mean you don't have to do any impact calculus or that you don't have to extend it in the final speech.

4.) Analytical arguments only can get the full benefits of the burden of rejoinder if they are slowly read/ in the doc. Spreading through 5-second analytics in the block and then expecting me to give them 100% weight when the 1AR drops is not a winning strategy.

5.) While I think the Burden of Rejoinder is a useful tool, it assumes a burden of proof has been met and a complete argument has been made. If you spread a 10-second conditionality shell that fails to include key parts, you probably aren't meeting the complete argument test.

6.) However, if arguments are structurally through.

Truth vs Tech:

Besides those things above about the burden of rejoinder and generally allowing reasonable extrapolations, I try to detach myself from the debate as much as possible, and if you argue ideas I might think are wrong on the face well (warming being good, nuclear proliferation being good), I can still vote for you.

Additionally, I am not one to dig through your evidence to determine its quality. Although I might check to make sure the evidence doesn't clearly contradict the tag/ have a completely fake source, ultimately if there is something wrong with your opponent's evidence, it is up to you to point it out.

Extensions:

This always confused me. The line-by-line is the only necessary thing on this up until the final rebuttal speeches (although I probably put less weight on the explicit line-by-line than some judges). Unless your argument is extremely confusing, requiring clarification after the 2AC, or a Kritik, I already understand your DA/ CP well enough and you don't need to spend time re-explaining what was conceded by the aff, just answer their offense.

Counterplans (Both Ways):

Permutations must be in the speech doc. Creating 7 permutations in the 2AC and then claiming an auto win on a dropped severance perm is not going to fly.

I have decently strict standards with counterplan texts, in that I hold teams to the text during the round. If there is a clear typo, I generally

Kritik Affirmatives (K vs policy):

Despite having debated in a debate program known for its excellent Kritik debaters, I have always regarded Kritk Affs to be greatly unfair for the negative and generally unproductive due to the difficulty of clashing with such an affirmative. However, I do recognize that certain of these affirmative have kind of become accepted by the debate community, (just like how many Basketball players employ dribbling techniques that would be viewed as traveling in different NBA eras) and the great amount of effort they take to prepare. I am probably a low (1-2) pref for most teams that prefer reading Kritik affs, although I won't just auto-vote Neg.

The neg should still have to ensure they win their framework interpretation / answer the counter/interpretation of the topic in some way and engage in the neg's offense. However, I am pretty lenient on embedded-clash/ implicit-answers/ cross-application from differing flows, especially when there are 3 different C/I, 4 w/m arguments, and full spreading on all the analytics.

The less experienced the division is, the more strict I will be (Kritik Affs in a novice tournament will almost always lose to Framework,).

Note: I don't view Fairness as having an impact per se, but rather as an extremely important internal link to education. Fair competition is a central part of what separates Debate from a lecture, after all.

Kritiks on the Negatives:

I am a little more lenient on these than I am on K Affs, however, besides generics like Cap Ks/ Security Ks, I probably will lean towards the Aff on framework. Unlike if you were reading a K Aff, If the aff's framework args are merely mediocre, instead of downright incompetent, you can win.

The less experienced the division is, the more strict I will be (Kritik Affs in a novice tournament will almost always lose to Framework.

CX:

I have always viewed CX as more of an informational session than an additional constructive one. However, I will be paying attention, and if you, for instance, clearly and confidently say your counter plan does X during CX, you can't easily go around and say it doesn't do X later on without running into severance args.

Tag Team CX is okay.

General: Topicality/ Theory (Policy v Policy):

If you are running one of these arguments, you better have a good reason. I tend to default to reasonability, as I view substance crowdout as a more serious issue than teams running a slightly untopical affirmative that still links to core generics + engages topic lit. Reading Condo on a team that runs only 2 conditional advocacies is probably not going to be convincing.

However, if there was in-round abuse, or something just seems untopical/unfair on its face (read, weird consultation counterplans)I will seriously consider voting for you.

Racism/Discrimination:

I haven't faced serious discrimination in this community before (probably in part because of what I look like), but I am not going to pretend like the debate community is perfect. Racism/sexism/classism/other isms almost certainly are expressed in some form and as an educator, I have a responsibility to ensure that people are not feeling stressed out/ hurt for stupid and preventable reasons. If you say something that I perceive to be extremely problematic (read: racial/sexual slurs, calls for genocide, etc), I will have to end the debate round.

I acknowledge that I might not catch every offensive remark, however, because of all the time and work that goes into the debate round, as well as my perception that there is a track record of debaters exploiting their identities for competitive success, I don't like dedicating debate time to debating these issues and lingering on an offensive remark often just makes it feel worse.

Thus if a debater says something problematic during the debate round and I miss it, feel free to send me an email if you feel like something they said was offensive. I'll evaluate that, and, if you are correct, either lower their speaker points or vote them down, and instruct the offending party about how they should improve in the future in the RFD.

Explicit Cheating:

I think this goes without saying, but please don't cheat! It's disrespectful to both me and your opponents, who are putting in hours of our time into this debate round. For small things like stealing a bit of prep while waiting from the email chain, I might give you a warning, but if you keep doing things like that I might just vote you down.

On clipping, I understand if you occasionally fail to pronounce a full word, but if you are consistently missing lines/ skipping parts of taglines, I will need to vote you down.

Post-Round Questions/ Post Rounding:

I don't recall post-rounding in my debate career, perhaps I attempted it once or twice, but I am down if y'all have a reasonable complaint. If you think I missed something, I can give you 2 minutes to point it out. However, I don't want to

Personal Experience/ About Me:

I was on the Berkeley Prep Debate team from 2017 (Education topic) to 2024 (Nato topic), although my 6th and 12th-grade years were not at all equal in intensity to the years in between**.

Footnotes/Asterisk:

* I understand this is vague, and I will try to be cognizant of any biases I have.

**In 6th and 12th grade I didn't participate in any debate tournaments, but still engaged with the debate team.

Berkeley Prep '26

Please add me to the email chain: laieli@berkeleyprep.org

Tech>Truth

Judge instruction is important!! You should be writing my ballot at the top of the 2nr/2ar. I hate judge intervention so make your speeches easy to flow and do impact calc.

CX is important and binding - I will flow it.

Feel free to read whatever you're most comfortable with - I read Ks but don't feel pressured to overly adapt your strat because I will vote on pretty much whatever. That being said, if it's policy v policy please do lots of explaining and impact calc. For Ks, have good link explanation (especially in kvk debates).

If you have any questions feel free to ask/email me before the round!!

I am committed to fairness and impartiality in my role as a judge. I will evaluate debates based on the strength of the arguments presented and not personal biases or preferences. As a first-time debate judge, I appreciate a moderate pace during speeches, valuing clear articulation and well-structured arguments. While I value concise language, I encourage debaters to avoid excessive jargon to ensure accessibility to all audience members. Throughout the round, I will diligently take notes to capture key points and evaluate both the strength of arguments and the effectiveness of speaking style.

Debated at Lawrence Freestate for 4 years

Debated for a very short period at the University of Kansas

General Notes

I tend to prioritize arguments based in more truth (meaning arguments based in truth require less tech than those that aren't), but that said unless you give me a different way to evaluate the debate a dropped (or undercovered) argument becomes a true argument.

Please don't be pretentious or condescending there is a different between being aggressive with an argument and just being a jerk. Along with that if you are racist/misogynistic you will lose the round and get a 0.

I have always been a 2A, do with that information what you will.

I have been out of the activity for about four years now and don't judge regularly. With that said my ability to flow is not what it once was, so I may miss parts of your speech if you spread through analytics at full speed.

I am a big fan of Ethos and persuasiveness and I think that this may be somewhat of a lost art with many debaters just spreading through prewritten blocks as fast they can in their rebuttals. In my opinion a slow, technical, and logical rebuttal is almost always better than a fast rebuttal that does not have the same level of tech and logic.

DA's: I think these are the negative's best argument (obviously depending on the topic). Show me why the comparative risk of the DA o/w's the aff's impacts or vice-versa. The more specific the link the better

CP's: I really don't like cheating CP's and my time as a 2A probably biases me, but you need to make theory arguments against them. If a CP has a high risk of solving the aff it is easy for me to vote on any risk of a DA. Aff's need to prioritize offense against CP's and recognize most 1AC cards have embedded warrants that can be used as solvency deficits.

T: Develop your internal links and explain why your version of the topic is truly necessary and better than the alternative world.

K's: I am fine evaluating these arguments, but it is much more likely that you will win my ballot if you can explain your theory with examples in the context of the aff and not the topic writ large. Additionally, I am probably not familiar with the literature, so make sure you give clear explanations.

Case: In most of the debates I judge I feel that case is underutilized. It is the most important thing the aff has at its disposal to combat arguments and a great avenue to victory for the negative in just about any capacity is mitigating the risk of the case.

K-Affs: I would not classify myself as a clash judge. I think that fairness is an impact. I am open to voting either way in these debates, I think the most important part of these debates is articulating a clear vision of your version of debate/the topic under your interp.

berkeley prep '25 (team code NY)

she/her

hi! i'm Maryclare and this is my fourth year of policy as a 2N at Berkeley Prep!

please put me on the chain: nestomar@berkeleyprep.org

tech > truth, debate is a game, I may be mostly a K debater but I'm familiar with most policy args and go for T and cap against K affs, will vote on p much anything no matter how stupid so don't overadapt, do what you're good at because I'd much rather see a very well debated counterplan competition debate than a horrible K debate.

that being said, please don't be racist, sexist, homophobic etc or mean to ur opponent or partner---tldr don't make other people in the round wanna quit

specific takes:

DAs: i love super aff-specific DAs. i actually also do really enjoy a good politics DA, and find those debates to be pretty entertaining. good case debating and specific + contextualized links are really important, ngl a lot of these debates comes down to framing + impact comparison in final rebuttals. for aff teams, love a good link turn or impact turn + strong pushback on uq---don't just let them get away with reading DAs that clearly don't link lol.

CPs: i like CP debates. process CPs are cool. multiplank CPs are cool, especially if they're super aff specific. comparison at the impact/solvency level is probably the most important thing in these debates. however, as a K debater, i'm gonna be completely honest with you---counterplan competition/theory is not at all my wheelhouse and these debates will require more explaining. don't assume i know what you're talking about because i likely don't, i will go completely based on flow/tech in these debates because i really have zero predispositions.

T (vs Policy): feel like i'm a pretty average judge for these debates, impact comparison goes a long way, cards important but explanation way more important, please don't just spam blocks from years ago because that gets boring. don't have tons of predispositions here either.

Ks: please please please don't read a k if you really don't understand the theory of power at all. that being said, love good K debates and have read almost every lit base to some extent, so i am very likely familiar with what you're reading. pomo is cool, but explanation > confusion. i think it's more strategic in most cases to go for framework than link to the plan + alt, but sometimes it makes sense. please have contextualized links to the aff though, if your link articulation sounds the exact same versus every single aff, that's a problem. winning ontology does not automatically win the debate, and just asserting that you've won ontology with zero explanation gets you nowhere. i am pretty skeptical of policy affs perming Ks, but you still need reasons why severance/intrinsic permutations are bad outside of fairness and clash.

K Affs: don't need a counterinterp, totally good with just going for the impact turn and honestly think this is more strategic lots of the time, but if you do this you need to explain why you don't need to defend a model. if you read performance stuff, that's cool but it needs to be extended throughout the entire debate or it doesn't make tons of sense why it was a component of the aff. on the cap debate, i think root cause and flagging violence/impacts that can't just be explained away by class is strategic. the academies K is often explained poorly, same with most random frame subtraction args, and you can definitely exploit that more in the 2AC.

Vs K Affs: fairness is definitely THE BEST impact but sometimes i get that it's strategic to go for clash. i think the fairness paradox is kind of a silly argument, ik that's sort of a hot take (this doesn't mean don't read it, it is definitely strategic because most K teams can't answer it). T is probably the best strategy, but cap debates can actually be really entertaining. KvK debates can be fun, and i think more teams should go for setcol v setcol or like critiques from authors within the litbase because these are usually super specific and can be very strategic. neg teams should probs be more aggressive in cross versus k teams, so many are scared to and let the aff get away with murder.

random other stuff:

-i disagree on a fundamental level with Kaitlyn Goldberg and Ravi Parikh (not their paradigms, just vibes).

-theory is not my fav. i probably err neg in most of these debates, and honestly don't really enjoy them very much. however, winning like a coward is probably better than losing, and if they drop hidden ASPEC they probably should have been flowing so...? that being said, i will not be thrilled to vote on theory but will do it.

-i really enjoy good case debating and kinda think going for impact turns is an underrated 2NR, do with that information what you will. rehighlighting ev is awesome.

-i have a very random but very passionate hatred of the farm bill DA. if you read this argument, don't (i will vote on it but speaks will suffer). if you make fun of this argument somewhere in your speech, i'll boost speaks because ik you read the paradigm.

-this is a quote stolen from hina shehzad's paradigm that i could not agree with more: "I don't think I would be the person I was without the people around me who supported me and helped me through these years of debate. That being said it would be selfish to not want to give back. Debate is expensive, time consuming, has biases so if you ever need help, support etc. Don't hesitate to reach out." please feel free to email or otherwise reach out bc i really think it's so important to support each other + give back to the community, i definitely wouldn't be here without the huge number of people who've supported me over the years.

-if novices show me their flows after the round and they're good, i'll boost speaks because flowing is good!!!

Interlake 23, Emory 27.

Email: michi.debate@gmail.com. Appreciate this subject line: Tournament - Round X - Team Code Aff v. Team Code Neg.

TL: I've said both policy and K and I am good to judge either. I will flow the debate straight down and evaluate the debate technically, following 2NR/2AR judge instruction. I will try to minimize intervention as much as possible. Minimal HS topic knowledge so overexplain acronyms/technical terms, but I have taken AP Micro/Macro for what it's worth. I have opinions about debate (below), but I am also very gullible and tech > truth. I think I am fairly expressive but don't read into it too much. I get to end the debate for -isms.

Clash: I've said the K Aff, but my AT: T win rate was/is abysmal, so good for either side! Aff notes: I find impact turns strategic, dislike when the 2AR is too new, impact comparison please. Neg notes: I find ballot scope arguments persuasive, limits DA needs a case-list, should adopt Aff language when answering offense.

K: Framework first, I will decide an interpretation and work from there. K teams should leverage tricks (framework, PIK, link turns case, ballot proximity, etc.) to moot/turn/outweigh the Aff. Aff teams should impact turn for wins or link turn for speaker points (lol).

Policy: No hot takes, slow down on T/theory/analytics.

Former open debater at GMU from 2018-2022. I ran mostly queer theory, disability, and various forms of cap for the last couple years and am most familiar with those lit bases.

She/they pronouns. Put me on the email chain please, ceili1627 at gmail dot com. Feel free to email me after rounds with questions.

TL;DR: run whatever you want and I'll judge as best I can. I think my role as a judge is to be an educator/facilitator of idea exchanges regardless of whether those ideas are connected to anything from USFG action to interpretive dance performances. Keep in mind that even though debate is a game that you should have fun playing, it has real-world consequences for the real people who play it. As a great woman once said, "At the end of the debate, be sure to tell me why I should vote for you; if you don't, then you can't get big mad when I don't ... periodt" and I live by that <3

Policy:

K Affs: I'm totally down with k affs but I prefer them to have at least a vague link to the topic. It's super easy for the narrative of k affs to get lost during the round so please keep the aff story alive!! In FW/T debates, make sure to explain what debate rounds look like under your counterinterp, and that plus solid impact turns is usually a fairly easy ballot from me.

FW/T: As the same great woman once said, "I have voted against framework, I have voted for framework, but at the end of the day I don't really want to be there when framework is read." Run a caselist. Reasonability isn’t really an argument and fairness definitely isn't an impact. I tend to default to competing interps unless given a good reason otherwise. The neg needs to really spell out why I should err towards them on limits. TVAs are pretty useful for mitigating offense against fw as long as they're explained and contextualized well. Please for the love of god contextualize all your fw blocks to the round & aff in question instead of just reading a transcript of fw blocks from an NDT outround half a decade ago. I'm not persuaded by args that debate doesn't shape subjectivity--if you come out of a round the exact same as you entered it (regardless of if your opinions/beliefs have changed) then you're probably playing the game wrong.

Theory: Trying to convince me to care about potential abuse is an uphill battle. Don’t spread through theory blocks please. For blippy args I generally err towards rejecting the arg but will (extremely) reluctantly vote on it if dropped.

DAs/Case: Impact calc and clear internal link chains are both super important for me to vote on a DA. I tend to think that links determine DA direction but can probably be persuaded that direction is determined by uniqueness. I really enjoy heavy case debates and am disappointed that's increasingly missing from a lot of rounds. Also I think re-highlighting your opponents' ev is a bold move that's cool and often persuasive when it's done right but is pretty cringe if done poorly.

Ks: I was mostly a k debater in college and I'm most familiar with lit bases for queer theory, cap, set col, and debility. Still, you need to clearly explain your theories of power and all that good stuff instead of throwing around a bunch of obscure terms expecting me to know what you’re talking about. Please please please don't read a k just because you think that's what I want to hear--it makes for a bad debate and a grumpy judge. I’d like to think my ballot actually means something so explain to me what it does and I'll be more likely to pull the trigger for you. I feel most comfortable voting on specific links to the aff though I prefer the debate to go beyond the level of you-link-you-lose. Please give me a clear and coherent framework under which I consider the aff vs the alt, but also I think too many policy affs use framework to avoid engaging with the k at all which is both frustrating to judge and not at all strategic.

CPs: 50 state fiat is definitely core neg ground at the high school level. I’m fine with the neg having 2 conditional worlds, 3 makes me lean aff, and the neg shouldn't ever need 4+ conditional worlds. I don't judge kick and I'm likely to entertain most if not all CPs as long as they have a clear net benefit and explanation of how they solve the aff. Super meta CP theory confuses and bores me.

General: Tech > truth (often but not always, e.g. I usually tend to evaluate the debate through tech > truth but can be fairly easily convinced otherwise), debate is a game that you should have fun playing, clarity > speed (especially for zoom debate), I reserve the right to tank speaks if you're being homophobic, transphobic, sexist, racist, ableist, excessively rude, or clipping cards. Please don't make me have to judge something that happened outside the round like authenticity checks or happenings from other tournaments/seasons. I usually have little HS topic knowledge but that doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't pref me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ it's good for the neg on T insofar as I don't have a predetermined view of what the topic should look like, but it's also good for the aff because I don’t have much knowledge on the nuances of what affirmatives look like under particular definitions. I'm pretty hit or miss on reading ev after rounds unless explicitly told to, and on that note please highlight your cards in as close to complete and coherent sentences as you can. Violent verb fragments aren't arguments.

PF:

I did 4 years of PF in high school so I'm quite familiar with this format. Extend your own args, don’t drop your opponents’ args. I vote on the flow and default to util for impact comparison unless you tell me to frame impacts differently. I’m most likely to vote for a PF team that nails impact calc in the rebuttals, does solid work extending offense, and uses effective warrant-level evidence comparison. My 3 biggest pet peeves with PF are (1) labeling literally everything as a voter, (2) saying "de-link,", and (3) using "frontline" as a verb.

LD:

I never debated this format, though I understand it, and I tend to judge it from a somewhat policy perspective. I'm cool with both traditional and progressive formats--do what you do best/enjoy most and I'll vote off the flow. What bugs me most is the introduction of some kind of framing lens at the beginning of the round (like value/value criteria or another kind of framework) that isn't extended or used throughout the rest of the debate.

The Gamble

If you use One Direction lyrics in your speechI will raise your speaks a max of 0.5. Do with that what you will.

I'm new to judging, so please be slow when articulating your arguments.

If you have something important for me to write down or circle on the flow, please say that during your speech.

2023 - TOC UPDATE:

pretty much the same to be honest.
Despite being a very, very, very average debater (just a few late elims here and there) during my time [loooooong ago, im like an old man at this point bro], I can empathize with TOC-goers and how it's often their last [big] tournament. I'll try my best to make an accurate decision but do listen to my other parts of my paradigm. I am rusty and have a big emphasis on ~clarity~ of speech.

krispy kreme donuts and pickle speech bonuses are not in application for the TOC.
sorry folks
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PARADIGM UPDATE FOR December 2022
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
I have not judged debate in the past three years beyond a few middle school tournaments in the past month. I will be unfamiliar with this new topic besides a basic understanding, and you should start slow in general. I'm not the best with hearing spreading in general and being over a laptop likely makes that worst.

Your better off treating me like a smart parent judge (talk fast but preferably less spreading) who has some basic knowledge of debate rather than an old debater out of high school, since it's been 5-6 years and I didn’t end up doing college debate at all.

A lot of basic, intuitive debate theory is no longer intuitive to me since it's been like five years. I'm basically 50 in young people years at this point. If you think you don't have to dumb things down because of my past, you are WRONG. You will set yourself up for an L.

COACHES PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE PREFFING ME MAN. EVEN IF YALL KNEW ME FROM BEFORE OR SOMETHING.

My cheat sheet should still be pretty accurate, but treat #1 as even higher than before.

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
yo whats up? I’m Osmane and I debated at Newark Science for 4 years. I was pretty average for a debater, never really too high level and barely won anything so take that in to account when preffing me... yeah heh.

Bring me Krispy Creme Donuts and i'll boost your speaker points by 0.2
Buy me a packaged pickle (Like Van Holten's) and ill bost them by 0.3
[inflation update, KCDonuts now only grant a 0.1 boost, and pickles by 0.2]

GO SLOWER THAN NORMAL! I haven't judged in a solid minute and know only surface layer knowledge about this topic. I also have trouble hearing in general sometimes, so clarity is really important in front of me. I'll say clear twice before i start deducting speaks instead of saying clear.

Osmane's Cheat Sheet:

1 - Traditional Debate (Morals, not phil, like old school LD debate)

2 - Identity-related kritiks (fair warning: I'm not too good with highly abstract interpretations of identity),

3 - Counterplans, Disadvantages, Topicality

4 - Theory

Wildcard: Untopical Affirmatives - The more feasible/material it is to me, the more receptive it'll be to me. An untopical aff to use rhetoric in debate rounds to spread positivism is probably more receptive than an aff about throwing trash around as a symbolic way of fighting back against capitalism through ecological BURST!

I'm a first year, so DON'T assume that my judging will reflect the way I debated. I'm a wild card and you should pref me as such.

My email for speech docs is osmaneprince1@gmail.com

My influences in debate have been Chris Randall, Jonathan Alston, Elijah Smith, and Devane Murphy. Also Osmane, that guy is sexy, phew. [2022 revisiting and man, he really is.]

Note: Most of those influences are HIGHLY material people who take abstract things to their logical ends (i said most of them.). This means a material K that I can see logically working is better than some convoluted junk I can't understand. Use more common talk with me than debate jargon, I barely ever understood it.

Conflicts:

-Newark Science

Basic things:

don't say racist, sexist, or messed up things like Death is good.

I enjoy a slower delivery to spread where I hear emphasis and a more persuasive approach to vocalizing your arguments. I'll award higher speaks if you speak as if you were an impassioned speaker.

Kritiks

I read these most of my junior and senior year. Please DO NOT just read these because you see me in the back of the room. I do not want to see K’s messed up so I have a pretty high threshold for K’s. 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 anti blackness and expecting me to check off my ballot right there. I'm very material in alternative explanations, so if you don't explain the alternatives . . let's just say winning your K will be harder. If your going to be running some sort of post-modernism, I HAVE ALMOST NEVER understood the abstract way people run it, so run it 'materially' if possible. I might not be the best for it but I'd rather you go for POMO that your good at then messing up hard on some identity-based K

CPs

wasn't ever really my thing, but go for it. I'm not too versed on CP theory.

Tricks

ha. HA. HA! HA! no.

Theory
Just like people think that I love K’s because I debated for Newark, people think I hate theory which is pretty damn right. I hate frivolous theory and the rigid technicality based formatting of theory. If it's legitimate and I'm like "yeah naw that opponent did some abusive junk" i'll consider it though. I rather you make it an in-round disad as opposed to a separate theoretical argument. I default Education > Fairness, Reasonability and drop the argument.

DA’s

Their fine. I feel like people love to read these crazy scenarios in order to magnify the impact. 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.

Plans

eh. neutral bout them. I rather a plan than a super abstract aff.

Presumption.

I don't like voting on this because everyone has their own idea of how it works. This is mine:

Neg has presumption until they read some sort of alternative (via k, cp, or whatever.) then it shifts to aff.

Perms:

you drop it you lose.

Speaker points

Like I said, I really like passionate speakers. That'll boost up your points for sure.

I debated at Lansing High School for 4 years

I currently do speech and debate at Western Kentucky University

email: nik.schintgentf@gmail.com

they/them

I don't care if you say judge, N, or Nik... just not Niklas

\\ I have an apd which makes it difficult to hear spreading so I'm probably not the best judge if you wish to do that, im sorry. Either way, you can go slow or spread in front of me but on the chance that you do spread don't blitz through the tags so I can actually pick up what you're trying to put down - the same goes for analytics or the rebuttals - if you need me to write make it so I can hear it. I cleared people at the end of my career as a debater and I will clear you now.//

General

Be respectful towards you're opponents

I think pre-round disclosure is good

Judge Instruction is going to be the most important for me. I want to know why you win the debate and how. Do comparative analysis, should be able to explain your evidence and why it is better than theirs and why this one thing means the debate goes entirely in your favor. If you don't then that's on you and will probably require me to do more intervening on my part.

I'm not going to read the evidence unless you tell me to. Don't just insert a rehighlight - tell me why it proves the aff/neg thesis to be false and then prove where that is in the ev.

I'm open to pretty much any arg - I've never had a problem with too many but if you as a debater think ev is bad and can be violent or exclusionary then tell me why. My debate partner and I in highschool made arguments like this in highschool so I can find them compelling.

IK this doesn't have a lot in it but I have a lot of the same debate philosophy as Jam Hoffman, Azja Butler, Joshua Michael, Alaina Walberg, Nate Nys, and some other folks as they have greatly influenced my debate career

___________________________________________________

Tech/Truth

I always find myself to be tech over truth - unless you give me a reason not to be

Disadvantages

I like disadvantages and think the creative ones with a good link story end up winning my ballot the most. There are lots of tricks teams don't utilize enough, especially with ptx DAs. Do the impact calc and link work - you know.

Counterplans

I love counterplans and I don't feel like they get used creatively enough. I don't think a counterplan needs to solve for the entirety of the aff but you should have a reason why it doesn't need to.

Kritiks/K-Affs

I did K debate my last year of highschool reading Afro-Pessimism, Afro-Futurism, Vampiric Necropolitics, Taosim, Cap, Empire, and Ableism. I think the link debate is always important, you need to be able to answer questions like how does it link to the aff/topic? Impacts need to be impacted out- duh. You need to explain the alt/advocacy and how it resolves your impacts. Teams don't do this enough and just repeat the name of their alternative and other teams don't call them out enough on it.

T-FW/Framework

I don't think the negative spends enough time trying to frame aff offense out of the debate and that causes the negative to lose lots of rounds. Same goes for the aff, there are sometimes just lots of easily conceded arguments that can cause you to immediately lose the debate. I find these debates become extremely messy and make following very difficult so please keep it organized.

Topicality

A lot of the same stuff on T-FW applies over here. T violations are better when they are carded and I don't see people answering we meets well enough

MISC.

Clipping is an academic malpractice and will result in a loss and low speaks.

Same with slurs, etc.

I've noticed I have lots of feedback sometimes, especially for novices, so I'm sorry if you do not like that. Sometimes my writing tone can come off as mean or passive aggressive, I pinkie promise its not.

Hello! My name is Muthukumar Seenivasagam. I am a lay parent judge and I am new to judging policy debate. Please do not spread and remember to speak clearly. I am not that familiar with debate terminology, so please make sure to explain any terms you use. Please do not run K's. Topicality is okay, but it can't be too far-fetched. I have no biases against any argument, but any discriminatory language will get you reported. Most importantly, remember to have fun.

My email for the email chain is:Muthukumar74@yahoo.com

email chain/contact info: stoutmalicia@gmail.com

about me: recent graduate from truman state university where I debated for four years. I coach policy debate at pembroke hill in KCMO. in undergrad i studied polisci & ir, postmodern philosophy and women & gender studies.

housekeeping: doc should be sent within 30 seconds of ending prep barring unusual circumstances. signpost well (VERY CLEARLY, "NEXT OFF"). you should send analytics. card dumps and expecting me to cross apply the cards for you to the LBL is a risky game. "clean docs" that are sent that are not actually "clean" are slimy. lack of distinction between your card reading voice and your tag/analytic voice also can result in mishaps on the flow.

Debated: Immigration(CX), Arms Sales (CX), Immigration (NFA), Counterterrorism (NFA), Elections (NFA), Nukes (NFA)

Coached: Criminal Justice Reform (CX), Water (CX), Fiscal Redistribution (CX)

TLDR: Speed is cool. Signposting is necessary. Ks on the aff and neg are a vibe and procedural debates are fun.

ETHICS ISSUES: Don't scream. Be kind. Don't cheat! Don't card clip. Repeated Interrupting and yelling in CX is a voter.

Policy:

Tech > Truth: I am anti-judge intervention, I default to tech as reasonably as I can. Dropped args are generally true so long as there is some extension of a warrant. I will read cards - so at the very minimum at least make sure your evi. is somewhat coming to the conclusion you say it does. If the card is completely dropped, my threshold for this is pretty low but don't misconstrue evidence -> that's probably not good for debate.

Speed: Speed was my preference as a competitor. Will vote on the Speed K if pertinent. Slow down on analytics that aren't in the doc.

T/Theory: Big fan if you do it well. The 2NR/2AR should collapse solely to the theory page. There should be an interp, vio, standards and voters in the shell. I'll vote on potential abuse if there is a clear warrant for why I should. Love a good TVA. I default to competing interps but can be swayed.

Disclosure: Neg and aff should disclose full-text new positions on the wiki. Hard debate is good debate. I highly encourage debaters to disclose, it makes you better. Don't false disclose.

Disads: I pref aff-specific links. If you collapse to DA/Case, give me an overview on top and do lots of impact comparison. Tix aren’t my favorite but like I said tech over truth.

New in the 2: Not a fan, unless it's justified - i.e. a new theory sheet because of in-round abuse. New impact scenarios are fine, but I'll give a lot of mercy to the 1ar.

Counterplans/Conditional Advocacies (General): One condo CP/K is fine. The more conditional CPs/Ks you run, the lower my threshold gets. In most cases a CP/K combo is perfcon -- which I absolutely will vote on. I default to judge kick, but can be persuaded on why judge kicks are bad - or why I shouldn't. I won't vote solely on a solvency lens - you need to win the net benefit.

Kritiks (Neg): Please operate under the assumption that I'm completely unfamiliar with the literature you're reading -- that's the best way to avoid any specific K biases I might have. I enjoy it if you can clearly explain what the K does & what the alt looks like. Well versed on cap, militarism, security and fem. Specific K links will always be more compelling than generic ones I like alts that do something. FW is important. (IF YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN WHAT THE K DOES I HAVE A VERY LOW THRESHOLD FOR K SOLVENCY!!!)

Kritiks (Aff): I've ran K affs without a plan text. they need an advocacy statement/clear alt text. I've voted neg and aff on framework plenty of times in these debates. tell me why the debate space solves, and how that outweighs fairness claims and such. What does my ballot do? What am I voting for? Am I a policymaker? Is fiat real? If I am left not knowing the answers to all of those questions I probably won't vote on the K aff.

Case: I LOVE turns and I will vote on them if they are impacted out properly. Do not expect me to vote on a dropped turn if you do not weigh it in the round. Case debate is a lost art for the negative, I award high speaks to debaters who do quality evidentiary analysis.

Fun Speaks: clever tasteful APPROPRIATE humor in round is rewarded w/ speaker points :)

I am a junior attending Pembroke Hill, and this is my third year of policy debate and second year of congressional debate.

Add me to any email chains you make: cwood25@pembrokehill.org

Tl;dr

Idc what you do or don't read, just make it make sense

Tech > truth, although I do value truth almost the same

LOVE impact calculus and at least touch on stock issues

I like analytics and smart re-highlighting of cards the opposition used

Not a huge fan of spreading-- if you do make sure you have either email chain/speechdrop

Make sure i can understand you when you talk

BE NICE in cx

Pls flow-- it's obvious when you don't

NEG:

Make sure that you spend enough time debating on case, don't just forget it in favor of off case

Don't make a ton of arguments just to kick most of them, that's a waste of my time and your time

AFF:

KNOW YOUR AFF, don't get tripped up on simple questions about your case

I don't really like K affs but you do you ill put aside my bias if you do a good job debating

Make sure your advantages outweigh and win the stock issues

Policy Specific:

T:

t’s are fine with me, i can enjoy the debate if its done correctly and if the framework isn't widely out there and i will vote on it if the AFF is clearly untopical (or if you just argue it better than the other team)

NEG: you rlly need to prove to me why your interpretation is correct and better, have good violations

Don't waste your time reading it if your just gonna kick it tho

DA:

Personally i love DA’s they make a ton of sense to me

don't just be reading non-specific and generic just to put one in, if your gonna read one make it case-specific and intentional

CP:

CP’s are fine, but I won't JUST vote on the CP

Not a juge fan of PIC cp’s, but if you do a good job debating it i will consider

Condo cps are fine, i hate consult and delay cps

also don’t really like generic cps, if your gonna do one make it case specific or at least have good link

Idc if you kick it

K’s:

Not a huge fan, i don't have a lot of experience with them

Although I lean more towards traditional debate if their is clear clash and the thesis of the argument is clear i will vote on it

Easier to win me over using other debate strats

Earning Speaker Points:

Overall being a nice person

Tbh if you actually look like you want to be there

Eye contact (esp in the last speeches)

Good analytics

Losing Speaker Points:

Being rude or mean during a round

Any comments that are sexist, racist, homophobic, etc

Stealing prep (although I am usually pretty lenient with this)

New judge. Please refrain from spreading. If I cannot understand you, I will take off speaker points.

Debaters are encouraged to try a variety of arguments, but bear in mind that arguments that are logically sound and easy to follow are likely to be most persuasive.

Good luck and have fun!