Hello, I am Jouseline Alvarez I attend Harrison High School and I quite enjoy the formatting. I debated both my freshman and sophomore year and I am now a junior. Below are my personal opinions and how I look at the round however I will evaluate any argument that has a clear claim, warrant, and impact. Another personal belief is that debate is not a game, but an educational space for people to yes compete but also express themselves. Be respectful if anything and add me to the email chain: jouselinealvarez@gmail.com

Shortcut:

Ks/K Affs/Non-T Affs - 1

Trad - 2

LARP/T - 3/4 **READ THE BREAKDOWN**

Theory - 4 minus

White Phil - 4/5 (Your typical Kant business)

Tricks - nah, strike

Extinction impacts - boring

Ways to make the round good --> good speaks!

1. Clashing with your opponent
2. Having a clear understanding of your case and extending
3. Being clear
4. Time yourself
5. Making the round a little fun and silly

Kritiks: I freaking love Ks etc, I'm more than comfortable evaluating almost any K position as long as the links and alt are well explained. Performance is awesome and probably my favorite form of debate. However, do not just read this because I like it if you don't know your stuff because you might get roasted...

Trad: I prefer trad a lot of styles of debate. If this is what you feel the most comfortable with then go ahead. Although it can get quite boring it might be really fun if debaters use more creative arguments than just the same arguments everyone reads.

Interesting Phil: Complicated stuff Phil is probably something I would not be great at evaluating, and a lot of debaters really don't explain their arguments quite enough for me to feel comfortable voting on this. That being said, I am not an expert in many phil positions, so run these at your own discretion, and thoroughly explain the philosophy, especially if it's dense.

LARP/T: Big fan of the CP-DA game, PICs can be very clever as well. What I do NOT enjoy are long link chains that impact out to util extinction scenarios, especially since util is like kinda racist. BUT, I will evaluate them, just know it's not my favorite thing by far. T is interesting, if there are real warrants for a violation, of course run it and I will evaluate. I'm even somewhat tolerant of clever T shells that aren't frivolous when I'm in a silly goofy mood. But, if you're reading T against a non-T Aff, it's kinda like slapping someone who said they are being slapped. Granted, if the shell is completely dropped, I will evaluate. There's tons of great ways to respond to non-T Affs that I'd be happy to share if you chuck me an email!

Theory: You know when you're reading a shell just to waste time, and so do I, so basic theory shells like disclosure are fine, but once you start getting into frivolous theory shells (or friv th) like shoelace theory, I become less tolerant. While I understand the basics of theory and how it functions on the flow, I do NOT necessarily enjoy hearing rounds that devolve to theory... If there is a real violation then go ahead! I support it fully.

Whitey Phil: I will evaluate any argument I can understand (please pick up on the staleness of this sentence). I had experience hitting these positions, but I never ran them myself, so my understanding is limited. I'm not a fan of a priori knowledge, I don't particularly like evaluating it. I think Kant was racist (probably because he was) and hearing the words of a racist spread throughout debate rounds is not it.

Tricks: Strike me. While I understand and can appreciate how goofy some tricks are, they are uneducational and I will not tolerate them. Additionally, many tricks are ableist or racist, some (if you're lucky) are both! I'll vote for any argument made against them almost immediately, if your opponent reads one please take advantage of the easy W and roast them. If tricks "magically" manage to sneak their way into the round, I will not evaluate them. I won't tank your speaks, but you won't win from them. I say we leave tricks to magicians.

PF:

I'm pretty new to Public Forum (or PoFo, as my West Coast friends like to call it), but I have a lot of experience and success in traditional LD debate, which I've been told has some similarities. I've judged one tournament of middle schoolers, so that's my experience. I suppose to be clear, persuasive, sign post, and give a clear ballot story! Also keep in mind the only PF I have ever judged is middle schoolers.

As a brief underview:

• You get good speaks by being clear and respectful while also demonstrating a clear understanding of what has happened in round
• You will get low speaks and perhaps dropped if you are any type of offensive, I have a low tolerance. Obviously, mistakes are alright we all learn!
• Credits to Charles for the stolen paradigm

pronouns: he/him

loganjaviles@gmail.com

Ridge '22 CWRU '26

I'll evaluate any argument that's properly warranted and extended

^no racism, homophobia, ableism, sexism, etc.

if you're running more progressive arguments make sure you can explain them well -- especially Ks

if you're spreading send a speech doc and make sure you're clear

make sure to weigh arguments and use clear ballot directing language

I assign speaks based off of round strategy and presence (if you're fun to watch)

P.S.: Getting creative in round is also a good way to get 30 speaks from me. I love seeing clever, novel, and interesting arguments :)

NEWARK/LEX 2024 UPDATE: Have been judging a bit again, so I am vaguely aware of topic literature. I would still appreciate being on the slower side when it comes to spreading, though. Just let me know how fast you’re going beforehand.

Email chain: blackdahling@gmail.com

Hi! My name is Dahlia Bekong (she/they). I debated in LD for Bronx Science for four years, competed at the TOC my senior year, and am now a sophomore at Binghamton University. I mostly read performance and kritiks throughout high school (specifically anti-blackness & quare theory), but I’m fine with most things.

TLDR: Ks/K-affs/Non-T/Performance > K Theory > LARP > T/Theory > Phil > Friv Theory/Tricks (Depends)

A few things to note:

- Disclosing to Black debaters is a must. I am of the stance that Black debaters don’t have to disclose to non-Black debaters. Debaters reading anything that makes ontological claims of violence toward a group they do not belong to will result in me autovoting you down.

- I have been out of debate for a while, so please make sure to go at about 70% circuit speed AT MOST. I was never that good at understanding spreading anyway so if you’re fine with it I’d prefer if you went even slower than that, but I’ll try to keep up with whatever pace you decide to go for.

- Please refrain from doing anything racist, transphobic, ableist, etc. If you think your position would specifically perturb me or your opponent, either refrain from reading it or ask us beforehand if it’s okay to read. If you think your opponent violates this, impact it out and I’ll def be willing to vote on it.

- I have sensory issues so if your case utilizes flashing imagery and/or loud sounds, either heavily reconsider reading that or the accept the fact that I will be too zoned out to flow that part of the debate.

- Above all, I LOVE creativity regarding positions. A position that’s well-constructed and has its implications thought out is something a lot of debaters lack, so if you’re willing to go the extra mile and can explain it, feel free to blow my mind.

Okay, actual debate thoughts.

First and foremost, have a model of debate. If both debaters end up LARPing or something then this probably won’t come up, but I default to debate being a homeplace, where idea testing is somewhat good but never trumps the actual safety and/or right for debaters to be in the space. This is especially true for clash of civ debates: explain your model of debate, including why you’re here, why I’m here, what we should individually do, and what the utility of the ballot is.

I’m gonna borrow a phrase from Temitope Ogundare’s paradigm that I really liked: “Truth over tech until tech overwhelms truth (probably because you were inefficient)”. A lot of the times I find “tech over truth” is pragmatically used to shut down any conversations about the way personal identity manifests itself.

However, there does exist a threshold where if you clearly don’t know what you’re doing I can’t really say anything. If you’re winning the flow on a technical level and can explain why that’s actively good then I will vote for you, but if you’re doing something like distinguishing between structural and procedural fairness solely to shut out identity positions then you’re doing way too much.

Finally, I’m on the firm position that debate is not a game. I personally depended on debate as a way to cope with transphobia and help pay to go to college in the first place, which is to say, debate has very material impacts for people that can begin from reading something in round and extend to the outside world. If your shells rely on this as a crutch to shoo way identity arguments, then I’m gonna tell you to take the L on this one.

Okay, even more specific debate thoughts.

Identity Ks/Performance: Yeah!!! I have the most experience with running these, but I will emphasize to only read one if you know what you’re doing. Slow down to explain concepts and warrant your arguments. Err on overelaborating about what the alternative actually does and weighing that against the world of the aff. For performances, make sure that the performance isn’t simply tangentially related to the case but also gives you material offense. I love specific and clear link stories so I will be very swayed if you convey that in the 2NR.

K-Affs/Non-T: Yeah!!! These were my favorite positions in high school. You can mostly look at the previous section but for these I will also advise you take an extra hard look at the model of debate stuff. Whether the aff has a clearly defined model of debate that accounts for why they’re doing what they’re doing AND the debate space at large will usually dictate whether they win against T.

K Theory: Ranges from “Yeah!!!” to “Cool”. I love seeing the incorporation of critical literature into an argument meant for norm-setting but the same rule of actually knowing what you’re talking about applies here, ESPECIALLY since you’re talking about your literature in a “debate-rule” context.

LARP: Ranges from “Cool” to “Eh”. A lot of LARP ends up impacting out to nuclear war, which is very tiring. I’d like to see weighing that involves more metrics than magnitude or scope so I don’t have to worry about the next coming of Fallout 3. I’d like to see more weighing, period. Please read proper plan texts that either correlate with your evidence or that you can explain the link between the text and your evidence. Please remember mutual exclusivity exists, especially in the case of CP’s (doubley with PICs). PLEASE make your links specific to the aff.

T/Theory: VERY heavily depends. I have an extremely high warrant for T and theory to the point where I don’t think fairness is a valid terminal impact. There are other impacts out there that actually account for material violence that occurs from the same standards that are impacted out to fairness. Make sure your interp is specific and actually encapsulates what your model of debate is (planks are very useful for this).

Identity K/Non-T aff v T/Theory (Yes, this is a specific section): Aff gets to weigh. A pet peeve is when debaters overexaggerate the reality of debate norms (i.e. someone reading one non-T aff destroying limits completely). A BIGGER pet peeve is when debaters read the latter argument to disengage from the former (especially against Black debaters). Debates of these nature should never boil down to whether the aff belongs in the space, but whether their way of incorporating it could be improved. If the neg doesn’t have a way to account for the affs’ harms, I will presume aff.

Phil: Ranges from “Cool” to “Ugh”. I’m probably the least experienced with this so I will absolutely need you to overexplain your arguments. Can very quickly become mumbo-jumbo that makes my head spin so focus on big picture work and my route to the ballot.

Friv Theory/Tricks: Ranges from “Ehh” to “No”. Will autovote you down if you read these against an Identity K/Performance position, I consider it a sign of extreme disrespect to the affirmative. Reading these against LARP, Phil, and non-identity based positions is fine and often entertaining but I have a really low warrant for responses.

NEWARK UPDATE:

Please include me in the email chain: harrison.debate.team@gmail.com

Hi, I'm Thomas and I’m a first year out studying at BU. I debated for Harrison on the national circuit for 4 years.

NOVICES??

Overall I'm fine with all positions. Considering you are a novice do what you feel you are good at, please don't try to spread or read circuit arguments unless you know how to. Follow speech times and be respectful/nice to your opponents. Being annoying in cross x is not persuasive just answer the questions. If I think you are promoting harmful ideas in the debate space (I.E: Racism, Homophobia, ect.), I will drop you.

Please try to weigh impacts under each framework so I know what to vote for. Apart from the exception above I will not intervene in the decision. Even if I find an argument is stupid or wrong I will vote on it if it's not addressed by the other debater. Please give me a good framework debate, explain why their framework is wrong, not just that you preclude it. Otherwise claim, warrant and impacts are the way to go. I care about evidence ethics so try to have carded arguments on case.

Circuit People: Don't be mean to novices. If your opponent is reading a lay aff don't go 6 off reading theory and T. I agree with most of what Chetan Hertzig's paradigm says.

See you in Round !

Circuit people:

MORALS: Strategic ≠ Good for debate. Get really good at line by line, not spreading through new 1AR spikes.

Tech>Truth (Except for the ”isms”: racism, sexism, homophobia, ect)

I err on 2 Condo Offs, RVIs good, 1AR theory depends on if you’re reading 20 new frivolous shells. (ofc I can be convinced of whatever in round)

Reasonability on messy violation stories ("oh I told you in person before round") and probably on IVIs (I need to agree to some extent they were violent to the space, don't treat IVI's like spikes)

Dos: Favs are DAs, CPs, Ks.

Anything that has a critical layer is something I find interesting, although sometimes tougher to vote on if articulated poorly (i’m not comfortable choosing between two ROBs if the debate is a wash). Like a critical DA or CP is so cool and I love evaluating critical offense.

Trad/Larpy ish is also something I “like”. That’s if I think it’s true. Like just take a step back with the big stick stuff and think “how stupid would I look if I explained this to a group of officials”. For example, I don’t want to vote for a position that says “one company catching less fish destabilizes the economy which leads to nuclear war”……..

Im also cool with performance. I’ve seen some really thought provoking ones and I think it’s a good educational norm. Make sure you explain how it has some type of topical link, or if not, argument for the ballot and justification for the rejection of the topic, otherwise I’m just rejecting or accepting your identity performance on face value which puts me in a weird position.

Eh:T and Theory. Like I think it matters in the debate space, but you know when you are running a stupid shell just to waste someone’s time. Frivolous theory will tank your speaks even if I end up having to vote on it. I don’t really like RVIs on T.

Don’ts: Tricks, Really Dense Phil, Being rude

Being non inclusive. For example if you’re hitting a trad debater, don’t read tricks. If I feel like someone’s being rude or reading a harmful argument, I will try my best to find a tech way to drop you, and obviously tank your speaks.

Reading phil is another big one. Some of these kids on the circuits understand tricks and dense phil in a way I don’t think my brain ever will (or a lot of kids act like they do). I won’t act like one of these big shot judges that know all of their works, I somewhat understand some Kant, Beaudrillard and other popular authors in debate but if they are ran poorly (no collapsing and explaining) I don’t feel as confident weighing offense or giving you a good ballot.

Tricks is just, no. It just hurts debaters with less experience and/or backfiles. Like I do not enjoy hearing you collapse your 1NR on a single subpoint of an underview. Even if you squeeze a ballot out of me with these, your speaks will SUFFER.

Like 1. I’d rather be listening to more interesting things during the debate round. 2. If you get “screwed over” cuz I don’t understand the third sub point of your 22nd underview don’t post round me and say i didn’t warn you.

With all that being said- Except for those exceptions I will not intervene, in the round, even if I find something to be wrong or dumb. I’ll vote for anything you throw at me as long as you articulate a ballot for it.

WEIGHHHHHHHHHHHH, COLLAPSE, AND TELL ME WHERE IM VOTING.

See you in round :)

Trad people:

Hello, I love trad debate. Don’t try to read anything you don’t understand just to make me happy. I think with the right answers on case, a trad position can beat any position in debate.

Also, even if you don’t know what an argument you are going up against means, doesn’t mean it’s impossible to answer. Don’t let big words and lingo intimidate you, clarify what the argument really means under all the smoke your opponent will throw at you and i’m sure you will find some answers they could overlook.

With that being said, try to weigh between different impacts and scenarios. Also, chose certain arguments that you believe to be especially strong or maybe conceeded to make them key voting issues in the round. If the core of an argument was not responded to, I will not grant any new answers in later speeches.

Although you should flesh out your arguments, some trad debaters just repeat the main points of their case over and over again. Please try to engage in the other case as well, and respond to every argument they make, for conceding something, if extended properly may cost you the round.

Be nice :))))

See you in round.

Hello! I am a parent judge with experience judging LD at few tournaments . I appreciate this opportunity and believe that debate is a place that should be a site of education and learning.

As a parent judge, I expect you to keep the debate clear and make it simple for me to follow. Please use signposting.

Emphasize your contentions, their importance in the round, and why they ultimately win over those of your opponent.

Please speak clearly and slowly so that I can follow (i.e. if you speak fast/spread, I will not be able to understand which means I won't have the means to make the correct judgement).

Notes to consider:

I don't have experience with the circuit side of debate, so please keep the debate traditional.

Specify your contentions clearly, direct me through your flow. During the debate, make sure to clearly state if you are moving on the neg/aff side of the flow.

Weigh your arguments. It is important for me to know what impacts are more important and urgent in order for me to evaluate the round.

I like instructions from the debater on how to piece together the debate

I give good speaker points if you are reasonably well prepared and speak clearly and eloquently.

Don't be rude to your opponent(s).

Good luck and have fun!

I do want to be on the email chains: viveth [at] debate.nyc

I'm the lead program director at the NYC Urban Debate League. I've coached policy debate at Harvard University and Emory University. I did policy debate at Emory University and at Chattahoochee High School.

I evaluate the debate entirely based on the arguments in the round and the flow.

Update for 2023: College Junior

Formerly Debated as Devin Kyser

Currently go by Drixxon Kyzar. Both Dev & Drixx are fine, I really don't mind.

email chain: davk2300@gmail.com

Paradigm:

If there's an email chain, I'd appreciate being on it, but I'm fine with spreading as long as you're somewhat clear.

Will vote on Kritiks and Theory Shells as long as you explain them well. Not a very big fan of tricks, but I won't vote you down for it.

Please keep things cordial and respectful. I understand that Debates can get very intense, but it's important to attack someone's case rather than their person.

Sign posting is highly valued, as it makes my job easier, and is appreciated when I see that your case and motives are organized.

2024 Revised Paradigm:

I'm a product of Newark Science. You can refer to my former coach's paradigm as a basis for how I'll judge.

Speed
Be clear. Pretend I don't have your doc. For most topics, you can spread as fast as you want.

Do not spread dense philosophy. When going quickly with philosophy, clear tags are extremely important. If I have a hard time understanding it at conversational speeds I will not understand it at high speeds. (Don't spread Kant or Foucault.)

Slow down for analytics. If you are comparing or making analytical arguments that I need to understand, slow down for it.

I want to hear the warrants in the evidence. Be clear when reading evidence. I don't read cards after the round if I don't understand them during the round.

Offs
Please don't run more than 5 off in policy or LD. And if you choose 5 off, make them good and necessary. I don't like frivolous arguments. I prefer deep to wide when it comes to Neg strategies.

Theory
Make it make sense. I'll vote on it if it is reasonable. Please tell me how it functions and how I should evaluate it. The most important thing about theory is to make it make sense. I'm not into frivolous theory. If you like running frivolous theory, I am not the best judge for you.

Evidence
Don't take it out of context. I do ask for cites. Cites should be readily available. Don't cut evidence in an unclear or sloppy manner. Cut evidence ethically. If I read evidence and its been misrepresented, it is highly likely that team will lose.

Argument Development

For LD, please not more than 3 offs. Time constraints make LD rounds with more than three offs incomprehensible to me. Policy has twice as much time and three more speeches to develop arguments. I like debates that advance ideas. The interaction of both side's evidence and arguments should lead to a coherent story.

Speaker Points
30 I learned something from the experience. I really enjoyed the thoughtful debate. I was moved. I give out 30's. It's not an impossible standard. I just consider it an extremely high, but achievable, standard of excellence. I haven't given out at least two years.
29 Excellent
28 Solid
27 Okay

Background: Junior, 3rd Year High School LD Debater at Lexington High School.

Email: 25stu397@lexingtonma.org

Arguments:I am comfortable with any arguments. Just be clear on what you are running.

How to win:

1.) Weigh your arguments. It is important for me to know what impacts are more important and urgent in order for me to evaluate the round.

2.) Weigh your arguments under frameworks while also having framework debates if there are different frameworks.

3.) Make CLEAR extensions and if you do not extend it will not be evaluated.

4.) Make sure your links are strong and clear. This is essential in order for me to evaluate the winner.

Speakers:

1.) Give clear off-time road maps so that both I am able to follow each argument on the flow. During the speech make sure to clearly state if you are moving on the neg/aff side of the flow. Try to go top to bottom and if you end up jumping from different arguments, just make sure what argument is being addressed.

2.) If you decide to spread, emphasize and slow down on important words/sentences/paragraphs.

3.) Be nice and respectful.

4.) Be creative and logical with arguments. I like to see arguments that are addressed with basic logic and reasoning.

Most importantly, have fun!

Feel free to email/ask me any questions

Fifth-year assistant coach at Ridge High School.

I teach AP Government, Politics, & Economics, Global History, and AP Euro there as well. I will be able to follow any content/current event information you include.

I've coached and judged all major debate topics. I work most closely with our Congressional debate team, but also have experience judging PF, LD, and Parli.

PF: I think it's important for you to remember the goal of the event. Anyone should be able to walk into your round and follow the debate. With that said, I do flow and will try to give tech feedback as well as general commentary. I think some speed is ok in PF, but I think spreading absolutely does not belong.

LD: I am not a former debater myself; I really struggle to follow theory debate, K's, and spreading in general. I've learned a little about it over the past few years, but if you are a tech/theory/spreading team you should probably strike me (just being honest!). For all other levels--I will flow both framework and case and have voted on both. Try to be concrete in connecting your evidence to your claims. I've found that LD debaters can sometimes get carried away with "debater math"...and no, not everything can lead to nuke war. I am partial to probability arguments--I'm a realist at heart :)

Congress: As a teacher of Government & Politics, I really enjoy this event. You should always be roleplaying being an actual representative/senator. What would your constituents think about your speech? Why is your advocacy in their interest? I really like constitutionality arguments--we have a federal system, and sometimes bills being debated are directly in violation of those principles. Feel free to cite those Supreme Court cases all day. I think any well-prepared Congress competitor should be ready to flip at any point, and I look very favorably on whomever can save us from multiple Affs/Negs in a row. As you get later into the round, I will be highly critical if you are just repeating points from previous speeches. I want to see crystal/ref speeches later on--as do your fellow competitors, I'd presume.

Hi, I don't really have any preferences.

My email is sumayah.orphelia@gmail.com if you make an email chain.

Good luck!

Background: Junior, 3rd Year Debater at Lexington High School.

Email: 25stu260@lexingtonma.org

Arguments: I am fine with all types of arguments, but make sure they are clear

Important things to do:

1. Weigh your arguments. It is important for me to know what impacts are more important and urgent in order for me to evaluate the round.

2. Weigh your arguments under frameworks while also having framework debates if there are different frameworks.

3. Make CLEAR extensions and if you do not extend it will not be evaluated.

4. Make sure your links are strong and clear. This is essential in order for me to evaluate the winner.

Speakers:

1. Give off-time road maps so that I can follow each argument on the flow. Be sure to sign-post in speeches as well.

2. If you decide to spread, emphasize and slow down on important parts

3. Be nice and respectful

4. Arguments must be logical and have clear links, warrants, and impacts

Most importantly, have fun!

Feel free to email/ask me any questions

Iowa City High school 2012-2016

Northwestern University 2016-2020

Northwestern University Coach 2020-???

I want on the email chain: josephweideman01@gmail.com

--I generally know more about policy arguments, but I'm happy to vote for the K/think it is very strategic and usually answered badly.

--In K debates, both sides need to do a much better job of: 1) using examples/contextualizing their offense; 2) debating the other team's argument instead of a caricature of their argument; 3) evidence based debating

--I care a lot about evidence quality. I'll usually read a good chunk of the cards during the debate.

--I think a lot of debates are determined by which team has the better strategic vision/ability to weave the different pieces of a debate together into a win. I do not like having to piece together a debate without instruction from debaters on how to do so.

--I will be very quick to ignore evidence composed of sentence fragments that make no grammatical sense when put together.

--Inserting re-highlighting of the other team's ev is fine, but you must explain what you're inserting/why you think it helps you.

--T-USFG/FW: I think the vitriol with which this argument is approached by many people on both sides of this issue is bordering on the absurd. FW has argumentative merit. So do the answers to FW. Clash is good (If you want to convince me otherwise you'll need to explain what debate is without clash). I care less about fairness gripes. Stop saying things are intrinsic goods and instead use descriptive language to explain why they matter. Aff teams' impact usually outweighs but I consistently vote neg when the aff shotguns offense and fails to answer the neg's defense/tricks and/or because clash turns aff offense.

--I am uninterested in adjudicating personal attacks/arguments about things that happened outside of the debate.

--Conditionality = Good

--T vs Plans: Least favorite type of debate to judge (other than theory debates...maybe). I think evidence quality/predictability matters a lot and its usually silly to put limits above everything else.

--Make choices please.