Put me on the chain with this email: chen.kent@husky.neu.edu

Did policy for 4 years in hs

I don't care if you run kritik or policy as an aff just make policy interesting if you are. I vote on the flow, Don't just read a card and don't explain why you win on an argument. Make sure you know what you're saying. Please clash and explain, it makes it easier for me to vote. Do the work for me on the flow.

I can't stress this enough, please explain why you win an argument and why you should win. It gives you so many advantages to just tell me what to do on the flow rather than assume that I'll know what your intent is.

Sign-post, makes it easier to flow.

Roadmap, makes it easier to flow.

I'm okay with whatever speed you read at, just make sure I can understand what you're saying.

Generally I give 28's. Please don't make me give anything below.

Generally you should pref me low if you a policy aff, if you do run policy make it interesting. I don't like the use of nuclear war as an impact for extinction, something like climate change as an impact is better.

Name: __Erin Connearney____

BDL Judge Paradigm

1. Your experience with policy debate (delete those that do not apply)

Current/Former Coach of a MS Team

2. If any of the above apply, please list the debate event(s) with which you are familiar (delete those that do not apply)

Policy

Which schools have you been affiliated with in the last 5 years?

Edwards Middle School

3.     How many years have you been judging policy debate? 2 years

4.     I have judged (0-10) rounds this season.  

5.     Which best describes your approach to judging policy debate? (select one, delete the others)

Stock Issues (if Aff wins all stock issues, Aff wins round)
Policymaker (judge assumes role of policymaker in decision-making)

7. Assess your attitude on the Rate of Delivery of spoken arguments on a scale of 1 (Slow and Deliberate) to 9 (Very Rapid).

(Slow and deliberate 1)  6  (9 Very rapid)

8. Assess your attitude on the Quantity of Arguments you prefer in a round on a scale of 1 (A few, well-developed) to 9 (The more arguments, the better)

(A few well developed arguments 1)   3   (9 the more arguments the better)

9. Assess how you weigh the importance of Communication Skill vs. Issues in a round.

(Communication Skills 1)  8  (9 Resolving substantive issues)

 

 

 

Name  Erin Connearney________

10. Assess your willingness to vote on the types of arguments below on a scale of 1 (complete acceptable) to 9 (complete unacceptable).

Topicality................................ Acceptable   9   Unacceptable

Counterplans........................... Acceptable  6  Unacceptable

Generic Disadvantages............... Acceptable  2  Unacceptable

Conditional Negative Positions...... Acceptable  3  Unacceptable

Debate Theory Arguments........... Acceptable  5  Unacceptable

Critique (Kritik) Arguments.........Acceptable   9   Unacceptable

 

**update for Harvard

Judged at Lex but my topic knowledge is still negative - I got a 2 on AP Macro Econ so if economic concepts become important in the debate please overexplain.

SLOW DOWN PLEASE

SLOW DOWN PLEASE

SLOW DOWN PLEASE

SLOW DOWN PLEASE

SLOW DOWN PLEASE

SLOW DOWN PLEASE

SLOW DOWN PLEASE

SLOW DOWN PLEASE

SLOW DOWN PLEASE

SLOW DOWN PLEASE

SLOW DOWN PLEASE

SLOW DOWN PLEASE

SLOW DOWN PLEASE

SLOW DOWN PLEASE

SLOW DOWN PLEASE

Top Level

Hi! My name is Vincent (he/him) and I’m excited to be judging your round. I debated for 4 years at Canyon Crest Academy (Canyon Crest LR, Canyon Crest LD/DL) and qualified to the TOC my senior year. I’ve debated as both a 2A and a 2N but at my heart I’m a 2A.

Please add both emails to the chain: Vincentli784@gmail.com, canyoncrestlr@gmail.com,

TLDR

tech > truth

Good for Policy v K, K v K, and Clash Debates

Decent for low to mid level policy debates

Bad for mid to high level policy debates BUT i'll still try my best

Misc things

New to judging so i’m still formulating a lot of my ideas around debate but I will promise to try my hardest to be the best judge I can during your round. Ik first hand how much effort y’all put into this activity and I’ll do my best to reward that!

Basically no topic knowledge

I’ve never been the best flow so pls slow down <3

I’ll vote for any argument provided it has a claim warrant & impact and doesn’t check off any of the “ism” boxes. HOWEVER, I’ve read exclusively critical arguments on both the aff and neg for the last 3 years of my career so if I’m in the back of a policy throwdown, it would be helpful to slow down and over explain warrants/arguments.

Judge instruction wins debates and the best 2NR/ARs should do all the work for me explaining how I should weigh and evaluate certain arguments.

Please use all of cx time

Don't like it when debaters ask flow clarification questions before cx. It's fine to ask for flow clarification but please do it within the 3 minutes of cx

Be kind and respect your opponents. It’s ok to be sassy in cx but no ad homs pls

K Aff v FW

Although my personal history has seen me on the aff side way more than the neg side, I’m receptive to framework and will vote for the team that does the better debating.

If fairness is the 2NR impact, it shouldn’t be a “they cheated and that was unfair for me” but rather how a lack of fairness zeroes the ability for both teams to engage in a mutually beneficial game which means resolving fairness comes first.

K v K

Love these debates but anything that isn’t cap should involve overexplaining links + perm.

Seeing and identifiying the bigger picture is pivotal in these debates (typically the perm lol)

K affs probably get a perm but if it’s the main 2AR strategy I should have a clear vision of what the two movements look like in tandem.

Policy aff v K

I’ll first look to the framework debate and I won’t arbitrarily pick a middle ground, and will choose either between the aff or neg interp.

Links are the most important part of the K and I love hyper specific link explanations that sound like they directly clash with the 1AC.

T(not framework)

Will require hand holding and over explaining.

Definitions with intent to define/exclude and in the context of the res are probably the best interps

Competing interps always made more sense to me than reasonability but the more riddiculous the 1nc interp is, the more justified reasonability becomes

Counterplan/DA

Understand all the arguments but just a reminder that I haven’t read these arguments since my freshman year of high school.

Please especially over explain convoluted Counterplans!

Counterplans need to be tied to a clear net benefit and 1NC cx should be clear abt which DAs serve as net benefits to which Counterplans

Overexplain in debates abt counterplan competition and theory please

For my debate it is fun and that the students have fun is the most important thing, so I think there are several ways to make the debate fun as a judge I don't like when students only read the evidence without giving me an explanation I want them to give me real-life examples and opinions I don't care how strong your evidence is, you have to explain. you have to show a level of knowledge. You should make me think you can win.

The team that wins the rounds of questions also has a better chance of winning

Hi! I'm Camille and I'm a 3rd year coach at the Henderson in the Boston Debate League. Add me to the email chains - cportermcavoy@bostonpublicschools.org. I graduated from UCLA with a degree in political science and communications.

I debated in high school for four years as a varsity parliamentary debater (class of 2016), so I'm relatively familiar with all types of arguments (Ks (including K affs), theory, T, etc). I am happy to evaluate anything read in the round. I believe in judging debate tabula rasa, aka blank slate. If aff tells me the sky is green and neg does not contest it, then the sky is green for the purposes of the debate round. But also please don't blatantly lie or misrepresent your evidence. I won't vote against you solely on this but your speaker points will reflect this. This also does not apply for arguments that are causing obvious harm in the round, like if someone says something blatantly racist, sexist, ableist, etc.

To me, the best debate rounds have a lot of clash. Don't just throw cards at me - explain to me what the card means, how it negates what the other team is reading, and actually weigh those things for me in the round. Impact calculus goes a long way for me in rebuttals. Use your rebuttal speeches to truly compare arguments and tell me why you have won the round. Don't leave anything for me to evaluate on my own. Above all else, do your best, be respectful, and have fun!

Spreading - I don't mind it, but make it clear. If you are trying to spread unnecessarily, your speaker points will reflect it. Just tell me where you want me to put things on the flow and make your taglines super clear. Feel free to ask me any clarifying questions before the round!

The most important things to know about my judging style and experience are as follows: - I'm in my third of year coaching in the Boston Debate League, so I'm most familiar with their cases on this topic (UBI, Federal Jobs Guarantee) and not as familiar with cases outside the BDL packet on this topic. - The most important arguments to me are the arguments that carry through to the end of the debate round - if something comes up in Constructives or CX, it needs to show up in the rebuttals for me to consider it in my decision. - I haven't done much varsity judging before in my three years of coaching. - I am most familiar with the structure of policy arguments.

Experience:

I did 2 years of Lincoln Douglas, 2 years of Public Forum. My partner and I competed at NSDA Nationals 2021 and 2022 and qualified to Public Forum TOC in 2022. I now mentor with Boston Green Academy's High School novice team as part of the Boston Debate League.

For Varsity:

Unsurprising preferences:

• Engage meaningfully with the substance of your opponents' arguments ("I want to see clash")
• At the end of the round, I will vote for the team with the strongest link to the most important impact. This means I need terminal impacts extended into the final speech and weighing done to tell me which ones are most important.
• Use your final speech to write my RFD for me. Tell me what is still standing in the debate and why it means I should vote for you.
• Don't steal prep
• Tech > truth, if I have to pick one, but like, don't read bad arguments. Debate is still a game of persuasion, and true arguments are more persuasive than untrue arguments.

Other preferences:

• If you are called on an evidence ethics violation I will weigh that heavily in my decision. Debate relies on a high degree of self-regulation and trust because there is only so much time in-round to review evidence. If you have ethically questionable evidence in your case, remove or revise it before your round with me.
• I'll flow CX. It's part of the debate for a reason and if anyone makes a really good point in CX I'm not gonna pretend I didn't hear it. But ideally save me the trouble and bring it up in your speech.
• I would love to see a collapse to theory! I will heavily reward a good theory debate with high speaks. There are real conversations to be had about what norms are best for maintaining the fairness and education of debate, and the round is a great platform for those.
• I have limited (but nonzero) experience with K's, so I won't be able to fill in the blanks for you if your story is not clear and convincing. I will happily vote on a kritik, I just need a clear and convincing reason as to why I should vote for you.

For Novice/JV:

Know your case!

Before the round, you should try to summarize in a single paragraph (you can do this in your head) what the story is for voting aff or neg. If you could explain to me over coffee in like 60 seconds what your case is about and why it matters, you will be way more comfortable reading it, responding to rebuttals, making rebuttals, surviving CX, and so on.

In general, I vote for the team with the strongest link to the most important impact. So the most important thing to do in the round is give me that 30-60 second summary, in one or both of the later speeches. Ultimately, I decide a winner based on my own explanation of why I'm voting aff or neg (the RFD), so if your story isn't clear, I won't be able to justify a vote for your side.

liv (pronounced "leave") birnstad – livbirnstaddebate@gmail.com

any pronouns

washington (DC) urban debate league '23

harvard '27

'23 National Urban Debater of the Year

For LD

I have now judged one LD tournament (Newark '24), im a policy judge who is good for your Ks or more trad LD Strats, but I won't be able to get the tricks debate.

For college policy

I didn't/don't do college debate so I am not familiar with the college topic at all. it's your burden to explain acronyms or any other norms I might miss becuase of that!

TL;DR

debaters stop stealing prep challenge. level: impossible. ☹

i coach the boston debate league's nat circuit team + some WUDL folks

i'll happily evaluate anything, i just care about you having fun and being kind to your opponents. debate isn't always a safe space so anything you do that legitimately harms the safety of the space will deck your speaks and make you lose.

read my face, im very expressive lol

if there is something I see in your speech that appears to be legitimately harmful/violent language, or justifies violence, my ballot is not yours.

I wouldn't consider myself to be too tech-heavy. speed is fine but make sure arguments are warranted out -- I want everything on my flow.

speed? – sure

open cx? – sure

theory? – sure but i wouldn't say im a theory hack

can i read __? – yes, just read it well

tech > truth? – i’ll reward good debate and i encourage you to just make fully warranted arguments above all else.

tell me how to evaluate the round.

Full Version

bio

i debated all of highschool in the washington urban debate league so accessibility is really important to me (see below). i coach multiple HS teams and some middle schoolers which means I will hold you to higher threshold for tolerable nonsense since youre likely not eleven.

i read policy affs all four years but was much more flex on the neg. my entire senior year i only went for a K. did all the nat circuit things and generally care a lot about the activity so feel free to do what you want and do best.

stealing prep

dont do it. if it seems like you are close to stealing prep (i.e. maybe you're not outright stealing prep, but you're using send time very liberally, or anything else sketch. i.e. typing while the other team is in the bathroom and you're not running prep) and i have to remind you more than once, you're losing .2 speaker points each time.

accessibility…

comes before everything else. if youre debating a paper team w/o a computer – make sure there is a way they can access your ev. if you fail to do this i’ll deck your speaks and give the other team much more leniency.

accessibility also means not reading arguments drenched in violence (in any sense) without checking if that is ok for the other teams. this is especially true for teams that read arguments about sexual violence.

speaker points

while policy isnt always seen as one, it IS a speech act, your speaking matters. being technical will help you get speaks but its not enough if youre trying to get 29s or higher. fyi, if you can’t already tell by the way i type, i love, love, LOVE good use of emphasis lol

BE NICE. debaters that are mean in round are not gonna be getting good speaks. being mean shouldnt help you and i won’t reward it.

the k

do whatever you want. win fw. when EVERYTHING, inevitably, become a link in the block, distill it down to like two by the 2NR to make me happy! be warned that i hate psychoanalysis and think that a lot of high-theory ks are annoying as hell. going for high-theory ks is a risk in front of me, dont assume i know the lit or your jargon.

K affs

i never read them but i think theyre super interesting and am happy to evaluate one!

the kritik should be a space of advocacy – not speaking for others. teams taking the literature specific to an identity that they do not hold and completely misinterpreting it is weird. (not saying its bad to explore literature... just don’t do it poorly)

if you read an aff that uses things like songs, poetry, etc, you're good to do that in front of me.

cross x…

Is my FAVORITE part of debate so please, please, PLEASE utilize it well!

6,7,8+ off

I generally believe these kinds of debates are shallow and don't actually give teams as much leverage as they think apart from a time skew. while theory is not my bread and butter (see below) ill be a lil more lenient with condo with 6+ off.

theory

i'm admittedly not a great judge for theory, especially the "specs." if you wanna go for this, you have to GO FOR IT. actually articulate the impacts and the warrants to how they are implicated by whatever your violation is. get off your blocks.

card clipping/evidence ethics

if someone makes a card clipping accusation in the round (or another evidence ethics violation) i will stop the round after the speech in which it occurs, explain the stakes to the team that makes the accusation, and if they decide to continue with the accusation i'll evaluate the argument. if it gets to that point, i'll see if the cards were clipped. if so, the team that makes the accusation wins, if not, they lose.

silly/fun args?

please! debate is supposed to be enjoyable and i love silly little arguments just know the time and place.

misc

I don't see myself voting on things that happened before the reading of the 1ac. if you’re gonna make args about the other team from before the round, it's gonna be hard to get my vote on these args so make them with caution.

if the round doesn’t go the way you want, i would be happy to listen to a redo + give feedback just send it to me within a week.

Hello! My email is mosieburkebdl@gmail.com - Please add me to the chain!

I debated for six years, high school and middle school, in the Boston Debate League for Boston Latin Academy, attending national circuit tournaments for four of those six years. I graduated from Haverford College in 2021 with a degree in Philosophy and a minor in Statistics, and wrote a thesis offering Deleuzian (and related) readings of data visualizations. I received a Master's in Accounting/MBA from Northeastern University in 2022 (despite loving the Cap K).

I began coaching the Boston Debate League's Travel Team, which is composed of teams from multiple schools in the Boston area, in Fall 2022. I coached for Boston Collegiate Charter School during the 2021-2022 season.

Short version:

-I lean K, and I will know your K's lit base. This increases your burden to explain your theory well, and I will not do theoretical work for you in my RFD

-I was a 1N who took T in 95% of my 1NRs and I will understand and appreciate your tricks

-Evidence comparison will get you much farther than 15 new 1nr cards

-Solid development on the case pages gets great results

-Speed and tons of off-case positions are okay. Read the important warrants in your cards.

-I'm not the judge for your condo 2AR, though i'm sure it's great, no really

-This paradigm has not been adapted for virtual debate, but I will gladly answer any questions about how this applies to virtual debate

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

As of the 2024 Urban Debate National Championship, I have judged 8 tournaments on the fiscal redistribution topic including outrounds on the national circuit. I actively coach and write arguments of all styles on the fiscal redistribution topic.

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

Full paradigm:

***I follow NSDA guidelines for evidence violations, including card clipping and misrepresentation of evidence, in the absence of guidance from tournament admin***

Style:

Speed is fine. Card-speed and non-card-speed should be different. If you blast through 8 arguments in 15 seconds, I won't get them all, it won't be my fault, and I don’t want to get post-rounded because I didn’t catch that they dropped the 6th of 8 2AC permutations. Don't bury your best arguments!

Strong, direct CX is great! (However:)

Don't be cruel, disrespectful, or belittling. This is especially true if you are more experienced/knowledgeable than the other team. If you're a senior with 4 years of national circuit experience and 3 summers of camps, don't be a jerk to sophomores at their first varsity tournament. This doesn't mean you should go easy, it means that you should take your opponents and their arguments seriously.

K (and K affs):

I am well-versed in a bunch of K literature (and you should ask if you'd like to know about my familiarity with your specific K author), but that doesn't mean you don't have to explain things. Pedagogically, it's important to communicate the theoretical nuances you're using to make your arguments. “Ontology means we win” isn’t a complete argument, even though I know how to connect those dots.

I am sympathetic to arguments about ivory tower positions/armchair philosophy. I debated in a UDL, on a small team, and in a program that often lacked funding. Don't aim to win arguments by virtue of your opponents not having the resources to engage them. If you do this, you're causing direct harm to the activity and to fellow debaters, and that's an impact scenario I am happy to vote on.

Performance is 100% fine by me. If you incorporate a performance as part of your aff's methodology, I will evaluate is as I would any other methodology - so please incorporate it in later speeches and make sure I know why it's important to relevant perm/framework/T/etc debates.

T:

I was a 1N, and there wasn't a single neg block my senior year where I didn't take the T flow. I LOVE good T debates, and this is where all of your clever tricks will be appreciated. Make strategic concessions, go hard on "they don't meet the counter-interp", do fun things with internal links. Defense usually won't win by itself.

Compare interp evidence! This comparison can win you debates. 90% of interpretation evidence sucks enough to give the aff the edge on reasonability.

RVI arguments on these flows won't win you any rounds.

Theory:

If it's a time suck and it works, nice job.

I am rarely a judge where the 2AR should go for theory, and I’m a particularly hard sell on conditionality bad.

I think the neg gets to run multiple conditional advocacies with the exception of abusive cross-application of offense between contradictory positions.

I default to reject the argument, unless you have very strong reasons I should reject the team.

FW vs K Affs:

Run it well. You should have good reasons why your interpretation matters. Fairness is an impact.

Don't throw in arguments about "small schools" to get the moral high ground if you don't care about accessibility absent a ballot, please :)

DAs:

Links are almost always a sliding scale as opposed to Yes/No. How much of a link is there? How does that effect the impact debate?

"We win on magnitude so vote Aff" is not impact calc, nor is it an argument.

CPs:

I was not a counterplan debater and I’m probably a little behind the times on whatever tricky counterplan strategies have made their way into the meta, so give me the more detailed versions of why those arguments solve. Give me warranted sufficiency framing starting in the Block, please.

The likelihood of a PIC 2NR winning is proportional to the scale of the link to the net benefit.

Please slow down on the warrants and impact debate for counterplan theory debates.

Alt cause arguments on case > re-cutting aff solvency evidence to make a PIC to solve alt causes

Case:

Yes please. I don’t need lengthy overviews or underviews. Strive to put more on the case debate against K affs than state good.

I am a student at New England School of Law Boston. I graduated from UMass Amherst with a degree in political science. I debated for 3 years at New Mission High School out of Boston. In a round, I look for confidence. I'm cool with any type of argument. I tend to vote on the flow. Please make sure your explanations are clear. Give me an impact calc!!

I want you to tell me why I should vote on certain arguments. Again, any type of argument is fine with me. Topicality, kritiks, Da's, CP's, and theory are all fine with me and I understand them when ran. Speaking wise, if you spread, make sure you at least go over your tag-lines slowly so that I can mark that down on the flow. Also, please stand during speeches and cross-ex. That's all. Let's all have a good time. Any other questions, feel free to ask me before the round.

Background: I debated competitively in high school and college in a policy debate context.

Preferences: I am open to arguments of any form, with the following caveats:

My background is policy debate so I come in with that frame as my default...if you want me to apply some other frame, you will need to be explicit (either in the round or before but not after)

Speak clearly. And if you are making a complex argument, I would recommend modulating your speed so that the structure and flow of the argument can be understood.

Feel free to ask if you have questions.

Yes I want to be on the email chain: maeveknowlton@gmail.com

Slow down during your blocks.

Please :) better yet send them if you want.

General

Background: currently a college debater at Suffolk

5 years of judging experience

3 years middle school urban debate
3 years high school national circuit

Cross is open unless its a maverick or someone requests that it be closed.

She/Her please

PLEASE sign post(say which argument you talk to when changing topics) during your speeches. If I look confused I probably am.

please give roadmaps. Roadmap for 1nc = how many offs then case. Roadmaps for any other speech is the order of arguments being addressed.

Assume that I know nothing going into the round. I won't debate for you in the RFD, you need to explain to me why you win on certain arguments in the round.

You can run any arguments in front of me, including Ks.

I guess I'm a tech over truth judge but in a good round a distinction doesn't need to be made. You need to explain to me why you won in the context of the debate and not just why your argument is true, especially for Ks and framework.

Incase you're wondering, I was a K debater in high school on both aff and neg for most of my career. And I also am very critical of poorly made Ks, so be warned. I do college debate now and do more policy but still do K.

Be nice! Especially in novice. If you are varsity be clever/charming/funny. Make the environment enjoyable to be in for everyone.

Arguments

K: My biggest thing with Ks is that out of round impacts need to be argued very very well for me to vote for them, because as someone who's been in the debate scene for years, they're quite literally just not true. If you win the out of round impacts then I'll vote for it but it will be nearly impossible to convince me that out of round spill over exists unless you literally show it. I've judged these arguments for 5 years, it's not going to pull my heart strings. I heavily prefer in round impacts/fiated K impacts. You'll be more successful and the debate will be more interesting for everyone. Additionally, I've judged a lot of butchered and watered down versions of Ks that are painful to watch, so if you're going to run a K please read the literature or at least debate with someone who has. A poorly articulated K is the most boring round to judge.

• K AFFs: I can definitely be a good judge for you and I love K affs but things you should know 1) Your aff should have a specific reason to be on the aff. please do not just copy and paste your 1nc(and vice versa) 2) You should have a clear reason for the ballot. 3) If your aff is a method of political resistance you should be clear on what it is or isn't. Vagueness will hurt your chances at a ballot with me.If the debate is K v Kaff, please do not lose track of A) tech and B) the actual rundown of your aff. If the synopsis of your aff changes mid round I will notice. The worst K affs are slippery advocacy's that don't argue for anything in particular and don't know what they want to be until the 1ar.
• Performance: I love good performance debates! however, I can't listen to music over your speech because I am autistic. I love good performance debates though! Feel free to send the lyrics and if you tell me what the value of the music is in the speech. If the music has an influence over the ballot or argument I will evaluate it as if I had heard it. You should also be prepared to explain why the performance of the aff is integral to it's solvency/advocacy. Performances that stop being talked about after the 1ac are boring and defeat the purpose.

Framework: Framework arguments matter a lot to me and I will consider them heavily while voting. if you're running a K along the lines of "reject aff's thinking" or "embrace this mindset" and you don't explain what that means to me in terms of voting (role of the ballot) then I will vote you down. If you don't explain the voters of your framework then I can't evaluate it. Even if you win on framework the other team can still win under it. "Dropping framework" does not mean you win the round unless you explain to me why your framework being used frames how I judge the round in the result of a ballot for you.

T: Feel free to run topicality in front of me, but A) I buy into reasonability pretty often and B) if you claim to be unprepared for the most common aff in the year I will keep that in mind while evaluating the T.Fairness and clash are internal links,not impacts

CP: You can run CPs, but be clear on the competition to the aff and/or net benefit. More harsh on PICS than regular CPs but you can still run them.

Theory: You need to show real examples of abuse and its effect on the round. Truth vs teched is swapped here for me, though tech still matters. Unless there's a serious breach of ethics in the round I will most likely ignore it. However please do run it if there is because I love voting down unethical teams.

• Disclosure: if I witness an active refusal, or if they break new last second then I'll give it attention, but if it's A) a novice prelim round or B) a minor mistake I won't take it to seriously.
• Spreading: Will only evaluate it if you request an accommodation and the other team refuses or ignores it. If you don't request a lower speed before the round I will most likely not buy this argument, almost every round at a tournament I'm judging at, spreading should be expected.
• Condo: Show specific examples of condo making the round worse, things like contradicting arguments (especially K/theory/T), arguments being randomly picked up and dropped, etc.
• PICS bad: if your pic is literally just "AFF plus another thing" and not an actual different method testing that the aff can engage with without being extra topical or debating themself, you will be vulnerable to losing to this theory if I am your judge. Most PICs are not that bad but I've seen some pretty abusive pics.
• Perm bad: a very hard maybe. If the perm is lazy I can buy it. if the alt/cp is vague and doesn't have clear competition I won't.

I will update this if I see a new theory argument (there's always something)

DA: I haven't seen a 2nr go for DA not as a net benefit to a CP in a long time. they're basically just parts of the CP shells now, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, just what I expect. keep in mind that the magnitude of the impact is usually the least important part of the DA for me. Uniqueness>>>Impact Risk and timeframe has much more weight in terms of impact framing. Extinction has no weight on the ballot unless every other part of the DA is sound, don't just keep rambling about how big of a deal it is because I don't care. Talk about links and uniqueness, FINISH THE SHELL.

Speaker Points

I tend to give pretty high speaks if you do well.

If you ask good cross-ex questions I may give you more points, and I understand cross can be intense, but being overly aggressive or rude in cross is a VERY big ick to me and can deduct major speaker points.

If you straight up lie about something in the round continuously and it isn't a mistake, then I will be annoyed and will drop speaks. I.E misinterpreting something they said in cross, lying about the flow/arguments dropped, etc.

Nathan Fulton's Policy/Parli Judging Paradigm

I sometimes volunteer as a high school or college debate judge. This document explains how I evaluate rounds.

Debate Background: I was a policy debater in high school. In college I competed with moderate success in NPTE-style parli (argumentative and delivery style are very similar to policy). I graduated a long time ago, did a bit of assistant coaching shortly thereafter, and since then I've judged a couple tournaments every year or two. Which is to say: experienced but rusty!

Argument Preferences: This is your game. Tell me how you want to be evaluated. If you do not tell me, then I will default to my own view of what debate is. By default, debate as an educational game that is particularly good at teaching its players research skills and critical reasoning skills. I also view debate as a less than ideal game for teaching rhetoric and inter-personal communication skills. This means that I am open to evaluating all types of arguments, place a huge premium on argument quality, and place less of an emphasis on presentation. I will typically default to evaluating arguments as you would expect from a judge with substantial policy debate experience and no old-school theory commitments. But, again, this is the default. it's your game. You can reduce the likelihood of surprises in my RFD by clearly articulating how I should be evaluating arguments presented in the round.

Above all, please be kind and have fun.

If you have any questions, just ask.

Speed: I have no objections and can generally follow along, but I have been out of the debate world for over a decade. I get slower at flowing every year. I will let you know if I am falling behind.

Philosophically: speed can be used to play a game where there are complex interactions between lots of inter-related topics that cannot be disentangled (finance, technology, law, policy, politics, geopolitics, etc.). Speed can also be used to play a game where a smaller number of topics are explored in extraordinary detail. Both of these games are very useful preparation for citizenship and for professional life. Unfortunately, playing enough of these games to learn useful skills without using speed is prohibitively time-consuming. So in my mind speed is just this weird tool we use to make debates more interesting and textured without needing 4 hour rounds.

But practically: speed is self-defeating when it's used as a cudgel. I love giving W's when there is a sneaky triple turn across 4 different flows that requires understanding several hidden nuances in two seemingly disparate internal link scenarios, and which could only be evaluated because both teams correctly and efficiently executed on dropping other parts of the flow. I hate giving W's due to the 2AC running out of a time and didn't make it to the silly procedural at the bottom of ADV 3. I think that using speed in rounds where one of the teams is clearly incapable of keeping up -- and then continuing to move quickly while asking for a ballot on the basis of a dropped argument -- is both bad form and unkind. If a key drop happens in a round and it is clear that your opponents are struggling to keep up, please point out the drop but then continue with the round at a slower pace on the areas where there is contention so that everyone can still learn.

Personal Background: I work as a computer scientist at the intersection of artificial intelligence and software safety; you can read more about my work at https://safelearning.ai

Welcome to my paradigm—if you’re here I’m probably about to judge you, or you’re about to do prefs/strikes. I’m Amishai (pronounced ah-me-SHY, he/him) call me Amishai or "judge" I don't care.

ADD ME TO THE CHAIN AND FEEL FREE TO EMAIL ME WITH ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE OR AFTER ROUNDS:
Agoodmangoldstein@gmail.com

My paradigm is long. It is probably the longest you have read.

Don't want to read it all? Say so and I will just quickly walk all debaters through it pre-round, no problem at all--otherwise I will assume you have read it and adjudicate accordingly. This is ESPECIALLY TRUE FOR NOVICES AND MIDDLE SCHOOLERS--don't be intimidated, I am here to help you and not just judge you.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

BIOGRAPHY:

I am a political science and theory student at American University and am a volunteer coach in the Washington Urban Debate League. I was most recently head coach of the policy debate team at MacArthur High School in Washington DC (Fall 2023). I was assistant coach for middle schoolers at Boston’s Mission Hill School (closed now) for a year (2019-2020) and a lab leader for the Boston Debate League's summer program in 2023. I have judged intermittently since Fall 2019, at all levels and divisions.

I debated policy for six years in the Boston Debate League (2017-2023), including as team captain for Latin Academy, and now do college parliamentary debate in the American Parliamentary Debate Association as well as coaching HS policy. I’m also a former moot court advocate with national awards, former high school history teaching assistant, historic home docent, and Democratic political organizer.

I’ve judged approximately 20 rounds under the fiscal redistribution resolution in multiple leagues, tournaments, and divisions and am very well versed in it.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

READ THIS IF NOT A POLICY ROUND--IF IT IS POLICY (really, only policy), SKIP TO PARADIGM!

I am primarily a policy judge, so if you have me for anything other than policy (or public forum), the round will probably move slower. I am very proficient in moot court and American parliamentary debate as well, so if I happen to be judging one of those you can treat me as an experienced judge. If it is a speech event or any type of debate other than CX, LD, PF, or Parli, however, please treat me as if I am a lay judge in how you operate, ie slow down and explain. That said, I still have some confidence in my ability to handle complex issues and theory, and if I am confused, I will tell you. Read the paradigm below for good measure either way.

Note: I am fine with complex arguments in public forum and do not ascribe to the principle that a member of the general public should necessarily be able to understand every round--this can be cross-applied to any debate I judge. Debate is an academic activity, it is not a speech event.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

LD and PF debaters: I am judging you with the lens of a policy debater and judge. My preferences for policy below can be cross-applied. This is NOT true for parli as I am a collegiate parliamentary debater also and will typically use the “path of least resistance” method to determine the most meaningful argument which has gone insufficiently addressed by a side and assign the winner accordingly.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

POLICY COMPETITORS READ THIS (if you don’t read this you might have a very avoidable loss. You’ve been warned)

I know I can be unique in this, but: I don’t evaluate arguments in a vacuum unless you can really convince me that I should, if you run discrete K, framework, and CP that all kind of contradict each other it’s going to be difficult for me to vote for you unless you do a really killer job of it, because I think debate shouldn’t be a game of throwing a bunch of sh*t at the wall and seeing what sticks. In other words, I will be considering all of your arguments in the same universe, and if they can’t coexist in that universe, you are going to lose. This makes me more of a truth judge than a tech judge, but I also don’t think these labels are great because I might vote more like a tech judge in a given round--I may simply "vote on the flow" if a round is extremely close, or if it is particularly dull and uninspiring clash-wise.

I don’t typically flow author names, extend by referencing warrants--please. I flow online and often in shorthand so my flow will likely be of little use to you, but I am happy to walk you through it if you ask afterwards. I am a quick typer but you need to clearly tell me what is case and what is off or I will do bare minimum figuring out what goes where. Constant on case—off case and back again jumping is confusing and will likely lead to some mistakes on the flow, and it’s bad speech organization so your speaks probably will suffer.

I am comfortable with just about any type of argument.

Ks are perfectly fine. I am pretty well versed in foundational Western political theory and a little bit of Chinese philosophy but not so much the literature base that appears in most Ks, though I am still happy to handle Ks, if your K is very generic I'll have seen it, if not I can still work with it and will understand the concepts at least at the elementary level.

I like framework and am happy to vote on quality framework debate.

I AM the judge you want for topicality as a frequent former T debater—do it well, be accurate, and I WILL be willing to vote on T (usually in combination with other things but I have given ballots solely on T on rare occasions).

I do not love conditionality but I am not averse to it, run that condo if you feel it’s necessary, I might scowl but I’ll be fine.

CAVEAT: IF YOU DO NOT FORMALLY, PROPERLY SET UP YOUR K/T/FRAMEWORK/ANY OTHER OFF I AM LIKELY NOT GOING TO BE CONSIDERING IT AND IT IS GOING TO BE AN AUTO-WIN FOR YOUR OPPONENT.

This is also true if you run extremely high theory on an inexperienced opponent without going through necessary motions to explain and make the round accessible! I come from an urban debate background, basic fairness and accessibility is a real issue to me. But so are the rules. Example: I’ll have more tolerance for a sloppy alt if you’re a new to varsity urban league debater than if you’ve competed at nats.

Judge kick: sure, if you can convince me that there’s a good reason beyond not wanting to argue on whatever you want me to kick

Competition args on CPs: yes please, just give me good clash and give me solid extensions (not lazy ones) even if aff doesn’t respond well

Disclosure (of case) is good in policy debate, and I am not going to be open to arguments that it isn’t good, nor am I very open to arguments that disclosure is only good or should only be done for a certain category/demographic of debater.

PLEASE don’t be too heavy on analytics in constructive. I know when you’re being lazy and making up for lack of cards. It’s tough to flow and it’s low quality debate. Find the balance and your analytics will support your evidence, but your analytics cannot take the place of evidence. If your constructive sounds like a rebuttal, you can assume I will not take kindly.

PET PEEVE: when a policy round consists of zero clear overlap or clash on the flow. This happens way way way more often than you would think. If this happens, I will typically take it out on speaks. CLASH. LOOK AT FLOW. DID I SAY CLASH? OK GOOD

WEIGHING, LINE BY LINE, IMPACT CALC AND VOTERS
Do it. You do it, other team doesn’t do it, you’re not guaranteed a win but your chances go way up. Judges are lazy—do the work on the flow for me. If there’s no semblance of basic impact calc/weighing/voters, I will vote on the flow alone with bare minimum weighing and you may not like the decisions I make because I don’t have any guidance from you on how to weigh different args. WRITE MY WHOLE RFD TOP TO BOTTOM IN YOUR 2AR/2NR, DOWN TO THE SMALLEST PARTS OF THE DECISION (not literally writing it, but tell me what you think should be in it).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Style and Sportsmanship:

I’m fine with spreading, but if you’re spreading so fast you’re literally gasping for air that’s not healthy for you (literally) and it’s going to hurt my flow. On a 1-10 of speed, my own preference is around a 6 BUT if you need to go slower to be clear and effective you should absolutely do so. If I can't understand you, I will tell you to slow down only once, and if you don’t adapt you’re accountable for my flow having huge gaps. In addition, you need to signpost, if you do not at least read the tag, it is highly likely that I will not catch all of your arguments which will hurt your overall chances in the round.

* I NO LONGER GIVE ANY TIME WARNINGS OUTSIDE OF HIGH SCHOOL NOVICE OR MIDDLE SCHOOL ROUNDS. * In any disputes over time, my timer will still overrule yours.

Stand when you speak, sit when you speak, wear a suit, wear pajama pants--I legitimately do not care. The only thing ever so slightly related to physical appearance that will affect my decision is if you appear visibly annoyed at something your partner or opponent does in round, hit the table, loudly sigh, etc. This happens frequently, is extremely poor sportsmanship and I will call it out with zero hesitation person by person in feedback.

Clash is good, personal attacks are not. If any conduct negatively influences the debate so much that I have to address it mid round, it will hurt your speaker points and possibly your overall chances. This seems to happen most frequently during cross examination, by far. It’s fine to try to back your opponent into a corner but don’t be personally hostile while doing it! I will not hesitate to call you out, but it's not fun for me and it is embarrassing for you and your team. I will GLEEFULLY give you a 25/26 if you, a skilled national circuit debater with tons of full on tournament wins, bully your opponents in cross (this happened, if it sounds oddly specific). I will do it even more gleefully if you have more structural advantages in your favor.

THIS SHOULD BE OBVIOUS BUTIT KEEPS HAPPENING: if cross ex is open you and your partner both need to be asking and answering questions. You can choose to split the CX periods and have only one person talk in each one but IF ONE PERSON DOES ALL OR 75%+ OF CX TALKING, I WILL REDUCE SPEAKER POINTS FOR BOTHTEAM MEMBERS.

Just because I may seem personally inclined to certain ideological arguments DOES NOT mean I am going to vote for them by default. I like authentically contrarian/conservative cases a lot, as long as they aren't bigoted and are well reasoned/argued.

If your argument is grounded in calling your opponents racist or bigoted in some inherent manner, there better be a good case to back it up. (I don't mean settler colonialism args--I mean "aff should lose because they are x demographic and thus are racist")

Openly bigoted arguments will automatically lose. This includes explicit racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, antisemitism, Islamophobia, etc, which, if bad enough, will make me end the round then and there. There's plenty of room to debate controversial policy on tough issues without making bigoted arguments.

I will NOT flow or vote on cross examination. I will closely observe it for the purpose of awarding speaks, but if you extract an important concession, contradiction etc and never bring it up in constructive/rebuttal, it’ll be like I didn’t hear it. And I will tell you that, disappointedly, when I give feedback. This approach hopefully forces you to not try to argue during cross and instead use it how you are supposed to—to help understand arguments and extract pieces to build your own.

There are no dumb questions until the round starts. Please try to clarify everything you need to with me prior to the 1AC.

I look at your speech doc as you read in addition to flowing, so I can and will catch you if you clip cards which will result in an auto-loss. Reminder—clipping and cutting are not the same! Being explicit that you are cutting a card is fine, deceptively clipping lines in your card and/or selectively choosing to read certain words with others to make the card say something it doesn’t actually say is certainly not fine. If you catch your opponent clipping or doing any other sort of evidence violation, say so! Don’t wait for your next speech. Just say it as soon as they’re done talking so I can review the cards and proceed according to NSDA rules.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

SPEAKS/DECISION/POSTROUND

I'm lenient with speaks. Yes, there’s a debate-wide problem of speaks inflation, but unless a tournament addresses it holistically with a clear rubric to evaluate debaters, I won't be the judge who denies a good debater a speaker award. This does not mean free 28s-30s but I typically don't give below a 27 in a round without major debater errors, so don't worry too much. Speak how you're comfortable. I won't penalize slow and steady speakers. I will penalize fast and unintelligible speakers. I'll NEVER penalize based on taking a second to catch your breath/find your place, or word pronunciation confusion/accents.

I’ll disclose my decision if I’m required to or it’s the general standard of the tournament. If it’s not, I won’t. I won't disclose speaks unless required to. Doing so detracts from the point of feedback--to improve your debating in substantive ways.

Asking questions after my decision and feedback is fine, especially if you’re confused as to why I voted how I did. If I can’t disclose, I unfortunately can’t answer a lot of questions except those about style and general argument choices. If you actually “postround” and argue with me, however, I will tell your coach and tab and give you no speaks. If your coach comes in and postrounds me, I will leave the room immediately, give you no speaks and tournament staff/tab will be informed.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FINAL WORDS

Please have fun. We are not debating the end of the world (even if we are). We’ve all chosen to take time out of our day to be in the debate space. Let’s not take ourselves too seriously in it, and we'll all have a better time.

I competed in policy debate for four years of high school and in NPDA-style parli for four years of college. Debate how you want to debate. Tech >>> truth, except in extreme cases.

Conditionality good, within reason.

Yes judge kick.

Sorry this is so short; I'm running late for something.

Add me to the email chain: [firstname][lastname]7@gmail

Add me to the thread: tkirk@bostonpublicschools.org

I was a high school debater 20 years ago. This is my first year as a debate coach. I attempt to approach each round with a Tabula Rasa philosophy, to whatever degree that is possible. I am willing to listen to and am familiar with any argumentation. I want debaters to evaluate and frame arguments as the round progresses with emphasis on comparative analysis between those competing arguments. Speed is generally not a problem.

Jake LoRocco

Updated 1/10/2023

-

About Me

I did policy debate for four years in high school at Dallas Jesuit. I did not debate in college but judged throughout and stayed involved in the community.

Currently judging/volunteering with the Boston Debate League.

-

General

I'm good with any type of argument (as long as it's not racist, sexist, etc...) in any form (K, DA, CP, etc...). No matter the argument though, tell me why it's important and why I should vote for it. And please make it aff specific.

You can talk as fast as you want (and I will let you know if you aren't clear).

I don't think new affs bad is a legitimate argument.

Last substantial edit: Jan 2018

Hello!

My name is Jen! I currently work in nonprofit communications in Boston, MA. Before that, I spent two years as a graduate assistant debate coach for Vanderbilt Univerisity's policy team. I have experience judging for both BP and Policy at the college level, as well as middle and high school policy formats.

For BDL high school tournaments:

- Remember to explain the cards, do not just read them to me with their tags. This will be particularly important when you're giving your rebuttal speeches.

- Be as clear as possible as to why you win. For example, why your evidence is better or why your impacts are better, etc.

- If the debate is messy, it's okay to point that out to me, and why your speeches are more organized or better argued, despite the messiness.

- You do not have to keep all of the advantages or disadvantages throughout the round. By the rebuttal speeches, you should be focusing on the arguments that you are winning, and telling me why those arguments are strong.

- I am totally fine with speed. Caveat: don't sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand it I can't flow it, if I can't flow it you're not going to win on it.

- I like Ks. I am also super familiar with most of this material so I will know if you do not know it. Be specific on framework, and if you're aff be specific about what your aff does. What are the impacts of thinking this way? Or doing this thing? etc. Also if you want me to evaluate the round differently than a typical policy judge, set that up from the beginning and be extremely clear and consistent.

- I also like policy debates! More below...

- I don't have a "preference" per say about theory args. I generally vote on theory based on the strength of the responses on the aff.

- Be clear about having a claim, a warrant, and an impact to your arguments. If you're running a K or a performance aff where this may not apply, be explicit as to why not.

- If you want to win on a tech policy debate, here is how with me:

1. Be clear about what your turns, straight turns, double turns, perms, etc. It's not enough for me to say you "turned" the DA. Tell me what you get with that and why that helps your case. I'm not likely to vote on something obscure you did just because you said you did it. That's not how I see the activity.

2. If you want me to vote on something that was dropped, make it clear that it matters to the debate round and why you win on it.

3. I will vote for theory things if they're not answered. Feel free to explain to me in detail why negative counterplans are bad for 6 minutes in the 2AR if they dropped it. Just remember to explain why that outweighs.

4. Don't tell me something is an a priori voter and move on. Explain why it should be.

T

- There are in fact policy affirmatives that I think aren't topical. I won't vote on this unless the other team drops it. If they drop all or part of this, I'd go for it. I do think T is an a priori voter (but still need to hear the fully explained T argument, please).

- Affs, don't drop this.

Ks

- So, a few things:

1. I'm open to anything. I hold as open a posture as possible for what can be argued in a debate round.

2. HOWEVER, I think that it is important to have negative ground in a debate round. To me, "ground" means that they have a variety of options for offense against the case and that the negative is not forced into arguing for a status quo that the affirmative identifies as racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/etc. or just arguing framework. I have voted on framework in a K debate for there not being enough ground for the Neg.

3. Make sure I can tell what I am voting FOR. Don't make the Role of the Ballot something that the neg could never argue against. If it's something other than what is typical for the topic then explain exactly what that ballot should be, what the debate should be about and what my role as a judge is in this round.

4. I am not a fan of vague cross-x answers during K debates. If the other team is asking you what your aff is about, I would prefer you not make remarks demeaning the other team's intelligence for not understanding your aff. Give a CLEAR explanation of your advocacy statement. If you are asked what a word means, I want you to explain it (I might already know what the term means, but this is good for clarity of your argument and good to make sure I know what YOU mean by that term). Do everything you can to help the other team understand during cross-x if they ask so that we can have a better debate.

5. Do not have a shifty advocacy. Be clear and consistent with what you are advocating. If your advocacy shifts, my ballot may shift with it.

6. To teams on the neg in a K aff round: I HAVE voted on framework but I have also done the opposite. Going for framework in the end may be the equivalent of tossing a coin with my ballot. There are arguments out there like critical conformity that provide more clash in these debates. However, if they're being abusive for one or more of the reasons I listed below, feel free to point that out. It may be worth going for.

______

For college tournaments:

My pronouns are she/her/hers. I expect all debaters to either use gender-neutral terms for the other debaters in the round or use each debater's preferred pronouns (which can be made known at each debaters' discretion through Tabroom). Speaker points are at stake.

* Please send documents to jennifer.elizabeth.newman@gmail.com *

My judging philosophy...

- I am open to hearing arguments of all types, but I feel strongly that the debate space needs to be inclusive. That's my bias. Other than that, I am pretty chill. Just be considerate.

- Although I have these listed by division, it may be a good idea for debaters to read all the sections.

I. Novice - with the packet

- Be sure to answer every argument. There are cards in there to answer all of the arguments for every affirmative case.

- Remember to explain the cards, do not just read them to me with their tags. This will be particularly important when you're giving your rebuttal speeches.

- Be as clear as possible as to why you win. For example, why your evidence is better or why your impacts are better, etc.

- If the debate is messy, it's okay to point that out to me, and why your speeches are more organized or better argued, despite the messiness.

- You do not have to keep all of the advantages or disadvantages throughout the round. By the rebuttal speeches, you should be focusing on the arguments that you are winning, and telling me why those arguments are strong.

II. JV

Some things to note:

- I like Ks. I am also super familiar with most of this material so I will know if you do not know it. Be specific on framework, and if you're aff be specific about what your aff does. What are the impacts of thinking this way? Or doing this thing? etc. Also if you want me to evaluate the round differently than a typical policy judge, set that up from the beginning and be extremely clear and consistent.

- I also like policy debates. In fact, I think this topic lends itself to some incredibly interesting potential policy affs. I don't have a "preference" per say about theory args. I generally vote on theory based on the strength of the responses on the aff.

- Be clear about having a claim, a warrant, and an impact to your arguments. If you're running a K or a performance aff where this may not apply, be explicit as to why not.

III. OPEN

- I am totally fine with speed. Caveat: don't sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand it I can't flow it, if I can't flow it you're not going to win on it.

Framework

- Hard Framework (aka we should be debating government policy action): I don't typically vote on this. I attribute this to seeing K debates where the K team is well-prepared for this. It could also be that I am just not persuaded by it because I think K debates are really important to the debate space.

- Soft Framework (aka you have to DO something, and/or you have to engage the state in some way. You don't have to use the state but you have to engage it): I am actually likely to vote on this. The ground argument, or a version of that, is really compelling to me for Affs that have shifty ground and no-link out of other Ks or DAs. I'd say it's a good thing to go for when you don't have anything else. For the Aff, be ready to explain to me exactly what ground the neg had that they failed to see and go for.

T

- There are in fact policy affirmatives that I think aren't topical. I won't vote on this unless the other team drops it. If they drop all or part of this, I'd go for it. I do think T is an a priori voter.

- Affs, don't drop this.

- I am less likely to vote on T for Carbon Tax than I am for cellulosic ethanol. I think it's difficult for most affirmatives to actually BE topical (insert disgruntled comments about the resolution here). I think you should be able to justify your aff is topical.

- Effects T is a thing I will vote on if you go all in and the other team doesn't provide satisfactory answers. In a K debate, I'm less likely to vote on effects T if there are Aff answers like effects T bad or something like that.

Techy Stuff

- If you want to win on a tech policy debate, here is how with me:

1. Be clear about what your turns, straight turns, double turns, perms, etc. DO. It's not enough for me to say you "turned" the DA. Tell me what you get with that and why that helps your case. I know that sounds super rudimentary but really teams miss doing this in the rebuttals. I'm not likely to vote on something obscure you did just because you said you did it. That's not how I see the activity.

2. If you want me to vote on something that was dropped, make it clear that it matters to the debate round and why you win on it.

3. I will vote for theory things if they're not answered. Feel free to explain to me in detail why negative counterplans are bad for 6 minutes in the 2AR if they dropped it. Just remember to explain why that outweighs.

4. Don't tell me something is an a priori voter and move on. Explain why it should be.

Ks

- So, a few things:

1. I'm open to anything. I hold as open a posture as possible for what can be argued in a debate round.

2. HOWEVER, I think that it is important to have negative ground in a debate round. To me, "ground" means that they have a variety of options for offense against the case and that the negative is not forced into arguing for a status quo that the affirmative identifies as racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/etc. or just arguing framework. I have voted on framework in a K debate for there not being enough ground for the Neg.

3. Make sure I can tell what I am voting FOR. Don't make the Role of the Ballot something that the neg could never argue against. If it's something other than what is typical for the topic (this year, whether a specific climate policy is good) then explain exactly what that ballot should be, what the debate should be about (the problematic) and what my role as a judge is in this round.

4. I am not a fan of vague cross-x answers during K debates. If the other team is asking you what your aff is about, I would prefer you not make remarks demeaning the other team's intelligence for not understanding your aff. Give a CLEAR explanation of your advocacy statement. If you are asked what a word means, I want you to explain it (I might already know what the term means, but this is good for clarity of your argument and good to make sure I know what YOU mean by that term). Do everything you can to help the other team understand during cross-x if they ask so that we can have a better debate.

5. Do not have a shifty advocacy. Be clear and consistent with what you are advocating. If your advocacy shifts, my ballot may shift with it.

6. To teams on the neg in a K aff round: I HAVE voted on framework but I have also done the opposite. Going for framework in the end may be the equivalent of tossing a coin with my ballot. There are arguments out there like critical conformity that provide more clash in these debates. However, if they're being abusive for one or more of the reasons I listed below, feel free to point that out. It may be worth going for.

If you got this far (for all divisions)

1. Go prep with your team.

2. JK here's some fun ways to win speaks (I'll only give you credit for two times).

- Beyoncé quotes (or that Beyoncé should have won album of the year) +0.1 speaks

- Disney animated movie quotes (Particularly from the 90s-early 2000s, like Aladin, the Lion King, Beauty and the Beast...) +0.1 speaks

- I will change this up a bit each tournament.

GOOD LUCK!!!

Feel free to ask me questions, or seek further explanation of my reasonings after the round! :)

Best of luck!

J

P.S. If something isn't in here that you think should be, please let me know!

Updated: 10/19/2023 Rounds judge for this year: 7

I coach for the John W. McCormack middle school and coach some of the open division kids in the Boston Debate League.

email: dilon.debate@gmail.com , please add me on the chain. Also email if you have any questions/concerns.

My name is Dilon (he/him/his), I debated for 6 years in the Boston Debate League. Been to a couple nat tournaments.

-I was the 1A/2N if that matters to you.

if you only have 10 seconds to know how i am as a judge: Tech>Truth \\ pref me low for Policy. I'll vote on anything you read, I've done cp's and da's to performances. It really comes down to what you tell me to vote on and why(GOOD & CONCISE IMPACT CALC WILL LITERALLY GIVE YOU THE BALLOT). I will most definitely not do work on the flow for you so please keep that in mind. I'm also not super well-versed in high theory K's but can hang if contextualized well.

Keep these things in mind because I take these rules/thoughts very seriously:

1. Be cordial, I want a good debate where both teams are able to learn and have fun. Be funny! I love when a round is fun and I can converse with y'all normally!

2. I do not want to see a veteran team running high theory stuff against a team that is new to debate because you think they can't answer it; it can and may discourage new debaters to ever debate again. Also, disrespect is taken very seriously; it'll reflect on your speaks. I debated in a UDL so i know the huge gap in debate, so please be respectful to every team.

3. Weighing cards is better than giving me multiple pieces of evidence without any impact framing/calc. It'll be rewarded if you can tell me why pieces of evidence are important.

If you say Jessie Pontes loves Framework debate, I might just give you a 30.

The Nitty-Gritty:

there's a thin line between funny and rude so remember that. Be you, do you, be respectful. :)

AFF: run whatever you like. I've ran K AFFS, Policy, and even aspec policy ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. The aff has a burden of proving something, so prove to me why I should vote for you. It's simple really, I just go on a daily explanation of why my solvency mechanism makes sense instead of giving way to many advantages and never explaining them.

K AFF: I love K debates. But, that doesn't mean you can just run anything and assume I understand. I need something to vote for and why I should vote for it. Explanations are needed just like any argument you make in life. That being said, treat it like you would treat any aff. Run it, tell me why it's important and what I as a judge can do by giving y'all the ballot. TVA's are amazing, metaphorical interps awesome, and solid contextualization of philosophies make me super happy. Please! DO NOT CHANGE YOUR STYLE FOR ME! DEBATE AS YOU PLEASE!

K: Don't read lit that is about racism, sexism, ableism good; I will not let the round go on. Also, high theory like nietzsche, Lacan, Agamben, psychoanalysis etc. i'm not to familiar with but if you just explain it like a good story, tell me why the AFF links to the kritik, how it triggers the impacts, and as long as there's good contextualization then I'm all for it. Also, please please please give me a reason to vote on the alt/advocacy, I want to hear what I am doing as the judge by giving you the ballot, not some BS "don't vote aff cool thanks!" kind of alt.

FW/T: give me a voter, why do I say this? No one ever extends voters in the 2A/NR which then cost them the round. TBH, why does your interp matter? How does it allow the opponent then to be apart of it? Why is it something that must be addressed within the round? these questions matter and must be answered.

DA: give me a good link story and impact calc. don't make me do work on the impact calc. I need to hear a real clear reason on why they trigger imp. if it's not explained then i probably won't evaluate it.

CP: sure, go for it. Give me a reason on why the CP is a feasible solution to either solve the aff and the "disad(s)".

Speaks: speed, idc but i need to hear a tag and author. I'm super lenient w/ speaks because everyone has their own style.

Misc: people who have influenced me through my debate career are , Daryl Burch, Moselle Burke, Roger Nix and Richard Davis. take it however you want to.

My name is Valeria Pereira, a judge from Boston Debate League. I have debated for around 2 years when I was in high school in the Spanish varsity division. I have judged around 8 to 10 debate rounds since I graduated from high school in 2020.

I do not have any preference about the debate, I am really open-minded to the topics being discussed as long as they are not offensive or told in a rude manner. I enjoy listening to the disadvantages and how the other team responds to them. I like a well-organized debate presenting a round map at the beginning and going line by line responding to the opposite team's points without letting the most important points fall behind. One thing I would ask is during cross x please make the questions if it is your team's turn but only questions, it is the time to ask and clarify not to discuss what is the correct answer.

All I ask if a debate round where everyone is respectful besides if you agree or not with an argument made and well-organized ideas. I would really appreciate it if the arguments are made at a normal speed because if it is too fast I will not understand some of the arguments or let pass important points (remember: I do know English but it is not my first language!). Finally, I would like to hear a debate where you are not only reading your material but explaining in your own words what you understand about the material you are presenting.

Good luck!

*Note: this paradigm was written with PF in mind, as that’s what I have the most experience with

TL;DR - Tech, be nice :)

About Me:

Hi, I'm John (he/him)! I competed in PF for Strake Jesuit for 4 years and currently compete in policy for BC. I also have some experience coaching both PF and LD.

Main Stuff:

Add me to the email chain (my email is jsextonii@att.net)

Speed: Literally go as fast as you want, I don’t care. If you’re going to spread, though, please send a speech doc before the speech.

Please signpost your speeches. If you jump around the flow, that’s fine, but make it clear where you are.

Progressive arguments: Ks > theory > topic

2nd rebuttal must frontline.

1st summary is the last place for new evidence/arguments.

Tech > truth

Turns must be implicated (aka explain why the turn actually matters)

You can call for a TKO at any time. If your opponent truly doesn’t have any other way to win, I will give you double 30s and a win. If your opponent still has any way to win the ballot, you will lose with double 25s.

In non-progressive rounds, I default neg if arguments are a wash. The burden of proof is on the aff to explain why the change being proposed is beneficial / the neg-world (usually status quo) is bad.

I do not evaluate anything said in cross. You must implicate what actually happened during cross to make me care.

If one side provides framing and the other side doesn’t respond by 2nd summary, I will frame the round according to the proposed viewpoint.

Procedural:

If both teams agree, I’m fine with skipping grand.

I will disclose immediately after the round unless the tournament prevents me from doing so.

I'm pretty chill about speaks unless you’re blatantly being rude or offensive (racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.)

I shouldn’t have to be saying this, but be nice. At the end of the day, debate should be fun, so please try to make it enjoyable for everyone involved in the round.

Other:

I’ll give bonus speaks for stuff that makes me laugh (big fan of puns) :)