Contact info: avejacksond@gmail.com

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

LD

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

Pref Shortcut

K: 1

High theory: 1

T/Theory: 2

LARP: 1/2

Tricks: 2/3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PF

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

I am Joshua a 3rd year LD Varsity debater. I have no specific preferences for arguments and will listen to anything as long as its explained well.

Tech > Truth

jb44330@wdmcs.org is my email I would appreciate it if both the aff and neg could send their cases before the round so I could read over them quickly becauseI have a processing disorder.

Feel free to email me with any questions

my name is Sam Ebinger

i will evaluate tricks if they are properly extended (ie don’t just say it once in the first speech and never go back to it)

run whatever

Also I value attaching your contentions to framework in my final ballot

not a parent judge

Yea that’s about it.

have a good round ig

Email is se51061@wdmcs.org

Hello my name is Elle

Personally I would prefer if you don't spread as I am unable to keep up with it.

Tech over Truth

Just don't be racist, able-ist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc, etc. If you have anything that could be triggering please give a warning!!

Scott Koslow (KAWS-low) he/they

When I judge, I will not be on social media or other websites. I will give you my full attention.

Include me on the email chain: SAKoslow@gmail.com

I competed in college policy debate for 5 years and coached/judged it for an additional 4 years. I've also competed in high school LD and judge high school debate in my free time. Nearly everything below constitutes warnings about my predispositions. I will do my best to default to the standards you set up in round, and I'll listen to almost anything (short of hate speech) and have voted for positions/strategies that are the polar opposite of those preferences. You're always better off reading the type of argument you're best at rather than "adapting" by reading something you're unfamiliar with.

Below I'll talk about LD, Policy, and college policy paradigms. This is already too long, so I'll write it such that you can ignore the other sections of my paradigm.

LD

General

My biggest bias is for depth over breadth. I prefer substantive explanation to tricks or a large number of technical arguments, so I hope you develop a few arguments well rather than many arguments poorly. If an argument is 15 second in the NC, I don't expect or require the 1AR to take more than 5-10 seconds to answer it (the same goes for each speech by both sides--a 10 second "trick" at the end of the 1AC warrants almost no answer, etc.). This does not quite mean "truth over tech"--it's not my role to evaluate the truth of what you say, and debating weird or even false arguments can be educational. Instead, I'd say "communication over tech"--give me a thorough explanation of the world or ideas you're advocating and spend a lot of time weighing it against the other side's world/position/ideas.

Please avoid any violent, offensive, or rude actions in the round. In policy, I would expect the other team to make this an in-round argument and tell me why it warrants a ballot. In LD, you don't have the time to do this unless you go all in on it early in the debate. So it will certainly effect your speaker points and in extreme cases I will intervene to vote against it. Extreme cases include explicit hate speech, implied or explicit threats, or mocking/demeaning an inexperienced debater.

Rankings (1 best--5 worst)

Critiques--2

Philosophy--1

Theory/Topicality--3

Tricks--3

Policy arguments ("LARP")--4

Critiques

These were the arguments I read almost exclusively in college policy debate, but LD is not policy. You have much less time and fewer speeches. So complicated critiques often work poorly. That said, these are where I have the most fun. Just know I expect a high level of explanation, and you should work to make your arguments as specific to the topic/affirmative as possible. Depending on the argument, I may be familiar with the literature, and I will hold you to a high standard to explain that literature beyond what I expect from more straight-forward positions.

Philosophy

I find LD best suited to these types of debate and I enjoy them. Every debate, across all styles and events, needs to set up the standards I should use to weigh the round, and that's what folks are worst at in other types of debate. In philosophy debates, this is baked into the structure. Give me some good old-fashioned act utility vs. rule utility debates, or tell me why protecting rights comes before anything else. Then, impact to that standard. Win your standard and you'll probably win the debate.

Your value is just an internal link to your standard/criterion. The standard is the weighing mechanism that I'll use and is the most important thing in these debates.

Try to extend impacts to your opponent's standard as well.

Theory/T/Framework

This (and LARPing) is where I'm an old policy curmudgeon. I love a good topicality debate, but I don't see them much in LD. A good topicality (or theory) debate must abide by that "communication over tech" preference. You need a clear interpretation (supported by evidence in T debates) where you slow down so I can flow every word; a clear violation; standards that are explained; and voters where you explain why those voters should come before anything else in the round.

"Standard: Breadth over depth" is not an argument. "Voter for education and fairness" is not an argument. "Ground outweighs limits" is not an argument. You need warrants for these claims in the AC/NC.

If you plan to go for these arguments, you should devote a significant amount of time to them in every speech. If you spend 30 seconds on T in your NR, the 2AR can likely get away with saying "They have not extended a full argument here; they have not extended evidence for their interpretation and have no warrant for limits" or "They have no voter that outweighs our standard" or something like that.

I prefer T to framework against critical affirmatives.

Check out these sections of my policy paradigm for more details.

Tricks

I often see these as 5 second throw-away arguments, which are only introduced in the hopes they'll be dropped. If that's the case, they won't overcome my threshold that there must be a complete argument even in the first speech they're introduced. If you go from 5 seconds in the AC to 1 minute in the 1AR, I'm going to give the NR a lot of leeway cross-applying arguments here. Sometimes I vote for them, but I'm not happy about it.

*BUT* "trick" arguments sometimes prove unique and interesting ways to approach debate. Arguments like "the affirmative must prove the resolution universally true" or something like that can be a lot of fun if you devote the time needed. And I've waited years to see someone go for something really tricky like an inherency bomb. If you devote the time needed, these debates rock.

Policy/LARP

I'm likely to be a policy curmudgeon, yelling "Hey, kids, get off my lawn!" in these debates. My background is primarily in policy debate, and I'll hold you to the standards I apply in policy debates where teams have much more time and more speeches. I often find LARP arguments underdeveloped or missing necessary pieces.

If your opponent agrees to the generic "maximize utility" standard then I'll adopt that, but teams can do very well challenging that standard. There are hundreds of different types of utilitarianism and even more types of consequentialism. They won't have to push very hard to demonstrate why "consequentialism" is, in and of itself, a meaningless standard. Justify and tell me, for example, "act utility, prioritizing existential threats" and you'll be significantly more likely to win.

Look at my policy paradigm for comments on specific types of arguments.

Speed

My background is college policy, so I'm fine with speed as long as you're clear. If I can't understand you, I won't say "clear" and I won't flow you. If I don't flow it, then it doesn't count.

If you're slow but struggle to enunciate, I've been there. I'll be sympathetic and do my best to get down everything I can.

You MUST slow down on values, criteria, interpretations, CP texts, and complex theory arguments. I want to get every word, because wording is often important.

Online Debate

Is great; it allows a lot of people to compete who wouldn't otherwise be able to.

But it also comes with problems. It can be much more difficult to understand you, so you should do extra work to enunciate clearly. And when there are tech issues, I'll do my best to help you, but it's a tournament on a schedule so we can't pause the round for 20 minutes while you work out tech issues. Make sure you test everything before hand and if possible have a backup available. If we can't fix it, and you're unable to debate, that typically means a loss (unless the tournament offers specific rules for resolving the situation).

Policy

General

My main bias is toward substantive explanation and weighing over tech. and number of arguments. You should try and describe the world of the plan/aff advocacy/perm/whatever compared to the status quo/alternative/CP. Or, for T and Framework debates, carefully delineate what cases are allowed under each teams's interpretation. Whatever the position, your comparison of the affirmative and negative worlds should frame all your arguments on that flow. Within that frame, I'm fine with any type of argument you'd like to run.

My baseline is presumption goes negative, the negative can do whatever they'd like, and the affirmative can *probably* do whatever they like. You may subject any of those beliefs to debate.

When I debated, I ran critical arguments almost exclusively, both aff and neg, and on the negative I usually read 1 off-case position. However, as a judge I think that has given me a higher standard for critiques and I fear I have an automatic (and perhaps unfair) bias against a lot of critique debates because my standards are so high. I've also acquired a strong appreciation for T debates. So my own debating does not mean you should always go for the K in front of me. But depending on the argument I am likely to be familiar with the literature if you do.

If you do something offensive, it will affect your speaker points. If your opponent does something offensive, make an argument about it. I'll vote on it, but you need to win: 1. an interpretation of what behavior should and shouldn't be allowed, 2. they violated that interpretation, 3. such behavior is harmful, and 4. it's bad enough to warrant the ballot. Such arguments should be structured like framework or a critique and require a significant time investment (at least 1-2 minutes).

Speaker points

27 - the lowest I'll go unless you do something offensive; 27.5 - average; 28 - you should be breaking at this tournament; 28.5 - you should be getting a speaker award; 29-29.5 - you should be top speaker at the tournament; 30 - the best speech I've ever heard. I'll readjust that scale if I find it differs from the community norm.

Framework

I prefer topicality to framework debates.

Framework debates against critical affirmatives usually come down to whether there's a topical version of the aff and whether it can solve the affirmative's offense.

"Fairness" is not a terminal impact. If you go for theory, I suggest you focus on education or you must explain why fairness is a sufficient reason to vote. And if your impact is that everyone will quit debate if X unfair behavior is allowed, that impact is demonstrably untrue.

I'm willing to vote on "framework is bad," in fact that's how I typically answered framework, but the affirmative will be very well served by a counter-interpretation.

Topicality

The affirmative should have a strong relationship to the topic, but that doesn't have to be a traditional plan.

Your interpretation matters a lot. You should be reading evidence for the interpretation dealing with legal usage in the particular context of the topic. Telling me, for example, how Canadian dairy unions define the term "substantially" tells me nothing about the topic.

I prefer limits to ground as a standard. Every position will give the negative ground, but that's irrelevant if it's not predictable ground (if there aren't predictable limits on ground).

Competing interpretations *does* lead to a race to the bottom and is probably bad, but I don't know of a better alternative to competing interpretations.

See my comments on framework.

DAs

You can win with terminal defense, but their evidence better be terrible.

I still struggle with politics (the DA, not the sphere of life; well, also the sphere of life). If you go for this argument, I'll likely require a greater level of explanation than normal.

Case Debate

Is great.

CPs

The negative should usually run at least one.

They compete through net benefits.

Conditionality

I assume negative positions are conditional until told otherwise.

Dispositionality is typically meaningless. Most often, it means "We can kick the position whenever we want, but we don't link to your Condo Bad blocks." You should not go for dispo as an answer to "conditionality bad" in front of me.

More than 3 conditional negative advocacies are usually too much to develop each sufficiently by my standards, and more than 2 is difficult. If the negative reads 5 or more off, the affirmative can sometimes say "they haven't made a complete argument on this flow" and if true that's sufficient to defeat the (non)argument.

The last negative speech should generally pick one advocacy or position to go all-in on.

I like the aff theory interpretation: "The negative gets 2 conditional advocacies (plus the status quo) and must pick one advocacy in the last rebuttal."

Critiques

These are the arguments I usually went for. But if you're arguing for a complex position, that requires a high level of explanation.

A critique is not the same as a DA with a weird CP or utopian fiat. They usually adopt a different understanding of the world and should be approached as such.

Your links should be as specific as possible.

You should explain specific scenarios for your impacts, even if this is just your own analysis. Don't tell me capitalism will destroy the world. Explain how it inflects and turns the affirmative's scenarios (on top of how your authors claim it will destroy the world).

"Perm: do both" is not an argument. If you plan to advocate the perm, it should be a substantive argument beginning in the first speech you introduce it.

Weighing should be done not just on impacts but also on the strength of the links. The negative will usually win a risk of a link, but the affirmative should mitigate the magnitude of that link and a link doesn't automatically mean you get the full weight of your impacts.

Paperless debate

Prep time ends when the speech document is sent.

I will not be reading through your speech docs. during your speeches. The burden remains on you to use paperless debate efficiently and to orally and clearly communicate your ideas.

Role of the Ballot

This argument is usually unjustified and self-serving. You need a strong reason why I should give up my standards of debate and adopt yours.

Olio

Debate is not (just) a laboratory for testing ideas, a game for developing future skills, or a big tent where all ideas should be included. What happens in rounds can be intrinsically meaningful.

Go as fast as you'd like, as long as you're clear. If I can't understand what you're saying, I won't flow it. You should usually slow down on dense debate theory, CP texts, alts, perms, and interpretations so I can flow everything.

I try not to call for cards unless the content or authority of those cards is called into question. I usually won't read more than 4 or 5 cards after a debate, though some debates require I read much more.

I flow everything straight down on a laptop in a Microsoft Word document. If both teams agree I should adopt a line-by-line flow, I will do so but I'll also get less down because it takes me time to line everything up.

College Policy

I'm going to limn Bill Shanahan--the disgraced former coach at Fort Hays--and William Spanos:

A/Part

My name is Abbie or Abigail, really doesn’t matter you don’t really need to know my name anyways.

I do LD debate and am chill with most arguments.
However, II will refuse to vote on arguments that are undoubtedly racist or sexist or xenophobic etc.

If you don’t get something, ask. This is a space to learn.

jn41099@wdmcs.org---my email

varsity at valley high school (better than ic west)

+ a gajillion speaks if you make fun of landon stull in speech (or gwen from ic west)

please weigh and extend

quick prefs

1-phil

2- theory

2/3-tricks, k v larp/phil

4- k v k

5-larp/stock, identity k

strike- silence pik

phil-- yes. my favorite part of ld is philosophy and i try to run it as much as possible. I have no clue why so many people on the circuit are so openly hostile to it. Ill impact offense to winning fw, meaning if a kantian fw is against a larp aff and kant debater wins framing, sans turns permissilbity or uplayer, kant will win 100% of the time

theory- yes, i like it as much as phil, i just cant keep up with spreading theory out and ton of shells and a messy flow. please make it easy for me. no thoery is friv

tricks- neutral opinions, can be fun but also annoying.favorite tricks gotta be floating piks, least favorite gotta be ext o/w. skep, skep triggers, and permissiblity are not tricks imo, i dont know why people think they are. will NOT vote on eval after x or speech time stuff.

K- dont like ks too much, but dont hate them, have kinda mixed feeling. try to give warrants for rob instead of it being impact justified. least favorite parts of ks are a) not responding to case and just linking them more into the k, b) being sketchy, if i cant tell what the hell the alt isI WILL NOT VOTE ON IT.like, what the hell is refusal?

identity- i just straight up dont know if i can evaluate them lol

larp- boooooooooo

silence pik- please dont run this god awful pik

Hi, I'm Lucy, I'm a 2nd-year debater at Valley

Pronouns are She/Her

Email: lr44452@wdmcs.org

Novices:

I will vote on any argument with a claim, warrant, impact

Please weigh your arguments

Try your best to come up with creative arguments in rebuttals

IF YOU ARE CONFUSED/HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT MY DECISION PLEASE ASK ME. I've only debated for two years, so it's very possible I missed something or just didn't articulate my thoughts clearly enough in the rfd.

The most important thing is to learn and have fun. Debate competitions can be super stressful, especially if it's your first one, so just remember to slow down and enjoy the experience. I think a lot of times people get caught up in the competition aspect of debate and forget that it's a really fun activity.

I will flow the whole round - decided to include this in here bc when I was a novice a ton of judges didn't flow and it was super annoying

On framework: Actually interact with your opponent's framework, and tell me why to evaluate under yours in the round. Framework is like the seasoning that keeps debate from being bland

Speed is fine, just make sure I can understand you

Read whatever makes you happy

Obviously don't read anything discriminatory. Judges shouldn't even have to put this in their paradigms

If you tell me a joke I might consider giving you better speaks

If you want to HEAR a joke I have several good ones up my sleeve

If you have questions, email me or ask during the round

Valley Junior High Tournament Paradigm:

Please be respectful to your opponent, everyone is here for a good time! A few tips to win in front of me:

• Weigh, weigh, weigh! If you can't respond to one of your opponent's arguments, tell me why your argument is more important. In your last speech, tell me why your arguments matter and why they matter more than your opponents.
• Extend your arguments! Respond to any rebuttals and summarize your argument.

If you have any questions at all, please ask me - this should be a good learning tournament for everyone involved!

call me “chat” + 0.5 speaks

im going to keep things simple; run wtvr you want idrc js as long as you understand it and make it understandable AND as long as you explain it to where not only i understand it, but so does your opponent. i will NOT vote on sexism, racism, ableism, ect. NO SPREADING

i love framework debates ngl - meaning that usually if there isn’t SOME sort of fwrk debate i get a little sad. if there isn’t a fwrk response on the opposing side, notice that, take it into account and WEIGH your arguments AND their arguments (easy w)

i LOVE self ownership.

I DO NOT LIKE EXTINCTION AND NUCLEAR/NUKE WAR ARGUMENTS. this being said, i would hope that novices from past tournaments have figured out other arguments that are FAR more interesting.

i agree w sam and jimmy regarding tricks - js extend it fully

i understand that since you guys are first-years you will try to spread, but if you’re not being CLEAR then neither of us (me and your opponent) will understand and will get frustrated. THIS BEING SAID AND EXPLAINED PRIOR TO ROUND; i don’t understand spreading, i can’t fully grasp the arguments and it makes me upset. i do have attention and focusing problems so please don’t spread.

if you include "999" in your debate round (that's LOGICAL and MAKES SENSE), then you get +1 speaks.

i may have gone to a decent amount of tournaments in the past year and a half, but that doesn’t mean that i know what you’re talking abt. i go into these debate like i don’t have a brain lol — ALSO some cases like carceral geo or some argument that NEEDS to be fully researched before debating makes me confused. if you don’t have a good explanation, how can i understand? much less judge?

btw i went 2-4 at a local big questions tournament and got 27.1 speaks, so you can say im pretty intelligible at debate

if you have any questions you can ask me in person!

if you're stalking my history in judging there is one round with a bunch of random letters and words - don't worry abt it

Hi! Im Brie! Warning: I cobbled together a repaired paradigm as the last time I had edited it was TWO YEARS AGO! Apologies. Have been judging a lot of competitions mostly at our school so I didn't worry as much about paradigm. If stuff sounds dumb or out-of-date thats cause it... is. Some are updated, ex. my preference for K's

1 - K's

2 - Theory, Tricks, Phil v Util Topicality

3 - phil v phil

4 - Larp

5 - nothing, will decently evaluate most things

I have been doing debate for 6 years, consistently LD with a little bit of Policy and PF experience, but like mostly LD stuff.

In terms of general debate etiquette, please send cases to both ME and your OPPONENT before the first speech. Preferably before round start, but before speech will not annoy me either.

And I swear to gosh if u read an argument that is blatantly homophobic or transphobic I will probably still evaluate it if goes COMPLETELY dropped but ANY semblance of a mini-kritik or response and that argument is gone.

Extinction first is annoying, lightly extended security K's will flow easy

Be respectful of pronouns, please :) Mine for rounds are she/her! :D

in terms of valued extensions, make them clear for me to flow them, and if you flow a good chunk of the tagline and a part of the card it will flow the whole contention, extending every card and tag is unnecessary.

Email: bt43083@wdmcs.org

Here are some deeper paradigm bits

Theory:

Love a good theory debate. If you get a good competing interps battle I will be a happy judge. But if you read really abusive or a bajillion shells it wont be as fun. Friv theory is fine, just don't read 10 shells in the 1A or 10 shells in the 1N- flowing that kind of debate is very very unfortunate. Extensions of these- please go down the list, interp, violation, standards, voters. Dont just read the interp and hope its extended. Give me WHY this makes your opponent drop.

Tricks:

tricks r fine, will evaluate if you do a good job at them! but explain them good thanks

Phil:

Phil is ok as long as you do it well, i dont have much preference for specifics but i used to use Kant a lot

K:

i love K's im a K debater and i will vote on good K's very easily. ks on top

Topicality:

Just do it good. getting a little more lazy on these points, but really topicality is just not the most interesting thing, if you use it correctly I will vote. There.

Substance Deont:

For example just using Kant and winning on case. Happens during rounds with 2 similar phil frameworks. I love evaluating these debates but will disregard substance when any K, Topicality, Theory, Phil fwk clash or tricks come up, and are extended to the end of the round.

Larpolicy:

I dislike Larp, probably because I'm a Valley Varsity, but Larp is not my jam. If both debaters are using Larp or policy cases I will have a basically break debate, where I just flow and evaluate normally, but when its a phil case user with theory vs a larp case user, it gets messy quick. Don't try and say "debate is consequentialist has to defend an effect on squo" without reading a must defend advocacy Theory shell. cause that will not flow. cause its just not strong argument.

Old paradigm, I will no longer give extra speaks for anything listed as extra speaks, but I think this paradigm is a classic: https://tinyurl.com/yyhknlsn

[Updated 3/3/2021] In fact, here is a list of things I dislike that I will probably not be giving good speaks for: https://tinyurl.com/55u4juwp

Email: conal.t.mcginnis@gmail.com

Tricks: 1*

Framework: 1

Theory: 1

K: 6

LARP: Strike

To clarify: I like K's and LARP the LEAST (as in, you should rate me a 6 if you like Ks and strike me if you LARP a lot) and I like Tricks, Framework, and Theory the MOST (you should rate me a 1 if you like Tricks, Framework, and Theory a lot).

Util is bad enough to be beaten by sneezing on it

Overall I am willing to vote on anything that isn't an instance of explicit isms (racism, sexism, etc.).

Other than that, here's a bunch of small things in a list. I add to this list as I encounter new stuff that warrants being added to the list based on having difficulty of decision in a particular round:

1. Part in parcel of me not being a great judge for LARP due to my low understanding of complex util scenarios is that I am not going to be doing a lot of work for y'all. I also will NOT be reading through a ton of cards for you after the round unless you specifically point out to me cards that I should be reading to evaluate the round properly.

2. I know it's nice to get to hide tricks in the walls of text but if you want to maximize the chances that I notice something extra special you should like slightly change the tone or speed of delivery on it or something.

3. If you have something extremely important for me to pay attention to in CX please say "Yo judge this is important" or something because I'm probably prepping or playing some dumbass game.

4. I will evaluate all speeches in a debate round.

"Evaluate after" arguments: If there are arguments that in order for me to evaluate after a certain speech I must intervene, I will do so. For example, if there is a 1N shell and a 1AR I-meet, I will have to intervene to see if the I-meet actually meets the shell.

Update: In order for me to evaluate "evaluate after" arguments, I will have to take the round at face value at the point that the speeches have stopped. However, as an extension of the paradigm item above, the issue is that many times in order for me to determine who has won at a particular point of speeches being over, I need to have some explanation of how the debaters thing those speeches play out. If either debater makes an argument for why, if the round were to stop at X speech, they would win the round (even if this argument is after X speech) I will treat it as a valid argument for clarifying how I make my decision. Assuming that the "evaluate after" argument is conceded/true, I won't allow debaters to insert arguments back in time but if they point out something like "judge, if you look at your flow for the round, if you only evaluate (for example) the AC and the NC, then the aff would win because X," then I will treat it as an argument.

Update P.S.: "Evaluate after" arguments are silly. I of course won't on face not vote on them, but please reconsider reading them.

Update P.S. 2: "Evaluate after" causes a grandfather paradox. Example: If "Evaluate after the 1NC" is read in the 1NC, it must be extended in the 2NR in order for me as the judge to recognize it as a won argument that changes the paradigmatic evaluation of the round. However, the moment that paradigmatic shift occurs, I no longer consider the 2NR to have happened or been evaluated for the purposes of the round, and thus the "Evaluate after the 1NC" argument was never extended and the paradigmatic evaluation shift never occurred.

5. "Independent voters" are not independent - they are dependent entirely on what is almost always a new framework that involves some impact that is presumed to be preclusive. I expect independent voter arguments to have strong warrants as to why their micro-frameworks actually come first. Just saying "this is morally repugnant so it's an independent voter" is not a sufficient warrant.

Also - independent voters that come in the form of construing a framework to an implication requires that you actually demonstrate that it is correct that that implication is true. For example, if you say "Kant justifies racism" and your opponent warrants why their reading of the Kantian ethical theory doesn't justify racism, then you can't win the independent voter just because it is independent.

6. I will no longer field arguments that attempt to increase speaker points. I think they are enjoyable and fun but they likely are not good long term for the activity, given that when taken to their logical conclusion, each debater could allocate a small amount of time to a warranted argument for giving them a 30, and then simply concede each others argument to guarantee they both get maximal speaks (and at that point speaker points no longer serve a purpose).

7. My understanding of unconditional advocacies is that once you claim to defend an advocacy unconditionally you are bound to defending any disadvantages or turns to that advocacy. It does not mean you are bound to spend time extending the advocacy in the 2NR, but if the aff goes for offense in the 2AR that links to this unconditional advocacy and the neg never went for that advocacy, the aff's offense on that flow still stands.

Update: Role of the Ballots are frameworks and do not have a conditionality.

8. Don't like new 2AR theory arguments.

9. I don't time! Please time yourselves and time each other. I highly recommend that you personally use a TIMER as opposed to a STOPWATCH. This will prevent you from accidentally going over time! If your opponent is going over time, interrupt them! If your opponent goes over time and you don't interrupt them, then there's not much I can do. If you are certain they went over time and your opponent agrees to some other way to reconcile the fact that they went over time, like giving you more time as well, then go ahead. I do not have a pre-determined solution to this possibility. I only have this blurb here because it just happened in a round so this is for all of the future rounds where this may happen again.

10. If you do something really inventive and interesting and I find it genuinely funny or enjoyable to listen to and give good speaks for it, don't run around and tell any teammate or friend who has me as a judge to make the same arguments. If I see the exact same arguments I will probably consider the joke to be stale or re-used. Particularly funny things MIGHT fly but like, if I can tell it's just a ploy for speaks I will be sadge.

11. In general, for online events, say "Is anyone not ready" instead of "Is everyone ready" solely because my speaking is gated by pressing unmute, which is annoying when I have my excel sheet pulled up. I'll stop you if I'm not ready, and you can assume I'm ready otherwise. (However, for in person events, say "Is everyone ready" because I'm right there!)

12. I will not vote for you if you read "The neg may not make arguments" and the neg so much as sneezes a theory shell at you.

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

For traditional rounds: speak and argue however you want (bar racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other ism or phobia)

*WHEN YOU READ TRICKS: I PREFER BEING UP FRONT ABOUT THEM. Pretending you don't know what an a priori is is annoying. Honestly, just highlight every a priori and tell your opponent: "here are all the a prioris"**.

**Seriously, I have yet to see anyone do this. Do it, it would be funny, I think.

As a student judge, I value clarity and persuasion. Make sure I as a judge can hear and understand you, especially if you spread. Voters and frameworks are very important, along with general persuasive and well backed and articulated arguments.

My name is Lorelei Wemmie, feel free to call me Lorelei, or judge, either works. My pronouns are she/her but I'm okay with they/them and it/that.

I do LD debate, and have gone to many tournaments.

Feel free to:

Spread, LARP, use tricks

I am okay with anything

I will not vote on Sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, any discriminatory acts.

I do not need speech drop, however I can.

If you need help, or anything, ask me, I can help.

Please do not be rude to opponents I will doc points out of speech time for rude comments, laughing at the opponent, talking during opponents speeches.

If you don't know the answer to a cx question, just say so, but If you refuse to answer a question I'm going to need a why, because under some circumstances this is not okay.

Feel free to text me if you need help, or are confused.

515-212-6100

Thank you, and good luck!