Doc Sharing: Disclosure and evidence sharing is good, even at locals. If there's an email chain, I want to be on it: connorpclark9@gmail.com

Background: I debated LD for Tempe Preparatory Academy from 2019-2023. I placed top 14 at NSDA Nats both times I went and won the 2023 ASU tournament. Currently at Michigan's Ross School of Business---Go Blue!

TLDR: I highly prefer traditional LD debate, but am open to and will vote on anything I can flow as long as it's not blatantly harmful to the debate space or the people in it. Debate is a community first and foremost, so be nice to each other and promote good norms. If you have questions about anything, feel free to ask before the round.

FOR ASU: my paradigm might've been a bit unclear in prelims, but I love K debate and think that it's an important part of the debate space, so 100% feel free to run Ks in front of me (I spent a significant portion of my 4 years running Ks)

Prefs:
1 - Traditional/Lay
2 - Kritiks
3 - High Theory/Non-Traditional Philosophy/Policy
Strike - Tricks, Friv theory

Defaults:
- Read any argument you want. I like all forms of argumentation as long as it is well-warranted and impacted.
- The round belongs to you, so do what you want with it.
- I'm fine with speed (around 300wpm), but err on the side of slowing down for critical arguments because I can't vote on what I don't hear. Mumble-spreading is a terrible norm. Also spreading isn't an excuse to doc-bot and not know your own arguments.
- Tech > truth, but all arguments need at least a claim, warrant, and impact (i.e. truth still matters).
- Assume I know nothing about the resolution and explain K-lit/high phil as if I haven't heard it before.
- If you don't weigh offense, I'll have to do it for you and you won't like the result.
- Don’t tell lies (bad debate math counts as lies). I’m happy to evaluate all arguments, but lies are not arguments. There isn’t room in this activity for intellectual dishonesty, and I'm comfortable not voting on an argument if the evidence is sketchy.

Policy:
- Plans don't need FW, but that doesn't exempt you from a neg-initiated FW debate. Absent FW, I default to util (probability and strength of link > magnitude, so don't assume extinction outweighs).
- TJFs are no fun. If you can't defend your framework as a philosophical theory, I have no reason to view it as one.
- I prefer fewer, more developed offs over spamming low-quality positions to overwhelm your opponent (I really dislike underdeveloped and non-competitive CPs).
- Make sure your CP doesn't link into your DA. Really. I will be very sad if it does.

Kritiks:
- Labeling each section of your K (link/framing/impact/alt) makes it so much easier to evaluate and vote on. That being said, if you aren't running a typically organized K, just explain how I should evaluate it.
- If your ROTB is pre-fiat you still need to respond to post-fiat framing to completely win framework debate.
- I am not a fan of "debate bad" Ks, or super abusive non-T K-affs, but have and will vote on them if they're winning. Ks don't exist as simply another strategic option to get the ballot, so if it's clear that you are insincere or using someone else's suffering to win the ballot, there's a good chance I'll drop you.
- Links of omission are NOT strong links. If you want to read a K, tailor it to the specific argument you're responding to.

Traditional:
- This is my favorite type of debate. It's what I did most when I did LD, and I will bless your speaks if you do it well.
- Framework debate is fantastic, but make sure to explain not only that you win the framework, but also what that means in terms of how I should evaluate the round. I view framework as the lens through which I evaluate offense, so simply winning framework doesn't mean you win the round (and it's definitely NOT a voting issue).
- I love engaging characters/personalities when debating. Rhetoric is EXTREMELY PERSUASIVE, and if you use it well you will get high speaks (and probably the ballot).
- I love unique, well-crafted cases instead of stock util/extinction debates. Having a strategic case that's different from 90% of cases on the topic is the best way to show me that you've thought about the topic. These are my favorite debates to judge.
- I'm totally down to evaluate definition/burden debates and smart analytics about what specific conditions need to be met to affirm/negate. When used properly, observations are the strongest types of arguments in traditional LD.

Miscellaneous:
- If you start any of your speeches out with a haiku, I will give you +1 speaker points.
- I like voting for debaters who are having fun debating, so enjoy the round. Don't stress out too much. Debate isn't everything in life. Everyone in this activity is a human first and debater second.

hi i’m emilio clear springs 25’

add 2 chain pls emiliogarza525@gmail.com

ive done circuit ld + policy and have made it to bid rounds / got speaker points in both

my ideological standing have changed since switching over to policy this last year

Quick Prefs

K - 1 (Setcol, Futurism(s), Pessimism(s), Psycho, Cap, Etc)

Larp - 1

TFW - 1

Theory - 2 (Condo, PICS Bad, just not frivolous)

K POMO - 2 (Baudy, Other white pomo men)

Phil + Tricks - 4/Strike (k/identity tricks 2) - i’ll try i’ll be lost

K- Favorite arg on aff and neg - in 3 years only like 2 of my 2nrs (in both policy and ld) wernt setcol - winning TOP is key - yes you can kick the alt if u r winning framing + links - link work is lacking in most teams i prefer a collapse on 1/2 links you are winning in the 2nr - k v k is my favorite but can get messy pls just stick to your order

for larper - yes i will vote on extinction o/w - ontology false etc if won - ive had enough debates to know when someone is winning - go for link turn / fiat good interps best strat probably easiest to win

for non black pessimism - it is weird and odd i’ll vote for you but probably turned by like just any competition ivi or most pess authors work - best staying away ill lower speaks

Larp- so fun, switching to policy i can enjoy a good larp debate - pls weigh - plank counterplans with more than 3 planks prob are abusive but i can be persuaded otherwise! also more than 6 condo is probably abusive and will have a harder time changing my mind! - aspec is boring but ill vote on it

Theory- enjoy a good theory debate that’s not frivolous (spec etc) - pls weigh standards - more open to non black disclosure practices but anything is up for debate - also policy t debates r fun be as nit picky as u want - if u pull it off i’ll give goood speaks

TFW - appreciate tfw teams that aren’t racist/sexist etc… tfw is fun answer impact turns disads and have a clear ballot story!!! - tvas are best strat along with tfw tricks (limits da, ballot pic hidden inside, etc)

Speaks- If u annoy me u will get low speaks ( condescending, etc) but other than that i’ll give good speaks i start out at 28.5 go up and down - speaks theory is no - be clear pls….. i can handle clear speak not jumble your speaks will show it - love a good low point win

Quals are overrated, post round if you want but I can't guarantee you will get the result you want

Email is dgibson7227@gmail.com

Add me to the email chain

If I'm not flowing its not because I've already submitted my ballot its because the way I compete and judge is rlly weird with regards to flowing, I find that most of the time rounds aren't as intricate as a flow would require, but I still have a pretty good memory so don't cap in the 2AR, I prob won't buy it. I do flow to an extent most of the time tho.

https://discord.gg/MGZ6wD4rz6 join this for independent resources. If you don't have access to debatedrills or something similar or your school gives you negative support you are also cool. also if ur a speech kid who wants to learn debate go for it.

Deleted my old paradigm because it was too much yapping

tldr I will vote on literally any argument (emphasis on argument) that is won, I dont care about pf or traditional circuit rules you can read counterplans on me I dont care about the NSDA, card speed analytics are fine, pref me 1 for anything but trad in which case pref me 2, my defaults are intentionally weird because judge adaptation is an underutilized skill
Defaults (a lot):
Presumption goes to the team with a worse competitive record (think chess elo)
Permissibility defaults to presumption unless you tell me otherwise
I don't default to any paradigm issues, shells without them die
Theory vs truth testing flips theory unless otherwise argued (literally any weighing)
Ks are a disad to phil and nothing more if they critique the plan, if they critique an element of the debate space they uplayer like normal
Fiat is good
Role of the ballot is to vote for the team with arguments left on the flow, if both teams meet its TT
Conditionality is good for any #
Severance is good for any #
Plan inclusive [x] is good
Condo planks are good
Combo shells are good
Insert argument style here is good

Top speed anytime if you're clear, I go fast too

Speaks start at your tournament average, if speaks aren't disclosed or it is r1 I start at 28.5

My name is obiora Goodluck, am a judge and have judged in many debates,

My rounds will always be a respectful and inclusive space for everyone. Disrespectful or offensive language and misgendering will not be tolerated in my rounds. I didn't think I'd have to remind people of this but I would like people to check for racial bias in their cases and language. You can affirm or negate any resolution without biased arguments.

In debate events, I am looking for a few things: confidence in both your argument and your delivery, quality arguments, and rebuttals, and a fair and respectful debate.

Clarity is of utmost importance to me. you must speak clearly and at a normal pace. It is an accessibility concern for me, as well as other debaters and judges with disabilities. Your presentation of your speeches is important to me as well as the content. Deliver your speeches with confidence and clarity.

I'm not very particular about how you debate, all I ask is that it is logical and easy to follow. With that being said I am ok with spreading because it focuses on systems under which society operates.

I'm okay with debate theory, make sure it's educational and fair.

I'm okay with spreading, I understand that you have to talk fast and at the same time sustain your arguments.

Just be clear and loud

Hey guys! I'm Laynie, and I'm stoked to be judging you guys! I'm a current LD debater in super traditional circuit, so that's what i'm most familiar with. I think that more progressive arguments are super cool, but if you're running any of that, you're gonna have to really warrant it for me to be able to vote off on it.

Things I like:

• SIGNPOSTING!! I will flow the round, and decide the round based on that. If you don't signpost, I cant flow your arguments correctly.
• Clearity. I really don't like spreading, but if you must spread, you NEED to send me your cases, speechdocs, etc. My email is layniehendo@icloud.com, please add me to your email chain!
• Good weighing and warranting. For LD, you need to weigh your arguments clearly under your framework. Warrant all of your arguments, or I can't vote on them. Always tell me why what you're saying matters!
• Framework is my very very favorite part of LD. Please please please don't just throw it away! Obviously, if you and your opponent have the same V/VC, just weigh all arguments under that, but if not, tell me why your framework matters more, and why it should be used to evaluate the round. A Value and a Value Criterion are separate entities, treat them as such.
• Ks and counterplans are super cool, but please warrant them and explain them thoroughly.

Things I don't like:

• Disclosure theory. I just think it's dumb. I will almost never vote on disclosure theory.
• Any frivolous theory. It's just a time suck, please just dont.
• Meanies. Don't bully your opponent! If you're mean, I will give you VERY low speaks. Same goes if you lie.
• NO NEW IN THE 2! If you bring up any new offensive arguments past the 1AR and 1NR, I will absolutely not flow them or evaluate them. In my opinion, this is lazy. It makes me very very mad when I have to debate people who do this, and if you do, its not gonna help you. Defensive arguments are okay, as is cross-applying anything that's already been brought up.

Extra

Call out your opponent if they are misinterpreting evidence! I take evidence very seriously, even in LD, and if your opponent is doing anything that seems fishy with evidence, let me know in your speech. I'll always take a look at the evidence, and if its false or illegally formatted, i'll drop it from the flow.

Cross is your time. I don't flow cross, and its never binding unless it gets brought up in the next speech

I will always try to give you high speaker points. I start with 28 as a baseline, and will go up or down from there.

Automatic 30 speaks if you bring up US Heg and refer to the US as the "Big Dog".

Make me laugh! It's way too early in the morning for me to watch a boring debate, so things will be better for you and me if we have fun with this.

I'll give verbal RFDs if you guys want, but its gonna stay brief.

Good luck to everyone!!

Current debater and president at Dr Phillips High School in Lincoln-Douglas but have debated in most of the other debate events as well. Honestly, I'm cool to evaluate anything that is explained to me and that I can hear so feel free to run anything but make sure that the more complicated the argument gets, the better you explain it. With that being said, I do have my preferences, opinions, and pet peeves.

Y'all, my paradigm is long and probably poorly written cause English is hard, ask questions prior to round start. I'd rather start round a little late than have you confused about what I like.

I prefer using Speechdrop but email chains are fine. Email: cyrislimdebates@gmail.com

(LD)

PANIC!!! WHAT DOES THIS JUDGE LIKE:

1 - Phil, Trix (phil), Trad

2 - Theory, T, Ks you can explain

3 - LARP, Identity Ks

4 - Friv Theory, Ks you can't explain, Trixs (26 off, opp can't have offense, etc.)

Strike - Performance Debates

Paradigm proper:

Phil - Personally love this form of debate and find that it is underutilized on the circuit and especially locally, people tend to opt for Policy, Util, or some other basic framework which is fine but Lincoln Douglas is the PHILOSOPHICAL debate event, it gets infinitely more interesting when framework is more than just a reused Morality Util one. Frameworks I particularly like are Kant, Hobbes, and Pettit (I know, I'm basic) but will appreciate anything new like Rand or Levinas. I don't particularly like Util, I'll weigh it but don't expect super high speaks (Usually will give +.1 for just having a non-Util/MSV fw). With this in mind, DO NOT run a framework your coach gave you just because I like phil, make sure you truly understand what it's talking about and how it interacts within the round; if I have reasonable grounds to doubt that you have any idea what your fw is saying, -1.0 speaks.

Trad - As a kid in central Florida who primarily (and sadly) mostly competes locally, I'm super comfortable with trad (to be honest, how are you NOT comfortable in trad) and most of my debate year is lay trad debates. That means feel free to pref me highly if you want to ask for a trad round (I'll likely be happy to grant a trad round) but I would prefer rounds that transcend the boundaries of trad. More phil or tricky rounds are gonna make me infinitely more interested in the round but don't feel like you're being forced to not do trad. For trad, just treat me like you would a lay judge but just cut out the fluff that is associated with it.

Theory - Honestly, I'll evaluate it as long as real abuse can be proved. Usually default DTD, Competing interps, no RVIs, yes to 1AR theory but can be convinced otherwise. I can be swayed to buy 2NR theory. Legit theory comes first on my ballot so it's usually key to respond to it. It'll be difficult to get me to vote on friv theory; my threshold on responses is SUPER low and the only way to win with friv theory is basically to have your opponent drop it or completely mishandle it.

Note on evidence ethic theories: I will always ask you after your speech whether you want to stake the round on it. If the answer is no, don't run the shell.

LARP - It's whatever, as long as it makes sense then I'll evaluate it. I default on a morality Util framing without any speaker deductions and will assume you will be weighing as such. Weighing is a MUST to properly secure my ballot in more policy-centric rounds. I always assume DAs turn case and Plans and CPS need a text telling me exactly what the plan is to properly evaluate it. (i.e. Resolved: The United States will slowly phase out fossil fuels by increasing renewable energy production from solar) Solvency is a MUST.

Ks- I think they're useful when done well and explained well. Ks that you cannot explain easily in the time provided to you should not be run as all it does is clutter the round. Ks HAVE TO HAVE an alt that can be acted upon; not just reject the aff. The alt can be a CP. Linking the K to the resolution, something your opponent is running, or to debate in general, clearly is key to making a coherent K and one I feel comfortable voting off of. I'm fine with K affs but no alt here, it should be the resolution text in place of the alt (unless it's radical, then pop off) and the K should function as your offense and not just a part of your offense, it's either go all in or not at all. If you've read my paradigm before, this is where I had identity Ks being a low pref but I'm going to be honest, they've kind of grown on me since I first made this. I still don't think I'm the best judge out there for judging identity Ks but I will definitely evaluate them a lot easier and more willingingly now. Key stipulation is that I will likely not know the lit very well (unless you are running Set Col, Model Minority, or Orientalism) so try to slow down and spend more time explaining the position.

As a general principle, I believe that: radicals alts >> normals alts >>>> reject the aff. Will eval any of them though, I just think some are def stronger than others with rejection being the weakest by far.

Quick side note, I've been loving the Academy K lately. Take that information as you will :)

Trixs- Honestly, as I become more active with using prog tactics, phil trixs have really grown on me. I kinda want you to try and run these if you can cause I feel like they create a fun debate but of course, won't get you the auto-win. Personally been running Kant 1AR indexicals and skep NC a lot and I find them fun to see and do. I don't like judging a billion Trixs so I won't be happy about it but you can run a full Trix case if you want to and I'll try my best to keep up. Key thing to keep in mind, if one of the Trix gets turned or a theory is read against you, you will most likely lose.

Performance - Just don't. Thank you :)

Other prefs:

• Deontological arguments >>>>
• Not a huge fan of PICs, will evaluate but pretty bugrudgingly.
• Tech>Truth unless the arg is very obviously just untrue (1+1=2, it's non-negotiable)
• I will try to not interfere within the round, my ballot is written by the debaters
• Instant L and the lowest speakers possible for any xenophobic argument/comment (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc)
• I will NOT pay too much attention during CX, this is your time, so I'll just passively listen
• Don't just say "My opponent doesn't have a card for this" without explaining why it matters in the context of the round; this will not be treated as a response and will garner -0.2 speaks every time you say it
• Speed is fine, if you spread, send doc
• Signpost
• I am a judge where if you want to test run a new case position/debating style/argument, you should. (Assuming you just want to figure out the viability of an argument and are not trying to guarantee a win)
• I will give a verbal RFD/comments if the tournament allows and both debaters want it
• I don't flow card names anymore because it forces you to properly extend arguments instead of just having your 1AR be "judge, extend x card, they clean conceded it". I care more about arguments than cards, extend the actual warranting and arguments instead of just a card

Common arguments I run: (Decided to add this here so you can see what kind of debater I am and what I'm most comfortable with)

• Frameworks: Kant, Hobbes, Pettit, Rawls, Wu Wei
• Ks: Model Minority/Orientalism, Security, Capitalism, Academy
• Misc: Skep, Determinism, Theories (Disclosure, Condo, ESPEC, etc etc)

PF Stuff:

I'm putting this here just in case I do have to judge PF one day. I am an LDer at heart so I may judge things differently from more technical judges in PF, thus I would personally treat myself like a Lay -> lower Flay judge. (I will still understand and be able to keep up with technical arguments and speed though)

• Coinflip should always happen through tab or in front of me, personal preference
• NO PARAPHRASING, EVER, I'm not joking, just don't do it, I will not vote on paraphrased evidence
• Signposting and weighing are key. Comparative worlds is a great tool for PF because it doesn't use a framework to weigh
• Evidence should be able to be provided in under 45 seconds, if you can't produce it by then it'll be treated as an analytic and you should be more organized. I understand if there are technological issues, they will be treated differently
• Everything you want to mention in your speech should have been extended in the previous speech
• Theory is more sus in PF so probably try not to run it in front of me unless an actual abuse story can be traced that affects the round at large (disclosure is the only exception where it's gonna be a solid no from me)
• Unless you give me a clear reason to do a different form of weighing, I default "bigger number wins"

Congress Stuff:

As I primarily do debate events like LD, Congress isn't really my strong suit when it comes to judging but I have done it more than a couple of times (even accidentally making it to Congress finals at NSDA Districts once) so I'm not completely blind and stupid. Here's just a couple of points on how I eval and rank people in a chamber.

• I usually start the PO at 3. The PO usually either stays there or move down as they make consistent mistakes. POs rarely move up in my eyes unless the other people in the chamber are actually struggling or making fatal mistakes. It's a lot easier for PO to move down than up
• The first four speeches set the tone for the round and I rank based around those four speeches. That means that if the first four speeches were killer, the round is going to be tougher and if the first four speeches were mid, the rankings are going to be more lenient.
• Please, for the love of god, motion to move to direct questioning, it's infinitely more interesting and shows me better strategic thinking in the round than one question can
• I eval based on three things in a certain order: strategic thinking -> argumentation and incorporation of evidence -> presentation. While Congress is technically as much a speech even as a debate event, I value the more "debate" things of Congress over whether or not you stand up there and be super duper confident and outward. I care more about your choices in argumentation and why/how it's important.
• TBH, safest thing to do with me as a Congress judge, treat me like a lay judge. I may have slight opinions because I've done debate and Congress before, I'm more than happy to go along with the flow and adjust to you guys.
• (Side tangent here, y'all need to write better bills man, a lot of them either just don't do anything, are boring, or written just so so so so poorly)

Policy Stuff:

Y'all, I did policy debate for the first time at the 2024 NCFL Grand Nationals Tournament in Chicago and I personally had a blast (couldn't say the same for my partner sadly). It was fast-paced, information-heavy, and huge on strategic thinking, it's everything I love about LD, especially prog. Insofar that policy doesn't wildly change on me, a lot of my comments from the LD section can be applied here but I will be more open to most of the arguments in policy as a) you have more time to explain them and b) the same arguments get used for the whole year so they are more refined than having to change every 2 months in LD. Anyways, here's a basic chart on how much I like args in policy

1- T, K, CP

2 - Identity K, t

4 - Performance

Anyways, here's some miscellaneous ramblings from me

• Dispo > Condo
• More warranted CPS > one card benefit CPS (This might just be an LD thing but CPs tend to be longer with more net benefits, a good example is to take a look at states CP on the policy and LD wikis [States solve vs States solve plus avoid dual sovereignty])
• Planks are good insofar that we don't spend half a minute on them
• DISCLOSURE IS SUPER IMPORTANT
• Tag team CX always, don't even ask, it's a yes
• Please actually link the DAs, don't just say the aff links into the DA.
• Adv 1 -> Plan -> Adv 2/S >>> Plan -> Adv 1/2/S
• Honestly, if you can bring in phil somehow, extra brownie points to you

Active debater, public speaker and judge(2019–present)

He/Him pronouns

Always add me to your email chain olamilekanoderanti@gmail.com

I love PF so much and judge it more often.

FLOWING

I view myself as a flow judge, but the clarity and strength of your advocacy narrative is crucial. If you present in an organized, concise, and articulate manner, while also extending compelling arguments, you'll excel. A distinct and coherent advocacy narrative on the flow is invaluable. Such a narrative aids in shaping your responses and in constructing a comparative world, essential for analyzing and weighing the round during the Final Focus.

EXTENSIONS

Proper use and cutting of proofs is very crucial to me, while debate may be seen as a game, it takes place in the real world with real consequences. It matters that we properly represent what's happening in the world around us. Please, follow all pertinent tournament rules and guidelines - violations are grounds for a low-point-win or a loss. Rules for NSDA tournaments can be found at https://www.speechanddebate.org/high-school-unified-manual/.

SPEECH AND PACE

• I can’t follow everything in PF if you speak at a high pace. Your main goal should be clarity. Articulate your points so your opponent and myself comprehends you. Your efficiency and eloquence in subsequent speeches will shape your scores.
• Everyone should maintain civility and politeness. If situations escalate, it's everyone's duty to calm things down. Avoid shouting. Recognize your privileges and use them to uplift and respect others.
• Please provide trigger warnings when appropriate.
• I'm not particularly fond of theory becoming a standard in PF, especially disclosure theory. If there's a significant violation and theory is the only recourse, I might accept it, but expect reduced scores. Ideally, address the issue in a manner more aligned with traditional PF standards.

BREAKDOWN OF SPEAKER POINTS

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

DECLAMATION

I’ve just judged a round of this and I’m so much in love with it. Be authentic with your topic, appeal to your audience’s emotions, be eloquent, use a good lighting so I can properly judge your gestures and body movements, have a good cutting, introduction and conclusion and you’ll be good to go. I’ll most likely give you a 100 if you prove yourself worthy of it.

I as well judge other formats like Lincoln Douglas, speeches, World schools and parliamentary debates. Before you conclude I can’t judge a format, KINDLY REACH OUT TO ME as I’ve got a good knowledge of numerous formats and I’m only hoping to judge them pretty soon. I hope to work with you soonest.

She/her pronouns

I'm a lay judge with a good knowledge of various debate formats including (PF, LD, Congress, e.t.c.,)

I don't mind speakers using jargon, but it must be moderate since the aim of communication will be defeated otherwise.

I prefer that speakers prioritize clarity over speed so that I can be convenient judging cross-culture debaters.

Please, do well to add me to your email chain via oyedokunolamide77@gmail.com

As a judge, I prioritize clarity, logic, and evidence-based arguments. I value debaters who can effectively communicate their ideas, engage with their opponents' arguments, and demonstrate a deep understanding of the topic. I evaluate debates based on the strength of arguments, rather than personal beliefs or biases. My goal is to provide constructive feedback that helps debaters improve their skills and grow as critical thinkers.

Conflict: I don't have any.

Contact: muideenpopoola1010@gmail.com

Hello, I'm Mary Sandals. I have accumulated expertise in a variety of debating styles and formats over a long period of time, including Public Forum (PF), World School Debate Championship (WSDC), Asian Parliamentary (AP), Australians, Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), and British Parliamentary (BP).

Speakers should, I suppose, be knowledgeable about the various motion sorts, the kinds of arguments that ought to be made in them, how to bear their burdens, and other tactics for debating.
In my experience as a judge, presenters who are aware of the regulations of the particular competition in which they are competing—which usually require them to address the opponent's arguments in addition to their own—tend to perform better. Although I do take equity seriously, I also expect speakers to do the same. When speakers are informed of the tournament's framework, speaking roles and presenting compelling arguments become easier. This gives them the ability to behave appropriately, which in turn gives them insight into how the judge will decide the argument.

I like it when a whip or summary speaker understands that their role is not to offer opinions and stays true to their given duties.

It seems to me that speakers should be aware of the kinds of arguments that belong in each kind of motion, how to complete their burdens and other strategies employed in debating.

I like it when debaters stay true to their duties; for example, when a whip or summary speaker understands that their function is to refute, strengthen, and justify their partner's position, rather than to present new ideas.

Current Varsity debater at DPHS. I’ve done 3 years of LD and have dabbled in some other events. Yes I’ll evaluate any argument you put in front of me no matter how ridiculous, as long as you have some evidence. I'd consider myself a Tech judge despite what some other might say but i'm not high tech.

Tech>truth

I can’t use speechdrop as of the 2024 season so we’re gonna have to roll with email chain if you’re spreading

tristanvoss2006@gmail.com

LD stuff

times sat 0

1. LARP, Phil

2. Theory, Trad

3. POMO K

4. Trix

S - Identity K, Performance

PHIL - So personally I think philosophy is the heart of LD, otherwise it’s just one one man pf. With that being said, I’d like it if you used more than just the generic forms of phil everyone use’s (i.e Kant, Hobbes, and stock util). If you run something especially unique/funny, I’ll give you extra speaks

LARP - Plans and counterplans are fun to evaluate, just make it make sense. A 50 states CP is frowned upon by me because you’re not even negating at that point and the aff basically has to fumble very hard for me not to vote for them

Theory - Y’all, hear me out, I learned theory this year and it’s actually fun so I’ll vote on most shells. Friv theory isn’t real. Theory goes at the top of the flow and will be the first thing I evaluate unless instructed otherwise. I agree with disclosure theory so if you have an “I meet”, then have it ready with screenshots. The same goes if you're reading disclosure, prove to me that they did violate and you’re not just making it up.

(Disclosure is only for TOC tournaments and the Varsity state tournament)

Trix - Ok, so I’m not going to vote on your 26 off case that are all one line. It’s not fair to your opponent and neither of you learn anything in the round. Lastly, you kill the spirit of debate by doing this. but some trix are fine and i will evaluate it if it's simple trix and its obviouse that you're both experienced prog debaters

Ks - Ks are a fun form of debate in my opinion. I’ve watched them a few times. I get them and I’d still vote on it if you can explain it well enough to me, basically explain it to me like I’m a toddler or you're rolling the dice.

Other prefs

• No flex prep

• Only a warrant needs a card

• Instant L and you’ll be reported to tab for doing anything xenophobic racism, sexism, homophobia, etc (you’re almost adults, learn how to behave in public if this is going to be an issue)

• No paraphrasing evidence, it's becoming bad norm in debate and is arguable an evidence violation
• Don't just say they don't have a card for that.

Speaker points

Don’t worry, You start at 29 and move up and down from there

As a judge, my goal is to provide constructive and fair feedback that will help debaters improve their skills. I believe that all debaters should be treated with respect and should feel free to express their opinions without fear of judgment. I also believe that debate should be fun and enjoyable for all participants. With this in mind, here are some things you can expect from me as a judge:

• I will listen carefully to your arguments and give them the consideration they deserve
• I will evaluate the arguments based on their merits, not based on my personal beliefs or opinions
• I will give clear and concise feedback that will help you to learn and grow
• However, I am not a fan to fast speaking. While I understand that you may feel pressured to speak fast, I ask that you slow down and speak clearly so I can better understand you and for the sake of your arguments
• And lastly I want you to know that I am here to support you and help you improve.

Thank you for trusting me to be your judge.

Hi I'm Justin. I'm currently doing varsity LD at Heritage Broward.

Pls call me Justin, try not to call me Judge

Tech>Truth 99.9% of the time (With some exceptions).I want to be added to the email chain (If you’re disclosing):jxchubs@gmail.com

Qualifications:

• Current LD debater in high school
• Apprentice and forever indebted to Mason Cheng and Spencer Swickle
• Admin/Guest Lecturer for Kritikal discussions (text/email me if u want debate help), we will be adding info soon.
• Asian look alike of @ Perry Beckett

Spreading- Pls ask the opponent if they’re cool with spreading; I don’t believe spreading in front of debaters who have no idea how to comprehend it encourages them to continue the debate. Pls go at around 70% of your max speed if you plan on doing so, online debate is very unclear.

Top Level

Arguments must have a claim, warrant, and impact for them to count on the flow.

Quoted from Mason Cheng - “debate is a technical game which necessitates technical concessions and offense defense 101.”

Defaults

- Debate is a game

- DTA, RVI's, Reasonability

- skepticism is true and it negates

- Presumption flips aff, permis flips neg

- Truth Testing

- Epistemic Confidence

- Extinction doesn't matter

I will be as tab as possible, but I will have preferences.

(1-2)-Trad, Larp, Theory, T, Phil/Phil Trix

(5/Strike)- Bad Trix (Apriori, 1 line blitzes/Spikes), Basic K’s (Set Col, Psycho, Cap)- Love K's but err on the side of over-explanation. For bad Trix, I will be grumpy, but I'll still vote on it. If there's any risk of offense on the other side, even with a marginal extension, then an L even if the trick is won.

Things that I need to make an accurate decision

Offense needs to be extended in rebuttal speeches if you want me to evaluate it.

Please give weighing; otherwise, imma have to default.

Ways to get high speaks

If you're ahead on the flow and end your speeches early.

(AUTO 30)- Make a reference to Spencer Swickle winning the TOC, and Mason Cheng and how they’re the GOATs.

Actually flow and don’t read off a doc in the 2nr

Speaks, I will start at a 29 and move up and down depending on how good your strategy is and presentation of your arguments.

NO BIGOTED ARGUMENTS or ones that make debate inaccessible, discrimination of any category will not be tolerated.