Please add me to the email chain - avaalmand@gmail.com

Background:

• Third year debater at Notre Dame
• 2n/1a

Top-level:

• Please be kind and professional... I get that debates can get heated, but there is a line between passion and rudeness
• Tech > truth always
• You can call me "Ava," please don't call me "judge"
• Please be clear - it's better to go a bit slower and be clearer (it will also result in higher speaker points)
• The top of the 2nr/2ar should be the rfd you want... What are you winning? Why is that the most important part of the debate? How does that implicate everything else?
• I will vote on most arguments but do think bad cards are more than sufficiently answered by smart analytics

Case:

• I love in-depth case debate. I think the negative often runs away from this kind of debate but I think it's possible to win 0% risk of the aff's impact (that is very difficult though, and you should always be extending some kind of offense)
• Rehighlightings can be inserted
• Impact turns are fun

Topicality:

• Have grown to love T debates, and I think they're especially strategic on this topic
• Definition quality is really

Kritiks:

• The best links are specific to the aff
• I'm not familiar with super high-theory k's, so please slow down and explain some of the buzz-words

Counterplans:

• Lean neg on CP theory
• Process CP's justify intrinsic perms (you have to explain why though)
• You need to have specific links to the aff or the CP is not competetive

Disads:

• In-depth case + DA can be really powerful
• Convincing imapct calc puts you really ahead
• It's hard to prove zero-risk but possible

Theory:

• These debates should be like any other - what is the impact to me voting for you? How does that affect... this round, norms, etc?
• Condo is probably good, but extreme condo is probably not (i.e. 5+ conditional advocacies and many planks that you can kick)
• Any theory other than condo is probably a reason to reject the argument

K-Affs:

• Have never run one... that doesn't mean I won't vote for one though

• Please don't be shifty, establish what your affirmative does and how it solves [x] harms

• If I'm not sure what the aff does, I don't have a problem voting on presumption

Hello!

My name is Cindy Chanay and I am a LAMDL (urban debate) alumni. I was a varsity debater at Bravo Medical Magnet High School, and now debate in NPDA and NFA-LD at UC San Diego. I also have acquired experience in speech, mostly in interp events.

Please put me on the chain (if there is one): cindypaolachanay@gmail.com. Speechdrop also works.

Now that I am in the judging position, I will give a few insights into how I view debates.

Some quick notes:

1. Be nice. In other words, be mature, and good people.

2. Have fun! :)

3. I will not allow conflicts that can put at risk the debate environment such as comments/arguments that can hurt other debaters and others in general, this includes and is not limited to racism, sexism, etc.

Note for LD: My views are similar to policy, but specifically for y'all: No trix please, reverse voters might make my head hurt, and good explanations are a must, especially as I probably lack deep topic knowledge- shadow extensions are not the best.

Some of my debate background (if that's important to you): I debated throughout high school, and I was mostly a K-Aff/K debater. If I didn't go for the K, I went for T (either topicality or theory). I have the most experience with settler colonialism, capitalism, and indigenous feminism type arguments. I have heard a bit of pomo arguments, but these will need more explaining to get my ballot. More on some specific sections will be below :).

Case (General)- Unavoidable. If you're aff, don't lose case, it can cost you the ballot. I find that in most cases winning that your aff outweighs can save you from a few defensive neg arguments. Yet, this depends on how your aff interacts with the neg arguments. For the neg, this is where it can get fun if you're losing your off-case positions. Don't underestimate the case to focus on your off-cases. Always look for a way to poke holes in the aff case. It will be quite hard for me to not look at case unless you win another flow.

Policy Affs: I didn't utilize these as often, but they can be fun. I rather you have two solid advantages than five that make no sense, though.

K-Affs: This is where I am most comfortable. I read a K-Aff in my last two years of high school debate and continue to read them in college. For the aff: Be prepared for T-FW and the Cap K, and explain your solvency. If I don't understand your solvency the more I am inclined to vote neg. I do enjoy performance affs, and non-traditional affs as well. While topic affs are easier for me to judge, I will evaluate a "non-topical" aff. Always make the aff o/w argument, because in most cases it does and it gets you out of a lot of negative offense, but you must know how to utilize this argument and where. For the neg: You can win on T-FW- but I think that it's not the only way to win against a K-Aff. I suggest to also make vagueness and presumption arguments on case, I will vote on them. I also like to hear more creative ways of beating a K-Aff (this can include theory, more in-depth K's, counter-performances, etc.)

DA/CP- I don't have much experience here, as I stated before I debated mostly the K on both sides. But, I will say that to win using this strategy, it's best to have the CP + DA so that there is a clear net benefit. For the neg- If you're going just for the DA, focus more on the link and the impact, as that's where I am more likely to vote. Uniqueness questions can be a voter, but it's usually not likely. Win that there is a link and that your impact o/w and you should be good. For the aff: Either straight turn the DA or at best win the link turn. You can also convince me on a no link, but remember that n/l is mostly just defensive, don't rely solely on that argument. For CP's: It's harder to win here if you don't have a DA, I find permutations quite convincing, but you can win. Have some relative advantage to the CP and win that it o/w. I think that winning theory on the permutation is fun. For the aff: Make permutations. Most of the time the CP is not that distinct from the aff/ has no net benefit enough to outweigh the aff. This is why you have to prove your aff is better and not lose case.

T-I usually went for T if I didn't go for the K. We meet arguments I think are mostly defensive, and I prefer counter interpretations. I usually use a competing interpretations lens, but I can be persuaded to use reasonability. Violation I think is a must, and the standards and voters should always be there. While I don't mind a short shell, make sure to explain the standards and voters in the extensions of the T. This is especially true if the T becomes the 2NR, I need to know why the aff violates and what that does to the debate space. For theory specifically: I will listen to aspec in the 1NC shell, but please don't extend it or much less go for it, unless the aff just clean drops it, I just don't find it persuasive. Most other specs I'm fine with and will vote on. I will vote on theory if you explain it well. Please don't pull tricks or rvi's, if you had that on mind, I will not vote on them.

K- Again, I am more comfortable in these debates. I don't think that you need to win all parts of the kritik to win it, but you definitely want to win at least a link to have some relative offense. Yet, I can also be persuaded to just vote on the alternative alone, if you know how to handle that debate, because this type of approach can implode on you if not done correctly. I do think that you have to answer framework though, because I need to know how to weigh the aff and the K. Give me reasons to prefer your interp. Remember to explain your alternative well, and impact framing because that can be a winning ballot paired with a decent link. On that note, I prefer links that are specific to the context of the aff, but some "general" links can be made into specific links if you are smart and pull lines from the aff's evidence. For the aff specifically: Utilize perms to the best of your ability. This is the easiest way to beat the K. Also pair it with at least a link turn and fw. But, I would prefer you have more than that to be able to have a cleaner win against a K. Disclaimer: While I do have some general ideas and am more knowledgeable in the set col and cap K debate, I don't know all of the literature available, so don't fall short on explanations. This is especially true for pomo literature because it can get confusing very quickly.

Speed: I am okay with it (just be clear) unless your opponents are not. Just be respectful of your opponents and you should be okay. I will call CLEAR if necessary.

Speech: do you. I will time and count you down if the event requires it and I'll also give you hand signals.

Don't worry too much if it's your first debate, I am a debater like you, so don't worry, I know what it's like.

If you have any questions before the round you can contact me at cindypaolachanay@gmail.com

You can also use that email to ask questions if you have any after the round as well :).

Background:

Debated all 4 years at Notre Dame High School.

Started as a 2N, finished as a 2A. 'Policy debater,' but I enjoy K's.

TL:

please put these emails on the email chain always. Send a test email at least 5 minutes before the round starts -- sergiochavezdebate@gmail.com notreddebate@gmail.com

pronouns: he/him -- feel free to call me by my name ("Sergio" or "Serg") -- not "Judge"

tech > truth absent ethics violations

be nice!

Read what you want! I'd rather you debate with what you know best than try over-adapting to me.

I enjoy solid clash and organization in the debates, otherwise, I feel like I have to do work for you. There should be clean line-by-line so I can easily follow your speech. Cross-applications are great when used strategically and sufficiently implicated.

Debate as if I have zero topic knowledge -- over-explaining things, especially first semester, is better than assuming I know what you're talking about. Remember that debate is meant to be educational, not just a word competition.

CX -- super underutilized and very helpful when done right. Build ethos, demonstrate topic knowledge, and most importantly ask questions with intention/direction. Yes, there are things you gotta get through like status of off-case, etc. but you can control the round (or lose it) with CX.

Speaking -- Clarity > Speed. Spreading is fine, but please be clear and at least try to be a little expressive (i.e. intonation, body language, eye contact, etc.), I will be more interested in what you have to say. I will yell "CLEAR!" if you are absolutely unintelligible. If I cannot hear your arguments, it won't be on the flow and I will not evaluate them. I am physically expressive, so my expressions will let you know what I'm thinking.

Timing -- Please time yourselves, especially prep. Even when I'm debating I forget to time my opponents and that'll probably be worse while judging. You can finish your sentence after the timer, nothing more (feel free to ask me where I stopped flowing).

Online -- If my camera is off, I am probably not there so always check with me (and your opponents) before speaking).

Please feel free to ask questions before the round.

T:

Great argument in the past. Neg teams should utilize it to check weird affs. You should probably have proof of neg ground loss / limits explosion and a reasonable case list.

Always extend voters, impact out the IL (i.e. education, fairness, clash, debateability), and do impact calc. If it's not there, I can't and won't vote on it.

T comes before theory. It's a procedural question of whether the debate should've even happened in the first place (this description does not necessarily apply to FW vs. K-Affs).

Case:

Please robustly defend the aff in CX; defend a real Internal Link(s) for your advantages and impact scenarios; be prepared to defend your scholarship. I can appreciate smart, offensive 1AR and 2AR pivots to beat the neg's args. If you think it's necessary in the 2AC, I'm all for it.

Rehighlightings do not have to be reread as long as its implication/purpose is sufficiently explained in the tag. These can be valuable, but the worse they are, the less they matter. If the rehighlighitng is on the longer end, you might want to read it.

CP:

Love them IF debated properly. Don't be too cheaty on the CP's -- some planks are just fine and probably sufficient.

If you want to run a Process CP with an internal net benefit, it better have a link to the aff or you're losing to an intrinsic perm. It's the neg's responsibility to prove why the CP is good and necessary for the topic/against [x] aff.

DA:

YES! (most of the time) DA's need impact calc and cohesive story. Please don't be read two cards in the 1NC and call it a disad. Turns case analysis is OP.

K:

Framework is optional. 2NR should decide if they're going for FW or a Link to the aff. Regardless, Links should be applied to the aff, even if they are a little generic. Pull 1AC lines, use CX to win links, and re-explain the aff through the K's lens. The alt should at least solve the links. Be careful using mindset shifts as your alt, this gives the aff is an easier route for the perm.

Here are some miscellaneous notes for K's that I've ran:

--Capitalism K -- Good generic across most topics. I personally think defending a material alternative (e.g. socialism) is better than forefronting FW. Positional competition is overrated, get better at Link debate.

--Settler Colonialism K -- I've read the Set Col K on the neg (shout out Olivia Deantoni) and have had significant time discussing not only neg strategy but also aff answers to this K with one of my coaches, Joshua Michael. There's so much room to develop specific Link debate. Ontology is meant to lower the threshold for winning the Link; it's not required to win the K. If you read Tuck and Yang as your alt, and 1NC CX says the alt is not material decolonization, you're wrong.

--Security K -- Another good generic across topics, and I feel like teams could read it this year too. I mostly view the the Security K as "spicy impact defense" (shout out Viv). It's also why I liked it, because of how it necessitates in-depth clash on case and examples. I think there are two ways to go for the K: (1) FW = you link, you lose, and (2) Impact turn = spicy impact defense. Either way, the neg should win a low risk of the aff.

Tricks -- throw-away K tricks in the neg block (e.g. embedded death k, predictions fail) are not a great way to win rounds, but I've seen them work -- 1ARs, please don't drop them, a sentence is enough for me to throw out dumb arguments. Even if they are dropped, the 2NR must be specific and apply the args themselves to the aff. For "predictions fail," if the aff wins risk of case, I think their predictions are correct and I will err aff.

K-Aff:

I've learned to grow somewhat fond of K Affs. I think that teams that utilize their 1AC to win portions of the debate, like an impact turn to FW, are strategically doing the right thing. I've seen some more deflective strategies that aren't as fun / educational to debate. Do not just throw a bunch of jargon and lingo if you're not going to explain it. Save your overviews for the line-by-line. Decide whatever you want to defend the aff does and own it.

Theory:

Conditionality -- condo is probably good, and usually reasonable if the 1NC has 1-3 condo, but I will always evaluate the flow first. Proving in-round abuse is really helpful for the aff instead of just debating at the unrealistic, hypothetical level of everything conditional imaginable vs. no condo.

Please add me to the chain: rosgoldman8@gmail.com

Notre Dame '23, UCLA '27

She/her

I was 2N who went for primarily policy args, but I will work to evaluate all arguments fairly and without predisposition.

TL

Tech > truth

Ev quality is VERY important to me. Cards with 6 words highlighted out of context and/or grammatically incorrect are highly unpersuasive. The other team pointing this out will be rewarded with high speaks and most likely a win (presuming they have better cards).

Be clear!!! Slow down on analytics/tags/overviews/anything you really want me to understand and number your arguments (in every single speech). I am not the most exceptional flow in the world, so prioritizing clarity of a few good args over proliferation of lots of meh args will work in your favor.

I have no topic knowledge, so do not assume I understand your acronym or jargon and please err on the side of over-explanation of topic specific stuff, like mechanisms, norms, and processes.

CP

I am super comfortable in these debates.

I love thorough, well-researched advantage CPs and agent CPs. I do not love process CPs with contrived internal NBs, but I understand that they are sometimes necessary. If you must, please reads cards that are actually about the process you fiat in the context of the topic and do your best to explain why the INB links to the aff. If you are aff in these debates, I am most likely to be persuaded by an intrinsic perm, but you must have a theoretical justification for it and explain how it resolves both the aff and the NB.

I lean heavily neg on theory and think most theory args vs CPs are meaningless affirmative whining. Condo is good probably up to 5 and then I maybe start to become more sympathetic to the aff, so long as they can explain the impact of IN-ROUND abuse. Even then, I will vote for whoever does the better technical debating. You need to explain your model of the topic and what impact it solves (and ideally, how it also resolves the other side's offense). Do not speed through a prewritten condo (or any) block at top speed; I won't be able to flow it. I find this is often a problem more for the 1AR, but all rebuttals from both sides need to have a clear interpretation, internal links to impacts, and answers to the other side's offense. Lastly, I'll probably default to judge kick unless the aff wins a theoretical reason I should not. It's better for the neg to start these debates early rather than say one line in the 2NR and let the 2AR quadruple your time here.

DA

Please make a complete argument. DAs need UQ, a link, an internal link, and an impact. Every single part needs to be present in the 1NC and clearly extended throughout each speech, with evidence to support ALL of it.

The neg should make as many turns case args as possible, at each level of the DA (i.e. link turns case, IL turns case, impact turns case) and the aff needs to answer all of then or it's a pretty rough recovery.

Do impact calc and do it well

K

I am comfortable in K v Policy debates, but will be least qualified in K v K debates.

It will probably be best for you to assume I am unfamiliar with your args and lit base and so you should clearly explain your theory of power, why the aff/topic is bad, how you resolve impacts, etc.

I don't think a strong link wall necessarily needs a ton of cards(although it won't hurt), but does need to be very specific to the aff's cards, scenarios, and CX explanation.

I am probably pretty neg leaning in FW vs K aff debates. I often struggle to understand how the aff can resolve the material impacts explained in the 1AC without material change in or beyond the debate space. This means the aff needs to be very clear on what change to the squo they defend and how it overcomes structural problems in debate and the world. The neg team should always go for some sort of presumption argument on case. I also think a TVA is great defense on FW, but the neg needs to explain why it means the aff can engage under their model. Likewise, the aff cannot neglect the TVA portion of the debate.

T

Both sides must have a case list and both sides must explain why theirs creates a better topic.

PTIV is a bad arg and a cop out, but the neg needs to explain why. Also, the neg should check that the word is, in fact, in the plan text, because I've seen this happen too many times.

I honestly really love a short (but competent) T extension in the block because I think it puts a disproportionate amount of time pressure on the 1AR. But, it's a fine line and I will hate if you spend 45 seconds spewing through nonsense words without establishing proper offense or defense.

Misc

You cannot insert rehighlightings unless the words you have rehighlighted have already been read by the other team.

Time your own speeches and don't steal prep

Be nice, but not too nice: there is zero reason to yell at or attack your opponents, but assertive and sassy debaters are fun to watch.

Background

Corrine (cuh - rin) she/her

3rd year debater at Notre Dame - 1a/2n

email: tormenatordebate2025@gmail.com

TL:

tech > truth, clarity > speed

please flow

claims must come with warrants

judge instruction!!!!

call me by my name (please say it right, if you don't know how just ask me)

be nice!

Case:

A lot of case is always fun. Understand your aff and defend it in cross. Remember to extend your aff and explain internal links and solvency, don't just assume I know how it works.

T:

T is great! Make sure you have a clear violation. Case lists and ground lists are key for me.

K:

I like ks, am familiar with set col, security, cap. If its not that, just explain it. Please have specific links to the aff, whether its to the actions or to their reps. Generic links will not get you far. Floating piks probably bad, utopian fiat is reciprocal. For set col specifically, I go for this k quite a bit, default to anything on my coach Joshua Michael's paradigm.

CP:

Counterplans are cool. Sufficiency framing is pretty good. I will judge kick unless you tell me not to. Counterplans need net benefits. Point out cheaty counterplans, at the very least to grant you more leeway on the perm. Haven't had much competition debate, so if it gets down to that just explain.

DA:

Impact calc. Impact calc. Impact calc. Love some turns case. Love link turns. Tell me a story.

Theory:

Condo is good unless it's like 5+, especially if counterplans can kick planks, then its as many worlds as there are combinations (I won't assume this, point it out to me and how that uniquely makes condo bad).

Miscellaneous:

Read rehighlightings

open cross is fine

love sassy, but there is a clear distinction between sassy and rude – don't be rude.

I will time you so don't lie

Have fun!

Hey everyone! My name is Fidencio Jimenez, and I am currently the head congressional debate coach for Modernbrain Academy. I have competed in a variety of individual and debate events during my time as a competitor in the high school and collegiate circuits of competition. My general approach to judging follows as such:

Email for document sharing: fidencio.jimenez323@gmail.com

Congressional Debate

Make sure your claims are linked and warranted with evidence. If you don't make it clear how your sources and information connect, you just sound like you are listing sources without contextualizing them in the round. This usually results in speakers presenting impacts that were not explicated thoroughly. I do not flow arguments that fail this basic requirement.

Incorporate the legislation in your arguments. I read the topics before each round, make sure you do too. If your points do not connect with the actual plan (that being I don't buy that the topic viably solves the problems or creates claimed harms), I will not flow them.

Keep the debate topical. If the link between your claims and the bill is obvious there isn't much to worry about here. If you don't think the grounds for the link between your harm/benefit are clear, justify yourself by explaining what mechanisms in the legislation make it so that your claims come to fruition. This makes it so you avoid mistranslation and prevent judges (myself included, it can happen to anyone) from overlooking/misunderstanding something in the topic.

For presiding officers, I ask you to be firm, deliberate, and clear in your instructions. The more a PO demonstrates the ability to take control over the round to avoid complications, the more they will be rewarded.

EX: Round does not have anyone who wants to speak so you call for recess, call for splits, and urge people to swap sides or speak.

Policy/LD/PUFO/Parli

Spreading- I do not mind if you spread. However, if your speed makes it so you become audibly incomprehensible I will clear you. Spread at a pace you can actually handle and perform stably.

Counterplans (for where it is relevant)- I am not a fan, too many times it seems like the plans do not tackle the benefits provided by the proposition. If you can link a counter-plan that establishes a harm, run it, but if it doesn't tackle their actual case, you are better off avoiding it.

K's- Same thing as counter plans. There is a time and place but if the K is not extremely fleshed out or justified, I will not consider it. There has to be substantial real-world harm clearly established. Make sure to weigh why the educational value of the discussion is not worth the consequences it creates.

IE's

I evaluate based on performance and the educational value of a competitor. For instance, if someone has a cleaner performance, but does not have a topic that is educationally substantive or as critical as someone with a slightly less clean performance, the person with the more substantive topic will get a higher mark. This is why for interpretation events I ask your thesis is made clear within your introduction and for events like impromptu and platform speaking to avoid surface-level theses or topics.

add me to the chain: smartin9498@gmail.com

Background:

• 4th Year Debater at Notre Dame High School
• Pronouns: she/her
• 2a/1n

Top Level:

• Have fun!
• I understand that debates can get heated (especially in cx) but please don't be blatantly rude to your opponents - there is a fine line between being competitive and mean - I reward nice debaters with nice speaks
• I don't care what you call me - sarah, judge, whatever is fine
• Do not over-adapt to my paradigm, I could be persuaded to vote on most args with good debating

• tech>truth
• line by line is a must
• you need a data-claim-warrant
• clarity > speed - I will yell “clear” twice before I stop flowing
• feel free to ask me questions before the round if you have questions abt my judge philosophy!

Case:

I love case debate! I feel like case debates often get underutilized, but they are necessary if you're trying to go for a disad, k, etc.

impact turns are fun

T:

I feel comfortable voting on T. however, you must explain the violation thoroughly and the standards must have an impact!

yes fairness is an impact and can be an internal link to education

K:

I really like k debates. I'm familiar with the lit of cap, security, and set col, but besides that PLEASE explain the thesis of the k. there are so many debates where the neg is throwing around big words and not actually explaining the story of the k.

you must have a link to the plan. there are so many debates where the link is SO BROAD and yes, I will vote on it if it gets dropped, but I need some specificity.

CP:

CPs need to solve sufficiently. I will only judge kick if you tell me to.

Process CPs are probably fine, but they justify intrinsic perms.

CPs that don't solve the entirety of the aff need defense against case advs

Competition debates often go underutilized

DA:

I love disads! they are so fun! i know that disads have been dead the past couple of topics, and the politics disad is dead rn, so be cautious

you must have a link to the plan

tell me the story of the disad on line by line

Theory:

i'll vote on most theory if it goes dropped, but i won't like it

condo is probably good, but if the neg is reading 4+ conditional advocacies I can be easily persuaded the opposite way

always feel free to ask me questions via email or after the round! have fun!

Please add me to the email chain: tcmdebate@gmail.com

Experience

• 3rd year policy debater at Notre Dame High School

• 2a/1n

Top-level

• Obviously debate is a competitive atmosphere, but please do not be rude

• Tech > truth

• I am comfortable voting on most arguments, but am inclined to vote for some more than others

• No matter what argument you are running make sure to explain a clear story to me — if I don’t understand the argument, I won’t vote on it

• Also, feel free to call me by my name

Case

• I love case debate. I think both the aff and neg shy away from this part of the debate, while I think it should be utilized more.

Topicality

• I am comfortable voting for T

• If you decide to go for T, make sure to extend clear impacts and explain what ground you lose due to the aff running their aff

Kritiks

• I am familiar with basic K literature but not all, so make sure to EXPLAIN

• I will not vote on the K if there is no link (the more specific the link to the aff the better)

Counterplans

• Explain a clear net benefit

• If the CP doesn’t solve all of case, you need to extend defense on that flow

Disadvantages

• I really enjoy these debates, but you need a link to the plan

• If you go for a DA, you need to have good impact calculus against the aff’s case

Theory

• Condo is probably good, but will vote on condo bad if dropped

• Just because theory is different from most arguments does not mean you should skimp out on explanation

I need to hear what you're saying and arguing. If I can't do that because you're reading too fast, then I won't be able to judge you fairly.

Parent judge.

Please speak clearly and loud enough for me to hear you.

Please be respectful.

Please do not just read.

Please stay on topic.

No spreading.

email - msoqfo@gmail.com

tech over truth, unless your claims are absolutely outrageous