adarshjudges@gmail.com

----------

Pre-round:

Minimize dead time, be polite, and read whatever you want.

There's no time delineated for flow clarification. You can ask for marked cards but skipped cards/analytics should be asked about during CX or prep. I probably won't interrupt (awkward) so I'll just tank speaks instead.

To clarify: I don't care if you flow or not. I want to have more than 40 seconds of decision time. Things that aren't explicitly accounted for time-wise cut into decision time. Less decision time increases the chance of a worse RFD. If you waste a bunch of time and force me to decide a debate in under 3 minutes, it is entirely your fault if the RFD is incoherent or misses arguments.

If you spend an absurd amount of time sending documents or getting ready to give a speech, I'll ask you to start counting it as prep time or lower points, depending on the severity.

Please be clear on tags, names, and analytical paragraphs. I tend to flow by ear and only read cards if told to. Give me pen time between sheets.

I lower speaks for a few things: needlessly being unkind, clearly old blocks that haven't been updated for the topic, lying in CX, and making the debate irresolvable. Debaters are sometimes just hostile from the outset which is deeply disappointing. Rounds are rarely deep enough to start screaming at your opponent. I tank speaker points when CX/speeches become a yelling/ad hominem match. "Anger ethos" makes me uncomfortable.

----------

Prefs:

If I've judged you in the past, I am likely far better for policy debates now compared to the 2023-24 season.

Did policy debate at Dulles HS from 2019 to 2023. Do math and policy debate at USC.I also dabbled a bit in LD and am currently coaching for Break Debate in a limited capacity.

I tend to have a moderate bar for what constitutes a complete argument. I'm probably better than your average policy judge for LD-specific arguments, but worse than your phil/tricks/theory judges. I will attempt to resolve all arguments fairly but my lack of experience might result in an incomplete or not entirely coherent RFD.

I don't understand arbitrarily excluding arguments from decisions (e.g. RVIs) unlike many other policy debate imports. If an argument is bad then it shouldn't be hard to beat. Trying to enforce a particular vision of debate as an "educator" is just kind of weird for me because I pretty much only did/do debate for fun.

I default to comparative worlds, competing interps, and judgekick. A single line changes that (e.g. the phrase "use truth testing") absent contestation.

I tend to linearly evaluate debates which may require adjustments if you're a big overview/cloud clash-type person.

This doesn't mean no overviews. Ballot framing at the top of the 2NR/2AR is good. I just don't like having to do line-by-line and applying arguments for you. Debating through overviews also increases the risk that I misinterpret the implication of an argument and incorrectly evaluate it.

I try to line up arguments when I flow. Following the order of the 1NC on case* and the 1AR on offs* will be greatly appreciated (and result in higher speaks).

*Exception for situations where following the 1AC/1NC order would be more coherent (e.g. NIB dumps, phil FWs, etc.)

I've typically gone for core-of-the-topic style DAs, large advantage/process counterplans, IR Ks, postmodernist Ks, and race Ks while negative. When affirming, I've read soft-left, core-of-the-topic, and planless affs (typically based on race or postmodernist lit). I mostly read policy/K positions in LD but occasionally went for phil/tricks.

I'll admit that I'm more familiar with K debates (excluding K v. K rounds). I'm neutral-ish with a slight negative bias in K v. Framework debates. I almost exclusively defended planless affs for two years so I'll generally understand and accurately evaluate aff arguments.

----------

Feel free to ask for more specifics by email.

I tend to be slightly late – sorry in advance!

I tend to give longer RFDs (especially in elimination rounds). Let me know if you have to go or to move on if you're not interested in whatever I'm talking about – I end up rambling a lot because I don't write much (if anything) down when giving RFDs.

Affiliations:

I am currently coaching 3 teams at lamdl (Steam Legacy, Bravo, Lake Balboa) and have picked up an ld student or 2.

I do have a hearing problem in my right ear. If I've never heard you b4 or it's the first round of the day. PLEASE go about 80% of your normal spread for about 20 seconds so I can get acclimated to your voice. If you don't, I'm going to miss a good chunk of your first minute or so. I know people pref partly through speaker points. My default starts at 28.5 and goes up from there. If i think you get to an elim round, you'll prob get 29.0+

Evid sharing: use speechdrop or something of that nature. If you prefer to use the email chain and need my email, please ask me before the round.

What will I vote for? I'm mostly down for whatever you all wanna run. That being said no person is perfect and we all have our inherent biases. What are mine?

I think teams should be centered around the resolution. While I'll vote on completely non T aff's it's a much easier time for a neg to go for a middle of the road T/framework argument to get my ballot. I lean slightly neg on t/fw debates and that's it's mostly due to having to judge LD recently and the annoying 1ar time skew that makes it difficult to beat out a good t/fw shell. The more I judge debates the less I am convinced that procedural fairness is anything but people whining about why the way they play the game is okay even if there are effects on the people involved within said activity. I'm more inclined to vote for affs and negs that tell me things that debate fairness and education (including access) does for people in the long term and why it's important. Yes, debate is a game. But who, why, and how said game is played is also an important thing to consider.

As for K's you do you. the main one I have difficulty conceptualizing in round are pomo k vs pomo k. No one unpacks these rounds for me so all I usually have at the end of the round is word gibberish from both sides and me totally and utterly confused. If I can't give a team an rfd centered around a literature base I can process, I will likely not vote for it. update: I'm noticing a lack of plan action centric links to critiques. I'm going to be honest, if I can't find a link to the plan and the link is to the general idea of the resolution, I'm probably going to err on the side of the perm especially if the aff has specific method arguments why doing the aff would be able to challenge notions of whatever it is they want to spill over into.

I lean neg on condo. Counterplans are fun. Disads are fun. Perms are fun. clear net benefit story is great. The sept/oct topic really made me realize I never dabbled in cp competition theory (on process cps). I've tried to fix that but clear judge instruction is going to be very important for me if this is going to be the vast majority of the 2nr/2ar.

If you're in LD, don't worry about 1ar theory and no rvis in your 1ac. That is a given for me. If it's in your 1ac, that tops your speaks at 29.2 because it means you didn't read my paradigm.

Now are there any arguments I won't vote for? Sure. I think saying ethically questionable statements that make the debate space unsafe is grounds for me to end a round. I don't see many of these but it has happened and I want students and their coaches to know that the safety of the individuals in my rounds will always be paramount to anything else that goes on. I also won't vote for spark, trix, wipeout, nebel t, and death good stuff. ^_^ good luck and have fun debating

Email me docs at mkb AT debatematters.org

I am diagnosed (and am on medication) with severe ADD. This means my ability to listen carefully and pick up everything you say will wane during the round. I would strongly suggest you have vocal variety and slow down, especially for what you want to make sure I get.

Argument preferences. I've found myself being less concerned about argument advocacy than I am about hearing smart, well-constructed arguments. Whether the substance of your arguments are policy, philosophical, or critical-based, I don't really care - just put in the work.

Given this, I don't view myself as an argument counter. I want to be told why your arguments are better, not only that you have more of them. This should free you up to focus on quality over being blippy with underdeveloped "arguments."

Random stuff.

Don't play games with disclosure. Affirmatives should disclose at least 30 minutes before the round. Both sides should have their arguments on their wiki.

The affirmative probably should be topical.

I think that I'm one of the few circuit LD judges who votes affirmative more than I vote negative. I prefer an affirmative that provides a problem and then a solution/alternative to the problem. Negatives must engage. Being independently right isn't enough.

Cross-x cannot be transferred to prep time.

Peninsula, Cal State Fullerton

Cal State Fullerton BW

Bakersfield BB

Previously Coached by: Shanara Reid-Brinkley, LaToya Green, Travis Cochrain, Lee Thach, Max Bugrov, Anthony Joseph, and Parker Coon

Other people who influence my debate thoughts: Vontrez White and Jonathan Meza

Emails

HS: jaredburkey99@gmail.com

College: debatecsuf@gmail.com jaredburkey99@gmail.com

2024-25 Update:

IPR: 0

Energy: 0

LD Total: 0

College: Going to be coaching Cal State Fullerton more so I expect to be judging college, have a depth of topic knowledge, and be doing more research for the team.

HS: Mostly will be in LD this year, I imagine I will be judgeing policy teams a few times this year and help out with the Pen policy kids from time to time.

Cliff Notes:

1. Clash of Civs are my favorite type of debates.

2. Who controls uniqueness - that comes 1st

3. on T most times default to reasonability

4. Clash of Civs - (K vs FW) - I think this is most of the debates I have judged and it's probably my favorite type of debates to be in both as a debater and as a judge. I would like to implore policy teams to invest in substantive strategies this is not to say that T is not an option in these debates, but most of these critical affs defend some things that I know there is a disad to and most times 2AC just is flat-footed on the disad. 2As fail to answer PICs most times. 2ACs overinvestment on T happens a bunch and the 2NR ends up being T when it should have been the disad or the PIC. All of this is to say that T as your first option in the 2NR is probably the right one, but capitalize on 2AC mistakes

5. No plan no perm is not an argument --- win a link pls

6. Speaker Points: I try to stay in the 28-29.9 range, better debate obviously better speaker points.

7. Theory debates are boring --- conditionality good --- judge kick is a logical extension of conditionality

Specifics:

K --- The lack of link debating that has occurred for the K in recent years is concerning, the popularization of exclusive-based FW has diminished the value of the link debate. That being said I understand the strategic utility of the argument, but the argument less and less convinces me. I will not default to plan focus, weigh the aff, or assume weigh the aff when each team is going for exclusive fw. This is all to say that the link argument is the predominant argument and the K of fiat as a link argument is not convincing at all. Smart 2Ns that rehighlight 1AC cards and use their link arguments to internal link turn/impact turn the aff should win 9/10 in front of me. All to say that good K debating is good case debating.

FW--- Fairness its an impact but also is an internal link to just about everything --- role of the negative as a frame for impacts with a TVA is very convincing to me - only this debate matters is not a good argument, these debates should be a question about models of debate - carded TVAs are better than non-carded TVAs and are a sure fire way to win these debates for the negative --- I would describe myself as a clash truther most times, debate is net good maximizing clash preserves the value of debate --- 2As whose strategy is to impact turn everything with a CI is much more convincing to me than attempts to use the counterinterp as defense to T, although can be persuaded by the counterinterp being defense to T

DA--- Fast DAs are more convincing, turns case arguments good, any DA is fair game as long as its debated well

CP --- Must know what the CP does with an explanation --- good for functional competition only, not the biggest fan of text and function or textual only.

T --- Boring.

LD Specific:

1. Larp/K

2. K affs

3. Theory

4. Phil - Been convinced more and more about Phil thanks to Danielle Dosch, I would still say I am not the best for Phil

5. Tricks

I DON'T WANT TO SHAKE YOUR HAND PLEASE DON'T ASK

Now that that friendly introduction is over:

Email: maanik.chotalla@gmail.com

I'll disclose speaks if you ask.

Background: I debated LD for four years for Brophy College Preparatory in Arizona. Graduated in 2016. Current LD coach for Brophy College Preparatory.

TOC Update: I haven’t updated my paradigm in a few years and while my attitude towards debate hasn’t fundamentally changed the activity and norms within it have very much changed so I felt a need to write an update. At its core, I do believe this activity is still about speaking and so I do still value debaters being able to articulate and deliver. Yes I will still vote tech but I have very little patience for debaters who refuse to adapt and articulate. My preference is to not be reading your rebuttal off a document, if it isn’t on my flow I can’t vote for it. All that said—my advice to you is to go slightly below your max speed with me. I believe every judge embellishes their flowing ability to a degree and while I’m not awful at flowing I am certainly not as good as I used to be and I also have no competitive incentive like you do to be perfect on the flow. I will do my best but I am certainly going to be a cut under most judges that were former TOC competitors. I am simply in a spot in where debate is no longer my whole life (just a large part of it) and I have not been able to keep up with everything. Will do my best but if you are expecting a robot judge you will be disappointed.

Crash Course version:
-Go for whatever you want, I like all forms of argumentation
-Have fun, debate is an evolving activity and I'm all for hearing creative well-warranted arguments
-The round belongs to the debaters, do what you want within reason
-Tech > truth, extend your warrants, do impact analysis, weigh
-I default to competing interps but will go for reasonability if you tell me to
-For Ks please be prepared to explain your obscure lit to me, don't assume I'll know it because I promise you I won't. It will benefit you if you give an overview simplifying the K.
-If you run a theory shell that's fine but I don't really like it when a shell is read as a strictly strategic decision, it feels dirty. I'll probably still vote for you if you win the shell unless it's against a novice or someone who clearly had no idea how to respond to it.
-Default to epistemic confidence
-Good with speed
-Don't like tricks
-Don't be rude, the key to this activity is accessibility so please don't be rude to any debaters who are still learning the norms. This activity is supposed to be enjoyable for everyone

For the LARP/Policy Debater:
-You don't necessarily have to read a framework if you read a plan but if your opponent reads a framework I'm more likely to default to it unless you do a good job with the framework debate in the 1AR.
-If you run a framework it can be either philosophically or theoretically justified, I like hearing philosophy framing but that is just a personal preference
-Utilize your underview, I'm guessing you're reading it for a reason so don't waste your time not extending it.
-Running multiple counterplans is okay, prefer that you provide solvency
-Make sure your counterplan does not link yourself back into your DA, please

For the K Debater:
-Please label each section of your K (link/framing/impact/alt) it makes it more clear to me how the argument is supposed to function
-If you aren't running a typically organized K then please just explain the argument properly as to 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
-Feel free to ask more questions before the round

For the traditional debater/everyone else
-Crash course version should cover everything. I have more below for the people who really want to read it but you can always ask more questions beforehand

More details:

1. General

I like debates which are good. Debaters who are witty, personable, and I daresay good speakers usually score higher on speaker points with me. I'll vote on any argument (So long as it isn't blatantly offensive or reprehensible in some way). I'm a big believer that the round should belong to the debaters, so do with the debate space what you wish.

I like framework debate a lot. This is what I did as a debater and I believe that it makes the round very streamlined. I always like hearing new and cool philosophies and seeing how they apply, so run whatever you want but please be prepared to explain them properly.

Please slow down on impacts and pause between tags and authors!! Yeah, I know everyone has the case right in front of them nowadays but I still want you slowing down and pausing between your authors and tags. Finally, for both of our sakes, please IMPACT to a weighing mechanism. I have seen too many rounds lacking impact analysis and weighing. It's possible it will lead to a decision you don't like if you don't impact well. I don't particularly care what weighing mechanism you impact to so long as you warrant to me that it's the more important one.

2. Theory/T

Run whatever shells you would like but nothing frivolous, please. I wouldn't recommend reading theory as strictly a strategic play in front of me but I will still evaluate it and vote on it if you prove there is actual abuse in round. I default to competing interps but will go with whatever you tell me. In general, I think you should layer theory as the most important issue in the round if you read it, otherwise what was the point in reading it?

Shells I will likely not vote on:
-Dress Code theory
-Font size theory
-Double-win theory (I'll probably just drop whoever initiated it)
-Frivolous shells unrelated to debate (i.e. lets play mario kart instead)
-Comic Sans theory
-This list will grow with time

3. Tricks

I don't like them. Don't run them. They make for bad debate.

4. Ks

I myself was never a K debater but I've now found myself really enjoying hearing them as an argument. I'd appreciate if you could label your K or section it off. I wasn't a K debater so I don't automatically know when the framing begins or when the impacts are etc. The biggest problem I usually see with Ks is that I don't understand the framing of the argument or how to use it as a weighing mechanism, so please help me so I can understand your argument as best as I can. I have dropped Ks because I just didn't understand the argument, err on the side of me not knowing if it is a complex/unconventional K.

5. Miscellaneous

I don't time flashing/making docs during the round but I expect it to take no longer than 30 seconds. Try to have a speech doc ready to go before each round. I'm good with flex prep. I don't care if you sit or stand. I'll hop on your email chain. Don't be rude, that should go without saying. Lastly, and I mean this seriously, please have fun with it. I really prefer voting for debaters who look like they're having a good time debating.

If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round or contact me via email

I am a UNLV student with experience in college-level debate only. 1 year of IPDA, 2 months of NFA-LD.

I prefer slow debates with minimal spreading, but this is not required. Dropped arguments are vital towards my RDF, so make sure to extend arguments. Flows will be prioritized over information listed in speech docs. Please remember to read all cards and arguments you would like to run.

I do not have a formal understanding of the technicality of Kritiks. I would judge those similar to Framework arguments in terms of weighing the round.

2017-2019 LAMDL/ Bravo

2019- Present CSU Fullerton

Please add me to the email chain, normadelgado1441@gmail.com

General thoughts

-Disclose as soon as possible :)

- Don't be rude. Don't make the round deliberately confusing or inaccessible. Take time to articulate and explain your best arguments. If I can't make sense of the debate because of messy/ incomplete arguments, that's on you.

-Speed is fine but be loud AND clear. If I can’t understand you, I won’t flow your arguments. Don’t let speed trade-off with the quality of your argumentation. Above all, be persuasive.

-Sending evidence isn't prep, but don't take too long or I’ll resume the timer. (I’ll let you know before I do so).

Things to keep in mind

-Avoid using acronyms or topic-specific terminology without elaborating first.

-The quality of your arguments is more important than quantity of arguments. If your strategy relies on shallow, dropped arguments, I’ll be mildly annoyed.

-Extend your arguments, not authors. I will flow authors sometimes, but if you are referencing a specific card by name, I probably don’t remember what they said. Unless this specific author is being referenced a lot, you’re better off briefly reminding me than relying on me to guess what card you’re talking about.

-I don’t vote for dropped arguments because they’re dropped. I vote on dropped arguments when you make the effort to explain why the concession matters.

- I don’t really care what you read as long as you have good reasoning for reading it. (ie, you’re not spewing nonsense, your logic makes sense, and you’re not crossing ethical boundaries).

Specific stuff

[AFFs] Win the likelihood of solvency + framing. You don't have to convince me you solve the entirety of your impact, but explain why the aff matters, how the aff is necessary to resolve an issue, and what impacts I should prioritize.

[Ks/K-affs] I like listening to kritiks. Not because I’ll instantly understand what you’re talking about, but I do like hearing things that are out of the box.

k on the neg: I love seeing teams go 1-off kritiks and go heavy on the substance for the link and framing arguments. I love seeing offense on case. Please impact your links and generate offense throughout the debate.

k on the aff: I like strategic k affs that make creative solvency arguments. Give me reasons to prefer your framing to evaluate your aff's impacts and solvency mechanism. The 2ar needs to be precise on why voting aff is good and overcomes any of the neg's offense.

[FW] Choose the right framework for the right aff. I am more persuaded by education & skills-based impacts. Justify the model of debate your interpretation advocates for and resolve major points of contestation. I really appreciate when teams introduce and go for the TVA. Talk about the external impacts of the model of debate you propose (impacts that happen outside of round).

[T/Theory] I have a higher threshold for voting on minor T/Theory violations when impacts are not contextualized. I could be persuaded to vote on a rebuttal FULLY committed to T/theory.

I am more persuaded by education and skills-based impacts as opposed to claims to procedural fairness. It’s not that I will never vote for procedural fairness, but I want you to contextualize what procedural fairness in debate would look like and why that’s a preferable world.

[CPs] CPs are cool as long as you have good mutual exclusivity evidence; otherwise, I am likely to be persuaded by a perm + net benefit arg. PICS are also cool if you have good answers to theory.

[DAs] I really like DAs. Opt for specific links. Do evidence comparison for me. Weigh your impacts and challenge the internal link story. Give your framing a net benefit.

I am more persuaded by impacts with good internal link evidence vs a long stretch big stick impact. Numbers are particularly persuasive here. Make me skeptical of your opponent’s impacts.

I have been a coach and consultant for the past 28 years and done every debate format available stateside and internationally. I also have taught at Stanford, ISD, Summit, UTD, UT, and Mean Green camps as a Curriculum Director and Senior Instructor. I think no matter what form of debate that you do, you must have a narrative that answers critical questions of who, what, when, where, why, how, and then what, and so what. Debaters do not need to be shy and need to be able to weigh and prioritize the issues of the day for me in what I ought to be evaluating. Tell me as a judge where I should flow things and how I ought to evaluate things. That's your job.

If you would like for me to look at a round through a policy lens, please justify to me why I ought to weigh that interpretation versus other alternatives. Conversely, if you want me to evaluate standards, those need to be clear in their reasoning why I ought to prioritize evaluation in that way.

In public forum, I need the summary to be a line by line comparison between both worlds where the stark differences exist and what issues need to be prioritized. Remember in the collapse, you cannot go for everything. Final focus needs to be a big pic concept for me. Feel free to use policy terms such as magnitude, scope, probability. I do evaluate evidence and expect you all to do the research accordingly but also understand how to analyze and synthesize it. Countering back with a card is not debating. The more complicated the link chain, the more probability you may lose your judge. Keep it tight and simple and very direct.

In LD, I still love my traditional Value and VC debate. I do really like a solid old school LD round. I am not big on K debate only because I think the K debate has changed so much that it becomes trendy and not a methodology that is truly educational and unique as it should be. Uniqueness is not the same as obscurity. Now, if you can provide a good solid link chain and evaluation method of the K, go for it. Don't assume my knowledge of the literature though because I don't have that amount of time in my life but I'm not above understanding a solidly good argument that is properly formatted. I think the quickest way to always get my vote is to write the ballot for me and also keep it simple. Trickery can make things messy. Messy debaters usually get Ls. So keep it simple, clean, solid debate with the basics of claim, warrant, impact, with some great cards and I'll be happy.

I don't think speed is ever necessary in any format so speak concisely, know how to master rhetoric, and be the master of persuasion that way. Please do not be rude to your opponent. Fight well and fight fair. First reason for me to down anyone is on burdens. Aff has burden of proof, neg has burden to clash unless it is WSD format where burdens exist on both sides to clash. If you have further questions, feel free to ask specifics.

In plat events, structure as well as uniqueness (not obscurity) is key to placing. Organization to a speech as well as a clear call to order is required in OO, Info, Persuasive. In LPs, answer the question if you want to place. Formatting and structure well an avoid giving me generic arguments and transitional phrases. Canned intros are not welcome in my world usually and will be frowned upon. Smart humor is always welcome however.

I want you all to learn, grow, have fun, and fight fair. Best of luck and love one another through this activity!!

I am the Director of Debate at Immaculate Heart High School. I am a conflict for any competitors on this list.

General:

1. I will vote on nearly any argument that is well explained and compared to the arguments your opponent has made.

2. Accusing your opponent of an evidence ethics or clipping violation requires you to stake the debate on said allegation. If such an allegation is made, I will stop the debate, determine who I think is in the wrong, and vote against that person and give them the lowest speaker points allowed by the tournament.

3. I won’t vote on arguments that I don’t understand or that I don’t have flowed. I have been involved in circuit LD for almost ten years now and consider myself very good at flowing, so if I missed an argument it is likely because you were incomprehensible.

4. I am a strong proponent of disclosure, and I consider failing to disclose/incorrect disclosure a voting issue, though I am growing weary of nit-picky disclosure arguments that I don’t think are being read in good faith.

5. For online debate, please keep a local recording of your speech so that you can continue your speech and share it with your opponent and me in the event of a disconnect.

6. Weighing arguments are not new even if introduced in the final rebuttal speech. The Affirmative should not be expected to weigh their advantage against five DAs before the Negative has collapsed.

7. You need to use CX to ask which cards were read and which were skipped.

Some thoughts of mine:

1. I dislike arguments about individual debaters' personal identities. Though I have voted for these arguments plenty of times, I think I would vote against them the majority of the time in an evenly matched debate.

2. I am increasingly disinterested in voting for topicality arguments about bare plurals or theory arguments suggesting that either debater should take a stance on some random thing. No topic is infinitely large and voting for these arguments discourages topic research. I do however enjoy substantive topicality debates about meaningful interpretive disagreements regarding terms of art used in the resolution.

3. “Jurisdiction” and “resolvability” standards for theory arguments make little sense to me. Unless you can point out a debate from 2013 that is still in progress because somebody read a case that lacked an explicit weighing mechanism, I will have a very low threshold for responses to these arguments.

4. I dislike critiques that rely exclusively on framework arguments to make the Aff irrelevant. The critique alternative is one of the debate arguments I'm most skeptical of. I think it is best understood as a “counter-idea” that avoids the problematic assumptions identified by the link arguments, but this also means that “alt solves” the case arguments are misguided because the alternative is not something that the Negative typically claims is fiated. If the Negative does claim that the alternative is fiated, then I think they should lose to perm do both shields the link. With that said, I still vote on critiques plenty and will evaluate these debates as per your instructions.

5. Despite what you may have heard, I enjoy philosophy arguments quite a bit and have grown nostalgic for them as LD increasingly becomes indistinct from policy. What I dislike is when debaters try to fashion non-normative philosophy arguments about epistemology, metaphysics, or aesthetics into NCs that purport to justify a prescriptive standard. I find philosophy heavy strategies that concede the entirety of the opposing side’s contention or advantage to be unpersuasive.

6. “Negate” is not a word that has been used in any resolution to date so frameworks that rely on a definition of this word will have close to no impact on my assessment of the debate.

Hey! I'm Manank. Lynbrook '24. Cal '28. Did LD for 4 years, trad for 1, circuit for 3 but comfortable evaluating pretty much any type of debate.

Email chain: doshimanank@gmail.com

tldr: if spreading, start at 70%, not a huge fan of phil or tricks or disclosure theory and will probably not understand or vote on those, and don't assume I understand kritiks.

Trad LD/PF

I've got a good amount of experience, tech > truth. do your thing, don't spread there's a reason why pf is different than policy and trad ld is different than circuit ld. Most of these rounds come down to who does better weighing so weigh!!!

Progressive/Circuit LD

Quick pref sheet:

Theory/T - 1

Soft Left Affs & non-extinction impact larp debate - 1

LARP - 2

Wacky/Different but understandable arguments: (friv theory, wipeout, etc.) - 2

Kritiks - 3

Phil - 5

Tricks (like eval, tt, that stuff) - Strike

General Debate Thoughts: Genuinely don't know why 2nr needs to collapse cuz its job is to make the 2ar impossible. However, I believe that collapsing can be strategic so you do you. Be nice. Don't be offensive. I'm not the best flower but if you're clear and not incredibly fast you'll be fine. Clipping is an L only if your opponent stakes the round on it and there is evidence. Weigh + good evidence comparison is a must (and gets you good speaks). Have fun!

LARP/Policy: I can evaluate larp just fine. CP competition needs to be explained very well. Comparative weighing is highly appreciated. There is a thing called 0% risk, soft left affs and Ks should use this more vs extinction.

Theory/T: Most of my theory knowledge comes from Michael Harris.

Default to DTD on T, CIs, no RVIs, dta on cp theory except condo.

I'm cool with RVI's if warranted and explained well

Went for this a ton every year so pretty comfortable

Do standard weighing and voter weighing

Probably not gonna vote on disclosure/wiki theory

Friv theory is fine with me, if you use reasonability well to answer friv shells, then you will likely get good speaks.

Kritiks/K Affs: Not great for these but if you can explain why extinction doesn't o/w and hijack the aff, then should be fine. I need a ton of explanation though because most K's just sound like a bunch of jargon ngl. Probably bad for identity K's, probably fine for cap, security, ir k's. I'm pretty bad for K affs because I believe there is a resolution for a reason. If you're able to answer T-FW well, then go for it but I am persuaded by T-fw a lot.

Phil: Most phil debates tend to just be blippy analytics, don't do that if you want to read phil in front of me. I'm still probably bad for substantive phil debates.

Tricks: No pls. Blippy args with terrible warrants are bad.

How to get good speaks:

make debate ez to eval pls (aka be clear and simplify the debate round in the last speech)

be funny! I primarily did debate just to have fun and learned a ton along the way.

be smart + strategic

good impact calc + evidence comparison

No docbotted 2nr/2ar pls

From Soohyuk Yoon's paradigm: Give 2nr or 2ar off paper = +1 speak boost, Handshake after round = +0.3

Email : himali2712@gmail.com

I am a parent judge with little experience of judging at Varsity level.

Please be clear in your speech and talk at a pace that I can understand. This will help me follow your case and comprehend your arguments.

Support your positions with statistical data, numbers and warrants. Make sure you sign post and don't hop around cases. Logical flow of arguments will make your case easier to understand and hence strengthen your position.

In summary and final focus, be clear on what your impacts are and why they matter more than your opponents.

I update myself with the debate topics that I am judging, so be ready to comprehend your arguments well.

Please share the relevant docs pertaining to your case.

Please be kind to your competitors. Don't try to be rude or discriminatory otherwise points will be taken off.

Debates, at their core, are questions of models. I care about what you do and what you justify, but will allow you to tell me how I should perceive, structure and evaluate that. Email Chain: Kdebatedocs@gmail.com

For Arthur Delores Invitational (Worlds):

ask questions, I’m happy to answer things. Above all, I love good spirited debate, strong refutations, collapsing down of arguments, strategic concessions, comparative weighing and framing. Tell me how I should be seeing the round so I don’t have to intervene and frame it myself and your rfd will likely follow suit! I tend to defer to the simplest ballot story to resolve things and tend not to to have the energy to weigh alternative ways in which the round could’ve gone, but I’ll give you recommendations of what might’ve gotten my ballot or where I felt I could’ve been persuaded.

• content — good presentation of information, structure,
• strategy — good debate tech, answering of questions, taking questions, etc
• style — in depth analysis of said content and its implications, your aesthetic representations of this

quals:

• Competed @Southwestern CC and Southern California in Policy (2021-2024)

• Coached LD, PF, Parli, @Flintridge Prep and Westridge School (2018 - 2023)

• Coaching Worlds and LD at Harvard-Westlake (2023-Present)

I'm happy to judge your debates. Below is a list of where I think I am great, good, and bad. Below that is generic thoughts you might need to know to get the highest possible speaks.

Debates I think I am great for

- K v K (love good K debate, love bad K debate)

- Case vs DA (this is 90% of what I see nowadays)

- Fw v Aff K / K vs Plan (I’m pretty good for framework and pretty good for the aff k, these are some of my favorite debates to watch. I’m not repping out for the K, but if it is won, I will vote)

- T vs Case (love a good t debate, fairness and edu are impacts, explain how clash or limits and other internal links connect to it, and I’ll vote on T)

Debates I think I’m good for

- Case v CP/DA (counterplan competition is something I’m trying to get into, but I really need you to walk me through competition and I’ll try to work with you here)

- Condo (not that im super sympathetic about condo, but I will vote on it if warranting and weighing is done well or dropped)

- Disclosure

- Ev ethics

- Non-res theory including and possibly limited to (Process CPs bad, Severance bad, etc)

Debates I know I am bad for

- Phil ( I find that debaters assume I am as familiar with their niche framework and do not explain what is offense for them or defense for them and I am very easily lost in these debates)

- Tricks

- Debates where the negative doesn’t collapse and expects me to make decisions for them

- Debates where the entire speech is read at the same speed without slowing down for areas that are of vital importance

Thoughts about debate:

- I love a good debate where the negative collapses and makes strategic decisions. I don’t like debates where I’m asked to do things like judgekick CPs.

- Theory threshold:

--- not high but I think blippiness is getting really out of hand, LD debaters need impacts to theory and clash is not an impact, it's a standard or an internal link to something -.- in policy, condo is cool. I will vote on condo but I have a high threshold for why you couldn't read the perm and a da to the alt, whereas in LD, time skew can be kind of persuasive

--- Friv theory is also getting out of hand, if you read things like punching theory, debaters must not wear shoes, these better be like K impact framing args and not independent voters tbh.

- I have a research background and would like you to do some work with your evidence. I am a strong proponent of doing more with less. I will read along as it happens. That being said, my contemporaries are considerably better card people, I did a lot of performance. (translation: pls dont put me in a 2nr/2ar debate about competition theory about the counterplan)

- I prefer people tell me how to evaluate their debates, framing included, what matters, what doesn't -- filtering / sequencing etc

- debates are simplest and imo best executed when people reduce the number of args and clarify their argumentation and spend more time discussing the relation to the other teams args / participation in relation to their args, as well as making the link -> impact story more persuasive.

- slow down a bit for me, speak louder for me, pen time for tags will boost your speaks with me

- Lastly, I tend to defer to the simplest ballot story possible. Please collapse and make a choice. I think thats the beauty of debate is winning your argument rather than forcing me to have to do the evaluation of a number of sheets in the 2nr. Basically, if you go into the 2nr with 4 off case and expect me to judgekick things, and make decisions on how to evaluate all of them, I'm going to be really upset.

I'll do my best to explain the world you've laid out for me in the debate and how I came to my decision in my RFD but I will not likely explain the the entire world of the debate in relation to the implication of (x) unless it helps me vote differently.

I'm a parent judge. I do not understand spreading.

Pronouns: he/him

Please add me to the email chain: erichaya@yahoo.com or better to use the site drop if available.

I like Policy Debates. I prefer non-extinction impacts. Please either use a value/value criterion, or clearly explain to me how your framework works and how to evaluate the round under it. Please refrain from using buzzwords uncommonly known by lay parent judges.

You can run Kritiks, but I won't know your lit base, so please err on the side of over-explanation.

If you run theory then you need to explain to me your model of debate and its implications for my ballot -- again, no buzzwords please as typically won't evaluate frivolous theory. I need to see an actual violation in round.

You can email me to ask questions before round for clarification.

On top of all -- please be respectful.

For speaks, I start with 28.5 and go up or down from there.

My only Paradigms for debates are just making sure that its a civil debate and you are respectful to your opponents. Making sure that you go at a reasonable pace though speeches and case reads.

My Paradigms for Speech events, is that you also go at a reasonable speed, don't go super fast and rush though the speech, just so its easier to follow along with your speech and message that you are conveying.

With that I wish you all lots of luck and have lots of fun.

I am the LD coach at Loyola.

I have coached traditional and circuit LD for over 30 years and am comfortable judging most rounds—having judged at many Circuit tournaments, elim rounds, and even TOC finals.

That said, I am NOT one of the coaches who is super familiar with ALL of the arguments that are currently in vogue. What does that mean? You make assumptions about my understanding at your own risk. I won’t fill in steps for you, because I happen to know what argument you’re trying to make. And I don’t have “preconceived” notions of how certain arguments are “generally” evaluated by circuit judges nowadays. What you’ll get is a fresh/independent/flow-based look by an impartial judge on those arguments. I don’t have the benefit of knowing how those debates are SUPPOSED to come out.

I can handle spread, but NOT if you’re incomprehensible...and most of you are NOT understandable. If you want to include me on an email chain that helps.

In terms of decisions, I try to make my decisions based on the flow, but will reward debaters for being smart and will generally NOT like to vote on undeveloped blips. I like making my decision based on the issues that are the most developed on the flow. I will, however, vote on a clear drop of an important argument. In situations where the round is unresolveable, I will not force a decision for either side based on arguments/extensions that really are not on the flow or fill in the gaps with my own opinion. I like voting for the side that requires the least judge intervention and, if that's not possible, I will vote for the better debater in terms of technique and delivery.

I am a parent judge.

In debate, my main focus is on how well you present your argument and defend them. I prefer you do not spread. My basic philosophy is that if I can not understand what you are saying , I do not understand your argument and therefore your score will reflect that . Please remember be respectful and do not cut your opponent off during crosses.

I am a parent judge. I very much prefer the traditional debate format and appreciate clear and concise arguments. I also find roadmaps and guidelines very helpful.

Spreading: I find it challenging to follow arguments presented via spreading. I do, however, understand that spreading is sometimes necessary, like, e.g., when rebutting a long list of contentions. I will read the speech document to assist my understanding of the argument but am of the opinion that it is contingent on the debater to make clear and compelling arguments during the debate.

Cards/references: I most appreciate debaters citing peer-reviewed publications, less so for media publications. I'm grateful of the debaters who clearly state the legitimacy of their references or the unreliability of their opponent's references.

Peninsula

gordondkrauss@gmail.com

Offense-defense. The aff should defend a topical plan and the neg should defend a topicality violation, a competitive alternative, or the status quo. No zero risk, so presumption is impossible. Non-extinction impacts are relevant. The sole purpose of my ballot is to decide the winner / loser of a single debate.

Cross-ex is mandatory and cannot be used as prep. You must ask questions like "what did you read?" during cross-ex.

Counterplans. Most process counterplans should lose to a theory argument. Intrinsic perm unpersuasive because textual competition is dumb. Evenly debated, it would be difficult to convince me that international fiat is good, and it would be even harder to convince me that the neg can fiat random ideas. Counterplans should propose substantive solutions to the harms the 1AC identified. Conditionality is good. 1nc theory arguments are not.

Kritiks. I like Ks that disprove the truth of the 1ac, but I'm not a big fan of Ks of fiat. The neg needs a link to the plan or its justifications.

Philosophy. You don't have to read all the cards, but a few that say something would be nice. I will not consider skepticism or permissibility because I will not vote on defense (see presumption above). I like debates about the contention and creative strategies.

Topicality. Going for topicality is easy. I'm persuaded by reasonability and arbitrariness arguments but I'm equally good for aff ground. Plan in a vacuum depends, but usually not a winner.

Hi! My name is Emme and I am currently a freshman at UCSD.

Contact

I'm good with SpeechDrop or email (^^recently: my email has been wonky so preferably SpeechDrop sorry)

Email: elay@ucsd.edu

Preferences/Misc.

I debated for Immaculate Heart for 3 years (2021-2024).

I mostly read policy arguments but am pretty good for Ks and phil if you actually know what you’re reading and can handle CX/explain what you read well. I love good, clever weighing. Mostly tech>truth but can be persuaded either way.

I can evaluate all common args but I really do not like tricks or hidden ASPEC or anything like that. Look at other Immaculate Heart judges for more on this - while I will flow these args I will probably not vote on them unless severely mishandled (i.e. don’t read them as a cheap shot to win against a novice).

Please be clear! <3 I am decent at flowing but if you are incoherent I will not be able to properly get down all your args. Clarity and quality over quantity of args read - but if you can read 8 off and still be clear I support that. I prefer to flow on paper so keep that in mind.

CX is binding. I love a good CX exchange BUT be kind to your opponent. I really respect debaters who can get their opponent to give them the answers/links they need in CX while being cordial and not condescending.

Be nice in round and out! Being nice will def boost your speaks in front of me. Don’t be rude/try to intimidate new debaters. Debate should be fun! So try and make it an enjoyable and educational experience for both you and your opponent.

I think disclosure is good! And conditionality... most of the time.

My name is Lorenzo,

I don't enjoy spreading during your speech. If I can't understand the words from your speech, I'm not going to understand your speech.

Try to signpost (be clear on where you are in your case)

Make sure to time yourself. Don't want to get caught lacking during your rebuttals when you go over time and your opponent has to stop you or you still have time remaining and you waste it.

If you want you win your case, don't state that your case or argument is better but state why and how. Explain how your arguments link to impact and your value. Balance your attacks with your defense on your case (try to not spend to much time on attacking your opponents if you haven't defended your case and vice versa).

Lock in and have fun.

larryliu36@gmail.com

I am a parent judge. Please do not spread.

I have little to no topic knowledge, so err on the side of over-explanation.

Please refrain from using debate jargon and, if possible, restrict your 2nrs to DA-case.

Debated for Downtown Magnets High School 2019-2023

Currently debate for Cal State Fullerton

NAUDL Quarters

LAMDL 2022-23 City Champion

Add to email chain: Davidm57358@gmail.com

Coached by: THE GOAT VONTREZ WHITE, Jared Burke, DSRB, Toya, Anthony Joseph, Travis, Yardley Rosas, Elvis Pineda, Chris Enriquez

Any questions you have regarding my paradigm or way of thinking in debate please refer to vontrez white at wvontrez@gmail.com

Tech > Truth

For the larger part of high school I strictly ran big stick affs and strict policy strategies. I almost always run the K in college now.

Read whatever you feel most comfortable with

Specifics:

Case:

Few things here I think a lot of teams will ignore the case debate or have extremely shallow debates. Card dumping is not fun and makes debating and judging so much harder and its not fun for anybody. This looks like going down the LBL in the 2ac the block etc. Of course if you think a card is necessary go for it but be strategic. I love rehighlights or very specific case debates I will probably give you extra speaks if you do a really good case debate.

T:

I'm not experienced with T. I've probably gone for it less than 5 times in my entire career. I think reasonability over competitive interpretations. I can judge a T debate and understand how it works but if your strategy is to always go for T I probably wont be the best judge for you.

If you want to run T FW go for it its a strategy I'm pretty familiar with I dont think i necessarily lean aff or neg in this case though.

CP:

Love a good CP. That being said I greatly dislike teams that will read 3 CP in the 1nc with just the plan text or a vague card. I'm all for a good clash debate and really reading CPs in that way just kills a majority of the clash the 2ac can have. I'll be more sympathetic to condo arguments in that case. Plank CPs are fine, explain the progression of the CP and you should be good. Have a good NB or internal NB I think this is where most debates are lost especially when teams just cannot explain what the NB is.

DA:
Pretty ok with these types of debates. Be creative with your DA's will definitely give great speaker points for a unique DA.

K:

go for it. I can understand and flow it. I think a lot of K debates become washed from either the alt debate or the fw debate.

K affs: To be honest I find myself voting a lot more on T FW/USFG and I dont think its necessarily because K affs are bad or anything but because I think teams need to really push on the idea that debate changes subjectivities a lot of y'all are letting these policy teams push you around. There's some good cards out there and I fundamentally do think debate changes subjectivities but it doesn't mean i'll buy it if you do minimal work on it. Also a link to the topic gives you a higher chance at winning in front of me.

Speaker Points begin at 28.5 I do not disclose speaker points.

additionally will give extra speaker points if you can add some humor to your speeches!

overall, just have fun. Debate is a space that we all engage in to learn and enjoy. That being said be respectful of the other team and be mindful of the language that you use. Any inappropriate language or behavior will not be tolerated and will be reported instantly to Tabroom and Coaches.

adammimou82@gmail.com

Assistant LD Coach for Peninsula HS

I will evaluate all arguments and base my decision on what you extend into your final speeches. I will try not to let my argumentative preferences influence my decision.

Exclusive framework interps are unpersuasive, I generally think the aff should get the plan and the neg should get links, but I am willing to evaluate either.

I have experience with philosophy outside of debate but limited experience in reading or judging frameworks beyond utilitarianism or deontology within debate. I think most skepticism or "permissibility" arguments are explained as defense. I do not vote on defense.

I’m convinced by reasonability against all 1NC theory arguments, but slightly less against most topicality interps.

I don't look at the doc until after the debate, but I tend to read a lot of evidence.

I try to stay non-expressive during rounds. If I show any facial expressions, it is most likely unrelated.

There is no designated time for flow clarification during a debate. If you want to ask your opponent about what was or wasn't read, you must do so during cross-examination or use your prep time. If you mark cards during your speech (i.e., if you start reading a card but do not finish it), you should clearly state where you marked it and send a marked document immediately after your speech. You are not required to include cards you did not read.

I do not have a specific metric for speaker points, but demonstrating a clear understanding of your positions and minimizing dead time are effective ways to improve your score.

I do not pay attention, flow, or listen to "flex prep". If there is something you want me to hear, ask in cx or make it an argument.

Email chain: I.claud33@gmail.com

They/ Them - She/Her

Policy debate for three years in high school at regional circuit. Judging since then, so maybe 7ish years of xp in poli.

No oppressive language. No card cutting/ clipping. No hateful language. No more than 5 off.

Violation of this will result in low speaks or a losing ballot, probably both.

PLS no new args in the rebuttals. Im not going to eval them. Im really not.

CX: speaks start at 27.5 and go up based on performance, clarity, tech execution of args, strat, persuasion, and manners:) - give me my rfd and that will def help lol

I don think ive ever given a 30. Maybe at most a 29.5, but tbh im not sure what an ideal speech would be. I need to think on that.

Tag team Cx is fine

Keep ur own time, keep each other accountable. I forget all the time to stop prep (literally the most important thing)

If it’s not in the flow, it didn’t happen

If I can’t hear/ understand you- I will let u know “clear”

I flow on paper so if u make a qwk analytic I’m so sorry to tell u, but I probably didn’t get it

General:

Pretend I am a big illiterate baby.

I have never seen a news outlet. I don't scroll social media. I don't look out windows. I have never ever existed before this debate round, explain everything to me.

Contextualize every piece of ev and EXTENSIVE analysis on what the voters are.

S

Specifics:

K

Love the k.

I’m familiar with: Set Col, Cap and Chicano

But I'm always willing to become familiar with more :)

Links can be re-highlighted ev, generated during cx, or can be based off their plan text. However, that does not mean read three pieces of Link ev, after two cards your time would be better spent contextualizan the link and preempting perm args

Aff

Good with any impact. Just pay attention to the framing.

K aff

I like K affs. Best k affs are those that dont sideline the res and rather make a stasis point for decent ground so you can access ur education impx.

IF ur rapping/singing/ performing in a 'non-traditional' way, then I need you to tell me how to flow it- analyze what your performance specifically did in the context of this round, in your own words. Ex: if ur singing chappell roan, i want some analysis on how chappell roan is either key to solvency or whatever.

I can vote for a TVA or a kvk, i pref kvk.

DA/CP

Internal link. Internal link. Internal link. If you don't make the storyline straight, I will not buy your impact. Ideally should be a net benefit to a cp.

Cp: Net benefit. Net benefit. Net benefit. I will one hunddo vote on tva or perm on presumption.

but perms must be fully fleshed out, I should not be left wondering after the 2ac the how and when of the perm. Solvency defcts should be clarified with the perm.

Debate is first and foremost a research game.

Experience: Policy Debate (2 Years, But I still made it all the way to Urban Nationals Gurl)

Francisco Bravo Medical Magnet High School: 2016-18

Cal State Long Beach: 2018-19

Contact Info: elvispinedaten@gmail.com

In a nutshell: I'm a pretty open debater and I love hearing all types of arguments. Policy Arguments... love them, Critical Arguments... love them, just make sure to articulate your arguments because even something as simple as a Cap K are run differently from round to round. Uniqueness questions are good, Links need to be there, Impacts are vital (You don't know how many people forget to impact out their stuff... make sure you do because I NEED TO KNOW WHAT IM VOTING FOR, I will not feel bad voting you down if you have a great link story but no impacts) and I appreciate intellectual debate jargon. All in all I will vote on anything, it just has to make sense and you have to convince me why I should vote for you and not the opposing team (Cross-Analysis). I love debate; I believe its a form of academic expression and just remember to have fun and pour your hearts out on the battlefield. I'm not a point fairy but passion, effort and craft are highly rewarded as I highly value (as we all should) seeing students actively pushing themselves for both an academic and interpersonal growth!

K's: Know the literature, it'll make your clap-backs that much stronger and makes it easier to contextualize. Throughly explain the alt, I noticed that the alternative debate is always the least covered and if I don't throughly understand what I'm voting for... then the permutation becomes an easy option for me as long as I believe it is possible. LINK ANALYSIS WILL GO A LONG WAY... Just saying. I ran Queer, Ableism, Witchcraft and several CRT K's but I understand the post-modern ones as well (please don’t run baudrillard, I’ve already had to vote it up once --> Update: Twice).

K' Affs: I ran Critical affirmatives the majority of my debate career so I might already understand or be lenient towards some of the reasons why non-traditional affirmation might be good. HOWEVER!!! This doesn't mean that if you run a K Aff I'll automatically vote for you, I find myself voting on presumption arguments or framework a lot because sometimes the literature of the affirmative is so dense and either: A) I feel like there is an articulation issue (and thus disorder on the flow) because of the density of the material or B) The internal link chain which leads me to believe that the affirmative is a good idea might be fundamentally under developed.

Da's: Uniqueness... Link.... Internal Links.... Impacts. I like disads, make sure to be strategic, make them net-benefits to the Cp otherwise I do believe that the Squo is always a viable option.

Cp's: Remember that not all Cp's are plan-inclusive and to me at least all you have to prove is that your method solves better than the aff. Have Net-benefits and show me solvency deficits (It'll make your life easier trust). No I won't judge kick the CP for you unless you explicitly tell me, i feel like it gives judge intervention way to much power.

T: Topicality is more than "aff is not topical". Tell me why that is bad? What do you lose access to? Prove to me why the aff's interpretation of debate is bad or abusive. If I can make those connections and you persuade me to prefer your model of debate, then its looking good for you and I'm very inclined to vote on it.

Framework: A lot of T applies here too, make sure to win why we need procedural fairness, why is the aff's model of debate bad for the debate community in general, Internal and External impacts are convincing, and also make sure to make those common FW arguments that prove you don't limit the aff. Framework to me also doesn't necessarily mean that "USFG means the 3 Branches of Government", even though its common and I don't mind seeing it, I feel like you can tailor so many framework arguments to work around the rhetorical offense affirmatives get with that interpretation.

Aff's: PROVE TO ME WHY WE NEED THE AFF! I need to know that there is a reason why you have to affirm what you are affirming and thats why you're doing it in a nontraditional way. Also prove to me why your model of debate is preferable to the neg's arguments. Just persuade me (Make me feel like I HAVE TO DO IT). In addition, anything performative should always be used... and offensively too. Don't waste precious 1AC time without utilizing it to the best of your advantage.

Case: I LOVE CASE DEBATE <3!!! I appreciate a good neg team that directly challenges the aff's warrants and their claims. So that being said... good case debate is appreciated and will be rewarded with higher speaks. Flush out them case turns (I'll gasp if its good)

Advise for the aff: Don't forget your 1AC, YOU SPEND 8/9 Minutes on it, please utilize it and utilize it as offensively as you can!

HAVE FUN! I love debate and I'm always happy and excited to watch y'alls debates!

GOOD LUCK!

Jay Rye - Head Coach - Montgomery Academy

Experience- I have been involved with L/D debate since 1985 as a former L/D debater, judge, and coach. I have been involved with Policy debate since 1998. I have coached Public Forum debate since it began in 2002. I have served as part of the CAP for World Schools Debate at the NSDA National Tournament for the last 3 years, and I have judged, while limited, some Big Questions Debate over the past 6 years. While at many tournaments I serve in the role as tournament administrator running tournaments from coast to coast, every year I intentionally put myself into the judge pool to remain up to date on the topics as well as with the direction and evolving styles of debate. I have worked at summer camps since 2003 throughout the United States.

Philosophy

I would identify myself as what is commonly called a traditional L/D judge. Both sides have the burden to present and weigh the values and/or the central arguments as they emerge during the course of the round. I try to never allow my personal views on the topic to enter into my decision, and, because I won't intervene, the arguments that I evaluate are the ones brought into the round - I won't make assumptions as to what I "think" you mean. I am actually open to a lot of arguments - traditional and progressive - a good debater is a good debater and an average debater is just that - average.

While for the most part I am a "tabula rasa" judge, I do have a few things that I dislike and will bias me against you during the course of the round either as it relates to speaker points or an actual decision. Here they are:

1) I believe that proper decorum during the round is a must. Do not be rude or insulting to your opponent or to me and the other judges in the room. Not sure what you are trying to accomplish with that approach to debate.

2) Both sides must tell me why to vote "for" them as opposed to simply why I should vote "against" their opponent. In your final speech, tell me why I should vote for you - some call this "crystallization" while others call it "voting issues" and still others just say, "here is why I win" - whatever you call it, I call it letting your judge know why you did the better job in the round.

3) I am not a big fan of speed. You are more than welcome to go as fast as you want, but if it is not on my flow, then it was not stated, so speed at your own risk. Let me say that to the back of the room - SPEED AT YOUR OWN RISK! If you have a need for speed, at the very least slow down on the tag lines as well as when you first begin your speech so that my ears can adjust to your vocal quality and tone.

4) I am not a big fan of "debate speak" - Don't just say, cross-apply, drop, non-unique, or other phrases without telling me why it is important. This activity is supposed to teach you how to make convincing arguments in the real world and the phrase "cross-apply my card to my opponents dropped argument which is non-unique" - this means nothing. In other words, avoid being busy saying nothing.

5) Realizing that many debaters have decided to rely on the Wiki, an email chain, or other platforms to exchange the written word, in a debate round you use your verbal and non-verbal skills to convince me as your judge why you win the round. I rarely call for evidence and I do not ask to be on any email chain nor will I accept an invitation to do so.

6) I do pay attention to CX or Crossfire depending on the type of debate. Six to nine to twelve minutes within a debate are designated to an exchange of questions and answers. While I don't flow this time period, I will write down what I believe might be relevant later in the debate.

Speak clearly

State where you are in your case

Defend and extend your case

Time yourself

Be nice and lock in

My paradigm is not a series of uncompromisable rules. At the end of the day, debaters control the debate space.

On Kritiks

I love critical literature, 4 notes:

1. I do not believe in the idea that the author is irrelevant after publishing.

2. K-debater ought to produce a convincing link, and alternative. The K is likely a voter if those two arguments are articulated well.

3. Debate does not occur in a vacuum; I am open to structural fairness arguments.

4. For K-Aff's it's an uphill battle if you run a "reject the resolution" argument, I prefer reinterpretations of the resolution; this demonstrates, to me, a creative reimagination of the resolution that allows for diversified literature bases, but failure to do so would make me weigh framework arguments more favorably.

On Topicality

Topicality is standard strategy, definitely open to Topicality debate with one exception. If certain plans are core affirmatives to the topic, and the affirmative runs a truth over tech argument, then I will consider T a non-voter in those cases. Core, to me, means that the affirmative plan is standardized (many schools run that affirmative).

On CPs

I do not have strong opinions on CP Theory. I can be persuaded to multiple CPs, PICs, et cetera. Completely up to the debaters.

On Disadvantages

Disadvantages should not have a generic link, they should have a persuasive story for how it ties to the affirmative case, a specific link, or both.

On Case

I love case debate. If negative can compete on the case level - even if they lose - high speaker points are guaranteed. Shows good research, and a genuine attempt to understand the other team's arguments. Two aspects that I see as core to debate.

Slow down on tags, spreading is okay otherwise. Don't be mean or rude unnecessarily, I will vote you down. Tag teaming okay. I love K's but only if you flesh them out correctly. T is a voter rarely if you actually know how to run it. Advice to y'all, fake it till you make it in your speeches that's how you get high speaks from me. Keep your own prep time. 

Background: debated at LAMDL for 3 years, 2 years college debater at CSUN public forum and policy

Contact info: Elizabeth.talavera.594@my.csun.edu 

Ezzah Tariq (she/her)

Add me to the email chain: ezzah_tariq@themeadowsschool.org

I am a doc loyalist, I love the doc, make sure your doc is in order, put your analytics on the doc (if you don't, just indicate that it is not on the doc and slow down on analytics). I will ask for the doc because I take my time to really sift through the data. However that being said if the tournament does not require disclosure and you do not have too. You have the right not to disclose, it just makes my job as a judge easier.

If you have specific accommodations necessary, email me so we can get that set up. If there are something that is triggering, email me or let me know before round so we are all aware. I know in debate that a variety of issues come up, but being disrespectful, racist, homophonic, sexist, etc is unacceptable.

About me: I am a varsity LD debater, so I am familiar with the topic, debate styles, and those shenanigans, trust.

For Novice Debaters:

Please do not run a case you have no idea about because your varsity member gave it to you, it's a tough watch. Speak clearly, indicate your framework, advantages/disadvantages. Some advice: stay organized and engage with the debate. I want you to TELL me why you are right and why your opponent is wrong. Using words like my impact OUTWEIGHS, my opponent DROPPED/IGNORED my advantage, this argument is the most IMPORTANT because it makes it easier for me to vote for you. You got this and have fun.

For Varsity Debaters:

I have made it my personal mission to be the judge that I never had, so here are my preferences.

LET ME STOP YOU RIGHT HERE: These are my PREFERENCES not my REQUIREMENTS. I am more likely to vote for you if you follow these, but if you are a top - TOC qualifying debater who knows how to win on anything, go for it. Like for real, go for it. Just be warned.

I take TECH > TRUTH lightly. I will not vote on extremely incorrect impacts or circumstances without really good evidence. So run your climate change doesn’t exist cards, just make sure they are really good.

What is highlighted is what is said out loud correct? Correct Ezzah we all say in unison. When looking at your evidence I will only look at the highlighted part. So if your card has 5 words highlighted, that is all the value your card has.

I am not the best with speed. So please slow down. Especially if you are referring to something not on the doc or analytics, type them out. Or slow down and announce these are analytics so I can get them. Analytics are so underappreciated.

I am the wrong judge for you to run your 3 CPs, K, 2 Disads, and Case. Too much.

When going against local/novice debaters, please be nice and accommodating. A good debater is one that knows how to adapt.

Framework is my lense to the debate and I will never auto vote on util because life is most important. Don't be afraid to give me a new lense. Argue your lense. Make me see through your lense. Trust.

Case:

Case is great. Make sure your cards are warranted and not under highlighted please. Make sure to impact weigh and extend all your arguments. The way I judge is that I go for unanswered arguments first, so make sure you don't accidentally miss anything.

K's:

All Ks have a gateway/framing issue that is much easier and more logical for the aff to attack. For example, if the neg reads an epistemology K you are much more likely to win reading a card that says “consequences outweigh epistemology” or “epistemology focus bad” than you are to win that the other team is cheating because of their K. Focus on answering the gateway issue so that you can leverage your aff against the K and get the decision calculus of the debate back in your favor. Subsequently for the neg the issue of ‘framing’ is also very important. You won't auto loose if you kick out of the K, but make it a last option.

Aff Ks: do spend some more time explaining affirmative cases. Tell me the story why you choose to do an Aff K especially if it is not topical. Try to have a link to the resolution tho, it helps prevent a strong topicality response.

Topicality:

You need tangible impacts. You’re asking me to drop a team because they made debate too unfair for you. “limits good” is not an impact. “They unlimit the topic by justifying x types of affs that we cannot hope to prepare for” is an impact. There must be a very coherent connection between neg interpretation, violations, and standards in the nr.

Counterplans:

Running multi-plank CPs with conditional planks or spamming uncarded counterplan texts feels abusive to me, and I'm a lot more persuaded by conditionality when you explain how these supercharge abuse.

I think counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive. I am sometimes persuaded that purely functional competition (normal means/process counterplans) should probably not be evaluated. If you’re aff and theory-savvy, don’t be afraid to go for theoretical reasons the process cp goes away.

Floating Pics/Word PICs- I’m great for the aff on these. I believe that every position has theoretical reasons behind it related to education and competitive equity. The aff counterinterpretation of “you can run your K/word K as a K without the CP part” generally solves every pedagogical benefit of those positions-this means the aff just needs to win that competitively these positions are bad for the aff, and it outweighs any ‘educational benefit’ to word/floating pics. I'm persuaded by those arguments, making it an uphill battle for the neg if the aff can explain tangible impacts to the competitive disadvantage the PIC puts them in.

Theory:

I adore theory. I think debate is what we make it and we can make it better. BUT disclosure is only valid when there is nothing disclosed. Theory is great. Trust. Condo amazing. I loveeeeee Theory.

Speaks:

As long as you are organized and speak well, you will get good speaks. I do not give you better speaks for eye contact. I disclose via verbal rfd, so I will not type it (tbh this depends) Follow the flow! The flow is the way to go.

Yoo what's Gucci?! Or whatever it is the kids are saying these days. My name is Asia, I debated LD all four years of high school for The Meadows School so I'm familiar with how this shindig goes down. I've read through a basic aff/neg case but that's about the extent of my knowledge on the topic so don't assume I'm well versed and be sure to explain any complex concepts well.

Note that I've been out of practice as a judge so please, for the love of our lord and savior Nicki Minaj, SLOW DOWN and ease into speed. If I have to remind you more than a few times to slow down or to be clear, I'll drop speaks and stop writing. I want to actually pay attention and understand your arguments so please do yourself the favor and be clear.

I'm a stickler about stealing prep so don't think you're being slick by "forgetting to start your timer". I will be flashing prep and my time is the only time that matters so no funny business and I do count flashing as prep!

Cross ex is your time to shine and probably my favorite part of the round. Use this time wisely and I will without a doubt reward you with extra speaker points. However, DO NOT BE RUDE OR BULLY YOUR OPPONENT! This is a given for the entire round. Don't get me wrong, I love a spicy aggressive cross ex (especially from my ladies) but if you cross the line into being rude I will drop you to the lowest speaks possible. I thoroughly believe this is your time to make your case stand out and to make your opponent sound like a moron, just do it tastefully.

I was more of a K debater back in the day and am well versed on the literature. I tend to prefer K's, case/CPs/Disads, and T and am NOT THE BIGGEST FAN OF THEORY. I am not the judge to be running frivolous theory shells in front of!!! I will in fact hate you, and I want you to know you are making me very sad. This does not mean don't run theory in front of me. Good theory is appreciated as I believe there is a time and space for it, but don't be that person running theory just to run theory. Not a fan of performance either.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask before the round. I'm happy to answer questions after, but you will not argue with me. If you have a problem with me or my decision, I really don't care. You can complain to your coach and if they come up to talk to me I'll tell them the same thing I'll tell you -- I will not argue with you and my decision is final, so kick rocks. It is not my fault that you did not perform well, so learn and do better next time.

To end this on a positive note -- I love debate and am not as scary as I look (unless it's an early round and I haven't had my coffee). I want you both to enjoy the round, make smart arguments, and kick butt. May the best debater win!

I am a parent judge and new to LD.  It is important that debaters speak clearly and in a conversational speed.

he/him/they/them

wvontrez@gmail.com

For college debate, use this email: debatecsuf@gmail.com

CSUF 22

Coach @ Harvard Westlake and CSUF

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

Pref shortcut:

Policy - 1/2

K - 1

K Aff/ Performance - 2

Philosophy - 1/2

Trix - 2/3

T - 3/4

Theory - 3/4

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

I did policy debate for 4 years at Downtown Magnets (shout out LAMDL) and 4 years at Cal State Fullerton. I debated mostly truthy performance debates and one-off K strats in high school and debated the K in a very technical way in college. Currently coach flex teams in LD.

I would say my debate influences are Jared Burke, Shanara Reid-Brinkley, Jonathan Meza, Anthony Joseph, Travis Cochran, Toya Green, and Scotty P.

TLDR: I will vote for anything, as long as it's impacted out. The list of preferences is based on my comfort with the argument. Fine with speech drop or email chain.

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

General

I think debate is a game that can have heavy implications on life and influence a lot of things

Tech > Truth, unless the Tech is violent (racism good, sexism good, etc.)

Good for all speeds, but clarity is a must

Judging a trad debate would be pretty funny

My favorite neg strategies are "NC, AC", the 1 off critique, a good da/cp debate

Like creative affs (policy, phil, and k)

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

Theory

Disclosure is good unless proven otherwise

Yes competing interps, lean no RVIs (not hard rule), DTD

Shells need an interp, violation, standards, voter

Need a good abuse story/how does my ballot set norms? Why does my ballot matter? How does this implicate future debates?

I think condo is good

1AR restarts are risky but I'd be pleasantly surprised if executed well

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

Policy

Absurd internal link chains should be questioned

Default util

No zero-risk

Uniqueness controls the link

Impact turns are good

Perms are tests of competition, not new advocacies

Yes judge kick

Will read evidence if told to do so

Quality ev > Card dump of bad ev

Usually default reasonability on T

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

K

I have a reading background in several critical literature bases. I am most read in anti-capitalist theory, afro pessimism, fugitive black studies, settler colonialism, and Baudrillard. For the sake of the debate, assume I know nothing and explain your K

Winning theory of power important

Perm solves the link of omission

Specific link > state bad link

Affs should weigh the aff vs. the K, negs should tell me why this isn't possible OR deal with affs impacts

Extinction outweighs debate probably good here

Soft left affs with a good link turn are persuasive for me

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

K Affs

I appreciate affirmatives that are in the direction of the topic. Affs that don't defend any portion of the resolution need a heavy defense of doing so otherwise T is pretty persuasive (imapct turn it)

I try not to have a leaning into T-FW debates, but I find myself often voting negative. Similar to Theory/T, I would love to hear about the affirmative's model of debate compared to the negative's. Impact turns to their model are awesome but there is a higher bar if I don't know what your model is.

Read a TVA -- Answer the TVA

Fairness is an impact. Clash is important. Education matters

KvK debates are super interesting, but I hate when they become the Oppression Olympics. Perms are encouraged. Links of omission are not. Contextualize links to the affirmative and clearly tell me how to evaluate the round.

Lean yes on perms in KvK/method debates

Performances should be used offensively. I will flow your poems/videos/whatever, just have a defense of it and utilize it to win

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

Phil

I find these debates fun to judge, but debaters should still err on the side of over explanation (especially if its dense)

Epistemic confidence

I don't care what phil you read, but I would probably enjoy seeing something I've never judged before

Weighing matters here still, especially between competing frameworks and meta-ethics

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

Trix

Sure, all I ask is that the trick has a warrant (even if it's hidden). If executed poorly, I will probably nuke speaks. If I miss the warrant for your trix and it's not in the doc, unlucky

I will evaluate the debate after the end of the 2AR (non-negotiable)

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

Speaker Points

Pretty much summed up here

If you make a joke about Jared Burke, +.1 speaker point

I am a lay judge so please articulate your points and speak clearly.

I will judge based on logically constructed arguments well supported by facts. I am not familiar with technical terms, so please explain them if you use them. My preference is for a straight-forward policy debate.

My background is in economics, finance, and tech, so advanced arguments there will be effective with me. Given that, it will take something really special to move me off of utilitarianism, as Spock says "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one)."

Philosophy (like Kant) and psychology-based arguments will be harder for me to understand and follow so it will be hard for me to vote on them. Off topic arguments will not be effective with me.

I am a Debate coach at Loyola High School. I primarily coach LD debate.

I see debate as a game of strategy. The debaters are responsible to define the rules of the game during the debate.

This means that debaters can run any argument (i.e. frameworks, theory, kritiks, disadvantages). I will assess how well the debaters frame the arguments, weigh the impacts, and compare the worlds of the Aff and Neg.

However, I am not a blank slate judge. I do come into the round with the assumption of weighing the offense and defense and determining which world had the more comparatively better way of looking at the round.

As for Speakers' points, I assess those issues based upon:

1. How well the speakers spoke to the room including vocal intonation, eye contact, posture.

2. I also look for the creativity of the argument and strategy.

High Speaker Points will be awarded to students who excel in both of these areas.

Debaters are always welcome to ask me more questions about my paradigm before a round begins. The purpose of debate is educational as well as competition. So, debaters should feel comfortable to interact with me before and after the round about how to do well in the round and after.