Updated for ’24-’25. If there’s anything not covered in here (tried to be as extensive as possible), just ask, but if it’s something like “are you good with counterplans” I might be v sad.

For locals: not lay, to reduce your burden, unless you’re experienced w/ non-traditional args, you need only concern yourself with the “traditional” section, pls cut out argumentative dogmatism. Few notes: a) please learn to flow, asking what was/n’t read starts CX/prep, b) be responsive and clash w/ your opp (stop sending the 1NC before the 1AC has been read.), c) not big on disclosure theory at locals.* If you’re sending a doc, pls format it in a consistent, clean manner (like how they do it on the circuit).

About: 4 years of LD at a GA HS, currently a master’s student at UGA (’24, ’24), have judged on the circuit and locally since 2021. I coach LD—will be familiar with the rez.

- Pronouns: they/she.

- Yes, I want to be on the chain (chansey.agler@gmail.com), speechdrop and fileshare on tab are fine; I won’t look at google docs, PDFs are inadvisable

- Fine w flex prep

- Pls don’t try and shake my hand after the round thx in advance; ask me for permission before recording an RFD

Speaks:

- Speed is fine if you’re clear, but if it’s the first round of the tournament or the day, pls start at like 60-70% speed and work up from there

- I appreciate slowing down on advocacy texts, interp texts, criterion/standard texts…basically anything you want me to get as close to verbatim as possible

- Similarly, I often find that I need more signposting and slight time to switch between flows—audibly saying “onto the DA” and pausing for a second, etc. is extremely helpful in rebuttal speeches

- I base speaker points off efficiency, strategy, and clarity foremost—I don’t base these off arbitrary/ableist/historically sexist and racist metrics—will play behind the scenes to balance historic marginalization of women, gender minorities, POCs, and otherwise marginalized voices in speaks, will often lower speaks for split 2NRs

- I typically average ~28.5 relative to the pool, no I do not disclose speaks

Prefs Cheat Sheet:

Ks, Policy: 1

Traditional: 2

Philosophy*: 2

Theory: 4

Tricks: 4

TL;DR: collapse, weigh, common sense is important, read complete arguments, do more link work

Top-level/must knows:

1. I will vote on most arguments. I am probably better for policy and K arguments (method debates are fine). I’m experienced w/ philosophy but LD’s execution isn’t great. Theory or tricks-heavy strats need to be complete arguments, not ad homs, and have real warrants. Meaningful, resolvable, complete arguments are good. Hail marys are inadvisable regardless of stylistic decisions.

2. Explanation, weighing, clash, and judge instruction are crucial. Do more resolving interactions between things, not just telling me “x matters before y” if your opponent is telling me “y matters before x.” Yes tech > truth in that I resolve rounds based on judge instruction (aka the flow), am open to many args and lit bases, but truth matters in the sense that args start at zero and go up from there. Weighing relies on good args. If I didn’t understand it, I can’t vote on it.

3. A lot of judges give awful RFDs. I think there is an ongoing problem in debate of not paying attention to the round. I am trying my damndest not to be that, but there’s greater uncertainty in my decision when there’s more work I must do—explaining arguments, doing link weighing (not just impx), and carving a path to the ballot will influence my decision. Best RFDs come when the 2NR/2AR writes my ballot for me. Questions afterwards are fine, but aggression/postrounding = nonstarters.

4. Debate is obsessed with ‘tabula rasa’ nonsense, which has genuine consequences. Not a fan of frivolous arguments (in any style, from the resolved NIB to riders DAs), and the closer an arg is to morally abhorrent or contrary to debate’s intent (think “flat earth” or other nonsense), the likelier it is I won’t flow it.

5. Won’t vote on any -isms (extremely likely to give an L20). I will not flow args from known hate orgs (ex: the heritage foundation). Will, however, evaluate impact turns, and am willing to vote on things like spark, wipeout, and extinction good (read: as negative util/preserving future value) arguments. Won’t vote on ‘warming good.’ My threshold for responses is lower the worse/edging on morally abhorrent the argument is.

6. AI rule:don't.

7. More receptive to independent voters/voting issues over time for a few reasons: a) debaters are reading off docs blindly, not doing research, and thus more prone to saying something problematic, b) ideological gaps are widening and this has implications in speech acts, c) debaters in general should be held accountable for problematic speech.

8. For accessibility stuff: lmk any needed accommodations before the round—I will say that it is probably best to tell me directly bc a lot of debaters’ emails go to my spam, misgendering/being racist/other shenanigans in-round will lead to loss of speaks and/or the ballot even without an argument—my tolerance for homophobia, transphobia, etc. is increasingly low—it’s not that hard to adapt.

9. weigh <3

Lincoln-Douglas

Kritiks

- These rounds can either be amazing or borderline terrible depending on your knowledge of the lit base and engagement with the opposition—don’t just talk past the Aff (or Neg if it’s a K Aff), actually engage with the lit, and know what you’re talking about—good K debate takes reading, determination, and dedication—you cannot sidestep all three of these, pull a K off the wiki, and expect good results

- I can’t always promise I know the intricate details of your specific lit, but I am familiar with a decent variety of lit (most familiar with queer theory and settler colonialism), and you should still explain arguments as if I don’t have base understanding—I’ve voted for arguments ranging from simple critiques of capitalism to psychoanalysis and back again, you do you if you explain it

- I will however admit that I need a lot more explanation in fields like cybernetics and dense criticisms of IR

- I have devoted a lot of focus to queer, trans, and feminist literature—some thoughts you should know: a) these lit bases are indebted to Blackness in terms of resistance strategies inside and outside of debate, b) pls don’t just go for this stuff bc I’m in the back, c) slightly higher threshold if “state bad” is the only link in the 1NC

- Use reasonable judgment for kritiks of discourse—much more than willing to buy links into things like “no, this is absolutely racist, reject it” (i.e., “illegal aliens” on the open borders topic…), but it can feel like policing (“queer” to “kweer” comes to mind), especially against K affs (this applies mostly to word PIKs)

- Non-T Affs are completely fine, just have a relevant ballot story and do ‘something’ (don’t care what that ‘something’ looks like though—very low threshold here)

- On a similar note, creative visions of affirmation are fantastic

- However, presumption is underutilized against K affs (more than just two short analytics)—I find a lot of teams fall short in explaining what the Aff does and especially its impacts—isolating what the Aff endorses, why the ballot is key, etc. are all important—explaining to me what these components are is also meaningful since I take a very “you do you” approach here—examples of what the Aff method looks like in motion can be very useful

- I’ve judged a few K v. K rounds, K aff v. cap K is usually pretty straightforward imo but otherwise, do more weighing and framing work than you otherwise think—“root cause” debates rarely do resolving work that I need, and the two Ks in play are rarely a criticism of the same thing—perms must demonstrate interactions between lit bases, but “no perms in a methods debate” isn’t intuitive until you explain why it’s true—K Affs are still Affs (clash on case pls)

- Not a fan of the “perm double bind”

- While all debates are performances in their own right, unique forms of engagement are highly enjoyable to witness—explain to me what the purpose is

Independent Voters

- I tend to view these as pressing concerns that must override substance, I think debaters are sometimes too quick to throw out "auto-drop" without explaining DTD, but I also think that problematic discourse is terrible; I'm very receptive to things like misgendering being independent voters, less so to things like "this is independent" if it's just a reps turn or something that should be resolved on substance; an example would be the 1NC reading Tuck and Yang, but fumbling hard in CX (I'd rather you make that a turn or use it as sufficient defense)

- Theory arguments (condo, CP legitimacy, etc.) are not independent voters

Framework (Policy v. K)

- Spending time on “this method is key on this issue” can matter, “just pls engage with the state and read a plan” is less persuasive—I think policy teams need to be willing to bite the bullet on “ToP doesn’t explain everything, prefer particularized methods to answer the complexity of the world” and K teams should be willing to contest case and/or plan focus

- Aff FW v. K: a) not a win condition independently, b) ‘extinction outweighs’ is an overused response, usually links into the K, and avoids clash, c) most ‘procedural fairness’ warrants do not make sense to me on their own—spending more time warranting and impacting the deficit to fairness is highly advisable

- T-FW—a) not great for this if the Aff is affirming through an alternate method to “a plan” (esp philosophy or grassroots), b) good for teams that demonstrate why state engagement is better in terms of movements and solving Aff impacts, or why the rez should be debated, d) fine with 1-off FW strategies that devote most of the 1NC time to answering case, theory of power, doing relevant impact turns, and pushing presumption (depth of clash is great)

Policy

- One of the easier styles for me to judge, fair game for most things from soft-left to agenda politics, will say I prefer topic DAs (esp w/ specific links to the plan) to generic ptx, not wild about tangential extinction impacts (do we really need to read ‘extinction’ on topics like “standardized tests?”)

- Fine w/ specific plans and PICs, just be willing to beat back theory/T, not fantastic for both extremes of the nebel T debate

- Ev quality matters—you don’t get credit for incoherent args (highlights must form complete thoughts/sentences), contest ev quality and do ev weighing

- Can insert re-highlighting if it’s from portions of evidence already read in the round—just be vocal about where you’re inserting

- Zero risk is a thing

- Good impact turns are great, stale impact turns are less so, don’t double-turn yourself, ev quality is crucial on impact turns, you should do work in CX to frame it as a viable strategy

- More internal link weighing pls, contesting probability is great, teams that don’t go for impact and internal link weighing almost always lose to those that do

- I need more competition established in the 1NC, I love good perm debates but 10 "perm do both" analytics with no warrant isn't it

- Not huge on judge kick, make your own 2NR choices pls

- Case debates are great debates, do more solvency/link turns and not just 1 min of impact D after spraying 6 off (2NRs on case are always welcome btw)

- In LD, you should still warrant util/SV in the 1AC—the 1NC should always go for an NC if this isn’t the case

- Idk if “you get ptx” or “we want ptx” makes an interp genuinely viable, other than that, better for T interps that make a clear model of debate and go for topic lit/lit controversy; 2AR must extend case if the 2NR only went for T, I probably do not want to hear “X school’s AC is the TVA”

- I probably do not want to judge plan flaw unless the Aff’s plan is written in a way that is meaningfully different from actual implementation

Philosophy

- I studied social and political philosophy for some of undergrad, but it’s been a minute since I’ve been in any kind of ethics class; I’m probably quick to understand analytical ethical philosophy, but haven’t touched continental philosophy in a while, and execution in LD is often dreadful—good philosophy debates are fine, bad ones hurt my head—weighing justifications or doing hijacks is probably more useful than preclusion claims with no warrant or “extinction always first”

- LDers tend to be ineffective in explaining their theory of ethical good, explain the application of Kantian ethics rather than just “that’s coercive so you can’t do it”—I’ll listen to things like “taxation always bad” if that’s the logical conclusion of your FW, but that rarely seems to be the case

- Won’t hack for epistemic/ethical modesty but I also won’t disregard high risk of extinction purely bc there’s clash at the framing level

- Not huge on phil ACs that also read a util advantage or phil ACs/NCs that get super tricky

- Unlikely to vote on FWs I can’t explain back to you or that are extremely circular to the point of uselessness—performativity and constitutivism warrants are big culprits here

- I do not want to hear source Kant. If other cards are outdated and constantly need bracketing for things like gendered language, perhaps you should revise the AC/NC

- TJFs: a) I understand the necessity for them in circuit contexts, though they usually don’t make sense unless util is in play, b) most TJFs are poorly warranted, explain why analytics or carded offense are good/bad, c) phil ed loss? maybe? idk that’s for you to decide

- Impact-justified frameworks are probably bad

- AFC/ACC = :(

Traditional LD

- I started trad, been in the loop here for a while, I only vote off the flow (not “who spoke better”)—if you only have lay experience, just be aware that I understand the topic, debate, and a variety of argument styles—this doesn’t mean I want to hear poorly conceived args or cheap shots. Unless definitions of words matter for the rez at hand (aka topicality), I would prefer that you just shelve that and debate substance.

- I probably do not want to hear cases that read like an essay

- Yes, I disclose. Will try to be as thorough as possible. If you have questions about my decision-making process, you should ask in-person if possible.

- Evidence comparison, weighing, and analysis are crucial—regardless of your experience, you need to tell me how to vote, what matters most—it’s not enough to say “x matters,” tell me why x matters more than y; don’t just restate things, explain why it’s true; grandstanding is unhelpful

- Not a fan of “value is morality, criterion is util, contention one” with zero explanation of either (threshold for response is zero), FWs that are just “upholding my side of the rez” are even worse

- On that same note, unless there is clash at the FW level (i.e., Kant v. Util), I don’t mind if FW is conceded—two people can agree on a metric for impacts but disagree on what action is more ethically justified under said metric—never be afraid to just move on if there’s no clash at the FW level (I guarantee I will probably be happier)

- Trad v. circuit: it’s a learning moment, I think circuit teams should be willing to explain whatever they’re reading (esp in CX—if you’re a jerk in CX and won’t explain your args, the odds are good that you will lose speaker points and possibly THE ROUND) and simplifying is good (1-off, case for Ks and 2-3 off w/ no procedurals for policy = good), won’t penalize trad debaters for not understanding circuit norms like disclosure, won’t penalize circuit debaters for playing the game (ex: if it’s late prelims/bubbles/elims and you need to go 5-off, I’m more sympathetic than in early prelims)

- Please say the name of the card before its content (i.e., “Jones 22: card content”), do not paraphrase evidence (that’s bad), made up evidence is an auto-L, brackets to inflate strength of warrant are almost definitely an auto-L

- Shenanigans like “they had no value/criterion” if they conceded FW or did something like reading a K will not make me happy (pls don’t mansplain LD to me…)

- Tell me how I should rectify abuse if you’re trying to call your opp out for being abusive—what is abusive? Do I drop the argument? Them? Why do I care that they were abusive?

- Follow norms on in-round safety—even traditional debaters should do things like respecting pronouns, this can and will cost ballots (debaters are starting to get overtly racist and antiqueer in rounds again, will penalize this even if your opponent doesn’t make an argument about it)

- No set perspective on the resolution (I don’t think the Aff has a burden to defend the topic as it is), so debaters’ dismissal of arguments isn’t a reason to reject it on my flow—if you think the Aff should debate the topic, for example, you must argue that they should debate the topic—read topicality and not an NC that doesn’t engage with a non-T aff

- Yes, I am fine with CPs, but most “counterplans” read in lay debate don’t make sense to me—pls endorse a singular, counter-course of action with actual evidence that explains why the CP solves the Aff (aka a solvency advocate), not an abstract counter-claim—I am unlikely to vote on CPs that I don’t understand

Theory

- Have judged a reasonable amount of these, I think these rounds are highly dependent on execution and need more weighing between standards, more framing, and more i/l weighing to fairness/education—the less resolvability work done by debaters, the more I probably look to substance and/or presumption; fairness might be an impact but deficits to fairness are rarely weighed (ex: how do I reconcile PICs stealing Aff offense AND the need for Neg flex)

- Most 1NCs/1ARs in policy rounds involve theory, fine here, make the abuse story and model of debate clearer earlier in the debate (how many condo good? why does dispo solve? what’s allowed?), if I can’t draw the line between speeches, unlikely to vote on it (this means a 10 second condo arg that gets made into a 3 min 2AR)

- Beating back paradigm issues can make theory easy to resolve; generally good for DTA + reasonability, can be persuaded fairness and education are not voters

- I am not the ideal judge for friv/abstract theory, clear and specific interps are always easier for me to resolve; will not eval stuff about your opponent's appearance or similar, use common sense here pls

- Combo shells could be arbitrary, could also be true if a certain combination of arguments uniquely skews strategizing, decide this for me

- I prefer that you do extend paradigm issues/voters on theory even if uncontested, but that you not be annoying abt it—treat it like a DA or something and this should hopefully make what I mean more obvious

- Not a fan of theory to shut out tough convos—this makes debate violent and reinforces systems of oppression

- I’m not a huge fan of “must include links to circuit debater on your wiki” or the like

- Reading more than 2 shells on either side will usually lead me to question your strategic decisions

- Won’t flow new 2AR theory arguments unless the 2NR was super abusive; similarly, paradigm issues, etc. need to be in the 1AR

- Not entirely against voting on RVIs, not great for throwing substance away and going for 6 min of the RVI when you could’ve won substance either

- Misdisclosure is really difficult for me to evaluate—I need: a) slow down. tell me exactly what was asked for and what was given—I will evaluate screenshots from both ends, b) standards that tie into this difference (e.g., prep skew), c) why it’s DTD (one analytic seems more like DTA, entirely different adv/plan is reasonably DTD)

Disclosure

- I do think that, on balance, disclosure has improved CX and LD, but reading disclosure theory seems like a mandate for equality when equity is the concern—as of late, I think that the reading of disclosure is often violent and am much more receptive to the idea that many groups have good reasons not to disclose—policy v. policy seems ripe for disclosure theory, but reading it against a K aff is not a good look

- Performances and similar materials do not need to be disclosed (you do you)

- Don't read disclosure at locals unless you're like both going hard circuit-style (even then, figure this stuff out yourselves pls)

- New Affs Bad: not my favorite argument, but I understand that it’s necessary as a procedural/possible 2NR out—go for better warrants over more, poorly explained standards, and skip “can’t engage with the Aff” if you put a lot of answers on case (relatively low threshold for identity-based responses here, just a heads up); the joke "I prepped for "it's new"" was maybe funny once in like 2019

Tricks

- Not the best judge for truth-testing as a ROB, okay-ish for things like ethical paradoxes and some epistemic paradoxes (one-card “skep Ks” are awful, gettier problems are kinda cool and not read enough), not big on strategies designed to avoid clash—I really dislike arguments that say “disregard the flow” that are tricky in nature

- Warrants are key, if I can't explain it back to you based on what was said in-round, it doesn't get the ballot

- Paradoxes can be cool but you have to devote more time to them if you want them to take out an entire framework

- I am not the right judge for crazy logic paradoxes, there just isn't enough time for me to flow these or understand an equation in the context of an LD round

- Slews of analytics are hard for me to flow, slow down if the 1AC/1NC is loaded

- I evaluate all speeches in a given round

Evidence Ethics (all events)

- I'll eval both theory and ev ethics challenges, the latter stops the round and winner gets a W, loser gets lowest speaks I can give

- If it's an ev ethics challenge, I'll allow both teams to make a written defense of their practice and we go from there

- For clipping: I tend to not flow off the doc—this means I need a recording and definitive proof (beyond just a line or so)

Misc Stuff

- Defaults: Comparative Worlds, Epistemic Confidence – I have no defaults on theory (make arguments)

- Permissibility and presumption both negate at face value, though presumption flips Aff if the Neg reads an advocacy – it is MUCH easier to convince me that presumption affirms than permissibility

- I don’t care if you sit or stand—just be clear

CONFLICTS:

All entries – Sequoyah HS (GA), Perry HS (AZ), Ivy Bridge Academy (GA), Dean Rusk MS (GA)

Hello. In high school, I did LD debate for two years, and I highly enjoyed it and look forward to judging future rounds. Here are my preferences so you can know going in what kind of judge I am (or if you want to strike/preference me).

1. Spreading is fine as long as you are clear AND your opponent agrees to spreading. If you are not clear and I cannot understand you, likely your opponent cannot understand you, and we're all going to have a bad time.

2. I can handle K's, policy debate, traditional, philosophy, and theory. Traditional and philosophy are my favorites. For K's, and policy, one ought to know their material well, be well-researched, and be non-abusive. I am not a good judge if you intend to try tricks. I don't believe tricks to be a legitimate form of debate. I have a history degree and now work in library science, so I love hearing well-researched, creative arguments. I also believe one could have the best case in the world and still lose a round if their opponent argues better. If it comes down to case vs clash, clash wins with me.

3. I appreciate when one actually clashes with their opponent. If you spend all your rebuttals talking about why your value is so great and not why your opponent is in the wrong, you aren't actually debating, you're making a persuasive speech.

3. Please roadmap 1AR and 2AR, as well as Neg R. I love off-time roadmaps. They help me flow and make everyone's lives so much easier. If you want to email chain cases, go for it. I will have my laptop, but I try to flow the old fashioned way (pen and paper for life).

5. I allow and encourage debaters to keep their own time. I will also keep time on a stopwatch. I do not give warnings. If you go over by more than 10-15 seconds, it means deduction from speaker points.

6. Do whatever to keep yourself comfortable during the round (sit or stand, drink, etc).

7. I cannot believe I have to say this, but be respectful of yourself and others in round. Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, general jerkiness, anything like that is not okay. If you choose to pull an "ism" in round, I will be giving you lowest speaks and if we're at a local tournament I will be going and finding your coach and giving them a 15-minute lecture about why XYZ is not okay. In both debate and in life, it is important to be respectful to yourself and those around you. You never know what someone is going through.

TLDR: I am a classical LD judge by nature, and framework, clash, and proving your argument is better than the opponent's is what wins round. Strike me if you're going to pull tricks, I do not stand for them.

ADDITIONAL NOTES (Especially for national tournaments): I tend to be stingy with speaker points. I will not go below 25 unless you are abusive in round, but the highest I have gone has been 29.9 and that was the best debater I have ever seen. If you win, you'll probably be in the 28-29.5 range, lose in the 27-28 range. One thing I have noticed is in rounds that are close, speaks tend to be higher. I truly believe the rounds I have debated the best have been rounds I have lost.

4x debater @Georgia, 2x NDT Attendee

Please send your hate mail to --> jhweintraub@gmail.com

I was a 2a for my entire 8 yr debate career, so i'm also willing to do the work to protect the aff from what I see as abusive strategies.

I think I get a reputation for being a hack judge because I end up resolving debates by doing work for either team to try and untangle messy parts at the end, usually by reading a lot of evidence. My biggest issue is in these complex and messy debates when neither side is really making an attempt to clarify the story of what's going on and just speed through the line by line, so the debate ends and I have to make arbitrary decisions on evidence and internal link chains because neither side has told me what the ballot ought to be for. If you can do that I'm significantly more likely to vote for a scenario that is illucidated well and untangled for me.

Ex: Willing to vote on theory against arbitrary and contrived CPs that don't have a solvency advocate or try to skirt clash on the core issue. Willing to vote for the Aff on framework against the K because even though fiat isn't real the game of debate itself is useful.

I like good mechanism debates. Process CP's not my favorite cup of tea but if you've got a CP that you think does actually solve better than the aff i'd be pretty interested in hearing it.

Framework makes the game work and fairness is an impact. If the game isn't fair and both sides don't stand an equal chance of winning what's even the point of playing. At that point we're basically playing blackjack but one side gets to be the house and the other the player, and Idk about you, but I don't wanna play that game.

Coaching is not my full time job so I'm not as tuned in to everything going on on this topic as I would like to be, which means that if you wanna go for T It might be useful to do a little extra work to explain why the aff is far outside the bounds of what we know the topic is. That being said though, i'm definitely willing to pull the trigger on it if I think the aff is overly contrived in an attempt to skirt the core neg ground.

The aff almost always gets to weigh its implementation against the K. The neg gets to link representations but you also need to justify why that matters against the aff or some tangible impact of that.

My background and day job is in cybersecurity (blockchain and encryption engineering) so if you're gonna read arguments about technology i'm gonna expect you to have at least some understanding of how tech works and will almost certainly not be persuaded by tech > truth. Most cyber arguments are stupid and completely miss the nuance of the tools. If you want more explanation i am happy to explain why.

For Novice Only: To promote flowing, you can show me your flows at the end of a round and earn up to 1.0 speaker points if they are good. To discourage everyone bombarding me with flows, you can also lose up to a full speaker point if your flows suck.