Anuj Jain - NYU '26 - ajdebateld@gmail.com - LD/Policy at top, Public Forum/BQ at bottom

Debate is for the debaters so it's better if I adapt to you than if you adapt to me. Do what you want but comparative weighing, framing, and warranted judge instruction about what you are ahead on and why it matters at the top of your last speech, is paramount to getting a decision you want. The top section of your final speech should tell me what you are winning, why you are winning it, and why it matters to me or the ballot. You should alsoexplicitly flag every arg you're making and what it responds to. K or Phil debaters should err on over-explaining whatever is happening especially since I am unlikely to be familiar with your literature. Hard policy v policy debates should be explicit about internal links, what makes things distinct and why the perm is impossible since I like perms a lot. I also don't know anything about the topic you are debating regardless of format so explain it to me like I'm five years old. You should respect your opponent(s) and engage in good faith (ie: disclose, send analytics, be decent in cross-ex).

Cred: 2 years College Policy (cleared at some tournaments), 4 years high school LD (1x bid round to the TOC),

I'm good for most theoretical arguments/independent voters (especially CP theory stuff), but generally DONT UNDERSTAND LD style tricks/paradoxes so just know if you go for that I probably won't vote on it since I don't understand it. Unlikely to vote on disclosure theory outright unless totally dropped but I think disclosure is good.

My decision is not a referendum on you as a person, your skills, or your career - just a reflection of who persuaded me to their side better within the context of the round.

PF/BQ specifically:

I didn't compete in these activities and have judged them minimally. You should have your evidence ready to send before the debate and send your cases if asked. Failure to do so will end in a loss. Otherwise - usually whoever weighs with warrants better wins. Also, I think first speakers should probably extend some of case in 1st Rebuttal.

I debated PF for Centerville High School in Ohio for four years and coached the middle school team for three years. I am a senior at Vanderbilt University coaching the University School of Nashville's debate team.

I competed at a few national circuit tournaments, but most of my debating was done on the local circuit. I have judged all debate formats but have not competed in all of them. Most of this paradigm relates to PF but in terms of Policy, I am open to hearing every argument and will evaluate based on the flow.

Add me to the email chain at sung.jun.jeon@vanderbilt.edu. If you spread, send a speech doc.

In terms of a PF round, here are a few things that I want to see:

1) You don't have to read direct quotes. I am fine with paraphrasing. However, if I find that you are misconstruing your evidence to make your claim, then I won't vote for that specific argument. Your speaks probably will go down as well if your opponents call you out for misconstruing evidence.

2) If you are speaking second, make sure to frontline any offense. I think it is strategic to frontline everything but at the minimum frontline turns.

3) I won't flow cross-fire, but if something major happens, make sure to address it in the next speech.

4) When extending cards and offense in the latter half of the round, make sure that you explain the warranting behind it.

5) If evidence is called, make sure to produce it in a timely manner. Also, I will call for evidence if you tell me to call for evidence.

6) Don't just dump responses. Explain what your evidence indicates and how this piece of evidence is significant in responding to your opponent's case.

7) I like to see you start weighing in rebuttal. I think it is strategic to set up the weighing earlier in the round and then carry that through summary and final focus.

How I vote:

If you want me to vote on a certain argument, it should be in both summary and final focus. Your argument should be explained in a clear manner and your impacts should be extended. Weighing your argument and impacts against your opponent's argument and impacts will make your path to the ballot easier. I will try not to intervene, but please weigh arguments comparatively to make my job easier as a judge. If not, I will have to decide which arguments are more important.

If there is no offense generated from each side (highly unlikely), then I will default to the first speaking team. If you say things that are sexist, racist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, or are extremely rude in any way, I will drop you and give you low speaks. The debate should be civil and debaters should be respectful.

Please do not postround me. I do encourage you to ask questions about the round and why I voted the way I did. I am always looking for feedback to improve my judging.

If you have any additional questions, let me know.

jubileesunshine@gmail.com - include me on the chain

pronouns: he/him

Little Rock Central '24

Debate what you're good at! My personal opinions and background should not change the way you debate.

I mostly read kritiks in high school, but I'm well-versed in policy arguments too. I try to judge off the flow as much as possible and I won't fill in gaps for you. Don't read any violent or problematic arguments (racism good, sexism good, homophobia good, etc.) It will result in an auto-loss, don't do anything to make your opponents feel unsafe.

Use they/them pronouns for your opponents if you don't know them. Be respectful to your opponents and debate well.

LD: I can judge trad and progressive, including Ks. If you're doing traditional, I mostly vote off of value and value-criterion so prove why yours is best. I'm not well-versed in Kant or phil, but I'll still be able to judge any arguments. I'll judge tricks, but most likely they'll be weighed very low on my flow.

Tech>truth, debate what you're good at, I won't put my own opinions in. While I evaluate mostly tech>truth, I can be persuaded to evaluate some rounds truth>tech depending on what arguments are made.

I don't have many niche thoughts on framework. Most of the debates I had were responding to framework, but that doesn't mean I won't vote for it. Again, debate what you're good at and I'll judge off of the flow.

In policy v. K rounds, I'm not the judge to immediately vote on framework. It'll decide how I weigh the debate, but it won't be the only factor in that decision. I mostly ran queerness, disability, and racial cap when I debated, but I'm versed in many lit bases. Psychoanalysis might be a stretch for me, but if you explain it well I'll get it.

In policy v. policy rounds, just explain your arguments well if they're complicated.

You don't have to send a card doc unless you (or I) think it's important.

Email me if you have any questions.