About Me

I attended and debated for Rutgers University-Newark (c/o 2021). I’ve ran both policy and K affs.

Coach @ Ridge HS in Basking Ridge, NJ.

Influences In Debate

David Asafu – Adjaye (he actually got me interested in college policy, but don’t tell him this), and of course, the debate coaching staff @ RU-N: Willie Johnson, Carlos Astacio, Devane Murphy, Christopher Kozak and Elijah Smith.

The Basics

Yes, I wish to be on the email chain!

saied.beckford@rutgers.edu

COLLEGE POLICY: I skimmed through the topic paper and ADA/ Wake will be my first time judging this season. Do with this information what you wish.

GENERAL: If you are spreading and it’s not clear, I will yell clear. If I have to do that too many times in a round, it sucks to be you buddy because I will just stop flowing and evaluate the debate based on what I can remember. Zoom through your cards, but when doing analytics and line by line, take it back a bit. After all, I can only evaluate what I catch on my flow. UPDATE FOR ONLINE DEBATES: GO ABOUT 70% OF YOUR NORMAL SPEED. IF YOU ARE NOT CLEAR EVEN AT 70%, DON'T SPREAD.

In general, I like K’s (particularly those surrounding Afro-Pess and Queer Theory). However, I like to see them executed in at least a decent manner. Therefore, if you know these are not your forte, do not read them just because I am judging. One recent pet peeve of mine is people just asserting links without having them contextualized to the aff and well explained. Please don't be that person. You will see me looking at both you and my flow with a confused face trying to figure out what's happening. Additionally, do not tell me that perms cannot happen in a method v. method debate without a warrant.

I live for performance debates.

I like to be entertained, and I like to laugh. Hence, if you can do either, it will be reflected in your speaker points. However, if you can’t do this, fear not. You obviously will get the running average provided you do the work for the running average. While I am a flow centric judge, be it known that debate is just as much about delivery as it is about content.

The bare minimum for a link chain for a DA is insufficient 99% of the time for me. I need a story with a good scenario for how the link causes the impact. Describe to me how everything happens. Please extrapolate! Give your arguments depth! It would behoove you to employ some impact calculus and comparison here.

Save the friv theory, bring on those spicy framework and T debates. Please be well structured on the flow if you are going this route. Additionally, be warned, fairness is not a voter 98% of the times in my book. It is an internal link to something. Note however, though I am all for T and framework debates, I also like to see aff engagement. Obviously these are all on a case by case basis. T USFG is not spicy. I will vote on it, but it is not spicy.

For CPs, if they're abusive, they are. As long as they are competitive and have net benefits, we're good.

On theory, at a certain point in the debate, I get tired of hearing you read your coach's coach's block extensions. Could we please replace that with some impact weighing?

Do not assume I know anything when judging you. I am literally in the room to take notes and tell who I think is the winner based on who gives the better articulation as to why their option is better. Therefore, if you assume I know something, and I don’t … kinda sucks to be you buddy.

I’m all for new things! Debating is all about contesting competing ideas and strategies.

I feel as though it should be needless to say, but: do not run any bigoted arguments. However, I’m well aware that I can’t stop you. Just please be prepared to pick up a zero in your speaking points, and depending on how egregious your bigotry is, I just might drop you. Literally!

Another thing: please do not run anthropocentrism in front of me. It’s something I hated as a debater, and it is definitely something I hate as a judge. Should you choose to be risky, please be prepared for the consequences. (Update: voted on it once - purely a flow decision)

For My LD'ers

It is often times difficult to evaluate between esoteric philosophies. I often find that people don't do enough work to establish any metric of evaluation for these kinds of debates. Consequently, I am weary for pulling the trigger for one side as opposed to the other. If you think you can, then by all means, read it!

Yale Update: Tricks are for kids.You might be one, but I am not.

I'm gonna have to pass on the RVIs too. I've never seen a more annoying line of argumentation.

NSDA 2024 PF UPDATE

If your cards are not properly tagged, cited and cut, I will be tanking speaker points severely.

If an email chain is not set up, I will be tanking speaker points severely.

If I get so much as a whiff of evidentiary dishonesty, I am dropping you, closing my laptop and leaving the round.

Otherwise, congrats on making it to NSDA. Have fun and do you, boo !

In general, give me judge instructions.

On average, tech > truth --- however, I throw this principle out when people start doing or saying bigoted things.

Short Version:
-yes email chain: nyu.bs.debate@gmail.com

-if you would like to contact me about something else, the best way to reach me is: bootj093@newschool.edu - please do not use this email for chains I would like to avoid cluttering it every weekend which is why I have a separate one for them

-debated in high school @ Mill Valley (local policy circuit in Kansas) and college @ NYU (CEDA-NDT) for 7 years total - mostly policy arguments in high school, mix of high theory and policy in college

-head LD/policy debate coach at Bronx Science and assistant policy coach at The New School, former assistant for Blue Valley West, Mill Valley, and Mamaroneck

-spin > evidence quality, unless the evidence is completely inconsistent with the spin

-tech > truth as long as the tech has a claim, warrant, and impact

-great for impact turns

-t-framework impacts ranked: topic education > skills > clash/arg refinement > scenario planning > fun > literally any other reason why debate is good > fairness

-I updated the t-fw part of my paradigm recently (under policy, 12/4/23) - if you are anticipating having a framework debate in front of me on either side, I would appreciate it if you skimmed it at least

-don't like to judge kick but if you give me reasons to I might

-personally think condo has gone way too far in recent years and more people should go for it, but I don't presume one way or the other for theory questions

-all kinds of theory, including topicality, framework, and/or "role of the ballot" arguments are about ideal models of debate

-most of the rounds I judge are clash debates, but I've been in policy v policy and k v k both as a debater and judge so I'm down for anything

-for high school policy 23-24: I actually used to work for the Social Security Administration (only for about 7-8 months) and I have two immediate family members who currently work there - so I have a decent amount of prior knowledge about how the agency works internally, processes benefits, the technology it uses, etc. - but not necessarily policy proposals for social security reform

Long Version:

Overview: Debate is for the debaters so do your thing and I'll do my best to provide a fair decision despite any preferences or experiences that I have. I have had the opportunity to judge and participate in debates of several different formats, circuits, and styles in my short career. What I've found is that all forms of debate are valuable in some way, though often for different reasons, whether it be policy, critical, performance, LD, PF, local circuit, national circuit, public debates, etc. Feel free to adapt arguments, but please don't change your style of debate for me. I want to see what you are prepared for, practiced in, and passionate about. Please have fun! Debating is fun for you I hope!

Speaking and Presentation: I don't care about how you look, how you're dressed, how fast or in what manner you speak, where you sit, whether you stand, etc. Do whatever makes you feel comfortable and will help you be the best debater you can be. My one preference for positioning is that you face me during speeches. It makes it easier to hear and also I like to look up a lot while flowing on my laptop. For some panel situations, this can be harder, just try your best and don't worry about it too much.

Speed - I do not like to follow along in the speech doc while you are giving your speech. I like to read cards in prep time, when they are referenced in cx, and while making my decision. I will use it as a backup during a speech if I have to. This is a particular problem in LD, that has been exacerbated by two years of online debate. I expect to be able to hear every word in your speech, yes including the text of cards. I expect to be able to flow tags, analytics, theory interps, or anything else that is not the interior text of a card. This means you can go faster in the text of a card, this does mean you should be unclear while reading the text of a card. This also means you should go slower for things that are not that. This is because even if I can hear and understand something you are saying, that does not necessarily mean that my fingers can move fast enough to get it onto my flow. When you are reading analytics or theory args, you are generally making warranted arguments much faster than if you were reading a card. Therefore, you need to slow down so I can get those warrants on my flow.

Clarity - I'm bad at yelling clear. I try to do it when things are particularly egregious but honestly, I feel bad about throwing a debater off their game in the middle of a speech. I think you can clear or slow your opponent if you are comfortable with it - but not excessively to avoid interruption please - max 2-3 times a speech. If you are unclear with tags or analytics in an earlier speech, I will try to let you know immediately after the speech is over. If you do it in a rebuttal, you are 100% at fault because I know you can do it clearly, but are choosing not to. Focus on efficiency, not speed.

Logistical Stuff: I would like the round to run as on-time as possible. Docs should be ready to be sent when you end prep time. Orders/roadmaps should be given quickly and not changed several times. Marking docs can happen outside of prep time, but it should entail only marking where cards were cut. I would prefer that, at the varsity level, CX or prep time is taken to ask if something was not read or which arguments were read. I think it’s your responsibility to listen to your opponent’s speech to determine what was said and what wasn’t. I don’t take prep or speech time for tech issues - the clock can stop if necessary. Use the bathroom, fill up your water bottle as needed - tournaments generally give plenty of time for a round and so long as the debaters are not taking excessive time to do other things like send docs, I find that these sorts of things aren’t what truly makes the round run behind.

Email chain or speech drop is fine for docs, which should be shared before a speech. I really prefer Word documents if possible, but don't stress about changing your format if you can't figure it out. Unless there is an accommodation request, not officially or anything just an ask before the round, I don't think analytics need to be sent. Advocacy texts, theory interps, and shells should be sent. Cards are sent for the purposes of ethics and examining more closely the research of your opponent. Too many of you have stopped listening to your opponents entirely and I think the rising norm of sending every single word you plan on saying is a big part of it. It also makes you worse debaters because in the instances where your opponent decides to look up from their laptop and make a spontaneous argument, many of you just miss it entirely.

Stop stealing prep time. When prep time is called by either side, you should not be talking to your partner, typing excessively on your computer, or writing things down. My opinion on “flex prep,” or asking questions during prep time, is that you can ask for clarifications, but your opponent doesn’t have to answer more typical cx questions if they don’t want to (it is also time that they are entitled to use to focus on prep), and I don’t consider the answers in prep to have the same weight as in cx. Prep time is not a speech, and I dislike it when a second ultra-pointed cx begins in prep time because you think it makes your opponent look worse. It doesn’t - it makes you look worse.

Speaker Points: I try to adjust based on the strength of the tournament pool/division, but my accuracy can vary depending on how many rounds in the tournament I've already judged.

29.5+ You are one of the top three speakers in the tournament and should be in finals.

29.1-29.4 You are a great speaker who should be in late elims of the tournament.

28.7-29 You are a good speaker who should probably break.

28.4-28.6 You're doing well, but need some more improvement to be prepared for elims.

28-28.3 You need significant improvement before I think you can debate effectively in elims.

<28 You have done something incredibly offensive or committed an ethics violation, which I will detail in written comments and speak with you about in oral feedback.

The three things that affect speaker points the most are speaking clearly/efficiently, cross-x, and making effective choices in the final rebuttals.

If you win the debate without reading from a laptop in the 2NR/2AR your floor for speaks is a 29.

For Policy:

T-Framework: The fw debates I like the most are about the advantages and disadvantages of having debates over a fiated policy implementation of the topic. I would prefer if your interpretation/violation was phrased in terms of what the affirmative should do/have done - I think this trend of crafting an interpretation around negative burdens is silly - i.e. "negatives should not be burdened with the rejoinder of untopical affirmatives." I'm not usually a big fan of neg interpretations that only limit out certain parts of the topic - strategically, they usually seem to just link back to neg offense about limits and predictability absent a more critical strategy. I think of framework through an offense/defense paradigm and in terms of models of debate. My opinion is that you all spend dozens or hundreds of hours doing research, redos, practice, and debates - you should be prepared to defend that the research you do, the debates you have, and how you have those debates are good.

1. Topic-specific arguments are best - i.e. is it a good or bad thing that we are having rounds talking about fiscal redistribution, nuclear weapons, resource extraction, or military presence? How can that prepare people to take what they learn in debate outside of the activity? Why is topic-specific education valuable or harmful in a world of disinformation, an uninformed American public, escalating global crises, climate change, etc.? Don't be silly and read an extinction impact or anything though.

2. Arguments about debate in general are also great - I'm down for a "debate about debate" - the reason that I as a coach and judge invest tons of time into this activity is because I think it is pedagogically valuable - but what that value should look like, what is best to take from it, is in my opinion the crux of framework debates. Should debate be a competitive space or not? What are the implications of imagining a world where government policy gets passed? What should fiat look like or should it be used at all?

I can be convinced that debate should die given better debating from that side. But honestly, this is not my personal belief - the decline of policy debate in terms of participation at the college and high school level makes me very sad actually. I can also be convinced that debate is God's gift to earth and is absolutely perfect, even though I also believe that there are many problems with the activity. There is also a huge sliding scale between these two options.

3. Major defensive arguments and turns are good - technical stuff about framework like ssd, tvas, relative solvency of counter-interps, turns case and turns the disad arguments, uniqueness claims about the current trends of debate, claims about the history of debate, does it shape subjectivity or not - are all things that I think are worth talking about and can be used to make "try or die" or presumption arguments - though they should not be the focal point of your offense. I like when tvas are carded solvency advocates and/or full plan texts.

4. I do not like judging debates about procedural fairness:

A) They are usually very boring. On every topic, the same pre-written blocks, read at each other without any original thought over and over. I dislike other arguments for this reason too - ultra-generic kritiks and process cps - but even with those, they often get topic or aff-specific contextualizations in the block. This does not usually happen with fairness.

B) I often find fairness very unimportant on its own relative to the other key issues of framework - meaning I don't usually think it is offense. I find a lot of these debates to end up pretty tautological - "fairness is an impact because debate is a game and games should have rules or else they'd be unfair," etc. Many teams in front of me will win that fairness is necessary to preserve the game, but never take the next step of explaining to me why preserving the game is good. In that scenario, what "impact" am I really voting on? Even if the other team agrees that the game of debate is good (which a lot of k affs contest anyway), you still have to quantify or qualify how important that is for me to reasonably compare it to the aff's offense - saying "well we all must care about fairness because we're here, they make strategic arguments, etc." - is not sufficient to do that. I usually agree that competitive incentives mean people care about fairness somewhat. But how much and why is that important? I get an answer with nearly every other argument in debate, but hardly ever with fairness. I think a threshold for if something is an impact is that it's weighable.

C) Despite this, fairness can be impacted out into something tangible or I can be convinced that "tangibility" and consequences are not how I should make my decision. My hints are Nebel and Glówczewski.

5. Everyone needs to compare their impacts alongside other defensive claims in the debate and tell me why I should vote for them. Like traditional T, it's an offense/defense, disad/counterplan, model of debate thing for me. For some reason, impact comparison just seems to disappear from debaters' repertoire when debating framework, which is really frustrating for me.

Kritiks: Both sides of these debates often involve a lot of people reading overviews at each other, especially in high school, which can make it hard to evaluate at the end of the round. Have a clear link story and a reason why the alternative resolves those links. Absent an alt, have a framework as to why your impacts matter/why you still win the round. Impacts are negative effects of the status quo, the alternative resolves the status quo, and the links are reasons why the aff prevents the alternative from happening. Perms are a test of the strength of the link. Framework, ROB, and ROJ arguments operate on the same level to me and I think they are responsive to each other. My feelings on impacts here are similar to t-fw.

I still study some French high theory authors in grad school, but from a historical perspective. In my last couple years of college debate I read Baudrillard and DnG-style arguments a lot, some psychoanalysis as well - earlier than that my tastes were a little more questionable and I liked Foucault, Zizek, and Nietzsche a lot, though I more often went for policy arguments - I gave a lot of fw+extinction outweighs 2ARs. A lot of the debates I find most interesting include critical ir or critical security studies arguments. I have also coached many other kinds of kritiks, including all of the above sans Zizek as well as a lot of debaters going for arguments about anti-blackness or feminism. Set col stuff I don't know the theory as well tbh.

Affirmatives: I think all affs should have a clear impact story with a good solvency advocate explaining why the aff resolves the links to those impacts. I really enjoy affs that are creative and outside of what a lot of people are reading, but are still grounded in the resolution. If you can find a clever interpretation of the topic or policy idea that the community hasn't thought of yet, I'll probably bump your speaks a bit.

Disads: Love 'em. Impact framing is very important in debates without a neg advocacy. Turns cases/turns the da is usually much better than timeframe/probability/magnitude. Between two improbable extinction impacts, I default to using timeframe a lot of the time. A lot of disads (especially politics) have pretty bad ev/internal link chains, so try to wow me with 1 good card that you explain well in rebuttals rather than spitting out 10 bad ones. 0 risk of a disad is absolutely a thing, but hard to prove, like presumption.

Counterplans: They should have solvency advocates and a clear story for competition. Exploit generic link chains in affs. My favorites are advantage cps, specific pics, and recuttings of 1AC solvency ev. I like process cps when they are specific to the topic or have good solvency advocates. I will vote on other ones still, but theory and perm do the cp debates may be harder for you. I think some process cps are even very pedagogically valuable and can be highly persuasive with up-to-date, well-cut evidence - consult Japan on relevant topics for instance. But these arguments can potentially be turned by clash and depth over breadth. And neg flex in general can be a very strong argument in policy. I won't judge kick unless you tell me to in the 2NR, and preferably it should have some kind of justification.

Topicality: I default to competing interps and thinking of interps as models of debate. Be clear about what your interp includes and excludes and why that is a good thing. I view topicality like a disad most of the time, and vote for whoever's vision of the topic is best. I find arguments about limits and the effect that interpretations have on research to be the most convincing. I like topicality debates quite a bit.

Theory: Slow down, slow down, slow down. Like T, I think of theory through models of debate and default to competing interps- you should have an interpretation to make your life a little easier if you want to extend it - if you don't, I will assume the most extreme one (i.e. no pics, no condo, etc.). If you don't have a counter-interp in response to a theory argument, you are in a bad position. If your interpretation uses debate jargon like pics, "process" cps, and the like - you should tell me what you mean by those terms at least in rebuttal. Can pics be out of any word said, anything in the plan, anything defended in the solvency advocate or in cx, any concept advocated for, etc.? I think there is often too much confusion over what is meant to be a process cp. The interpretation I like best for "process" is "counterplans that result in the entirety of the plan." I like condo bad arguments, especially against super abusive 1ncs, but the neg gets a ton of time in the block to answer it, so it can be really hard to give a good enough 1ar on it without devoting a lot of time as well - so if you are going to go for it in the 2ar, you need to expand on it and cover block responses in the 1ar. Warrant out reject the argument vs. reject the team.

For LD:

Prefs Shortcut:

1 - LARP, High Theory Ks

2 - Other Ks, Topicality

3 - Phil, Theory that isn't condo or pics bad

4/5/strike - Trad, Tricks

My disclaimer is I try to keep an open mind for any debate - you should always use the arguments/style that you are most prepared with and practiced in. You all seem to really like these shortcuts, so I caved and made one - but these are not necessarily reflective of my like or dislike for any particular argument, instead more of my experience with different kinds, meaning some probably require more explanation for me to "get it." I love when I do though - I'm always happy to learn new things in debate!

Phil Debates: Something I am fairly unfamiliar with, but I've been learning more about over the past 6 months (02/23). I have read, voted for, and coached many things to the contrary, but if you want to know what I truly believe, I basically think most things collapse into some version of consequentialist utilitarianism. If you are to convince me that I should not be a consequentialist, then I need clear instructions for how I should evaluate offense. Utilitarianism I'm used to being a little more skeptical of from k debates, but other criticisms of util from say analytic philosophy I will probably be unfamiliar with.

Trad Debate: By far what I am least familiar with. I don't coach this style and never competed in anything like LD trad debate - I did traditional/lay policy debate a bit in high school - but that is based on something called "stock issues" which is a completely different set of standards than LD's value/value criterion. I struggle in these debates because for me, like "stock issues" do in policy, these terms seem to restrictively categorize arguments and actually do more to obscure their meaning than reveal it. In the trad debates I've seen (not many, to be fair), tons of time was dedicated to clarifying minutiae and defining words that either everyone ended up agreeing on or that didn't factor into the way that I would make my decision. I don't inherently dislike LD trad debate at all, it honestly just makes things more difficult for me to understand because of how I've been trained in policy debate for 11 years. I try my best, but I feel that I have to sort through trad "jargon" to really get at what you all think is important. I would prefer if you compared relative impacts directly rather than told me one is better than the other 100% of the time.

Plans/DAs/CPs: See the part in my policy paradigm. Plans/CP texts should be clearly written and are generally better when in the language of a specific solvency advocate. I think the NC should be a little more developed for DAs than in policy - policy can have some missing internal links because they get the block to make new arguments, but you do not get new args in the NR that are unresponsive to the 1AR - make sure you are making complete arguments that you can extend.

Kritiks: Some stuff in my policy paradigm is probably useful. Look there for K-affs vs. T-fw. I'm most familiar with so-called "high theory" but I have also debated against, judged, and coached many other kinds of kritiks. Like with DAs/CPs, stuff that would generally be later in the debate for policy should be included in the NC, like ROBs/fw args. Kritiks to me are usually consequentialist, they just care about different kinds of consequences - i.e. the consequences of discourse, research practices, and other impacts more proximate than extinction.

ROB/ROJs: In my mind, this is a kind of theory debate. The way I see this deployed in LD most of the time is as a combination of two arguments. First, what we would call in policy "framework" (not what you call fw in LD) - an argument about which "level" I should evaluate the debate on. "Pre-fiat" and "post-fiat" are the terms that you all like to use a lot, but it doesn't necessarily have to be confined to this. I could be convinced for instance that research practices should come before discourse or something else. The second part is generally an impact framing argument - not only that reps should come first, but that a certain kind of reps should be prioritized - i.e. ROB is to vote for whoever best centers a certain kind of knowledge. These are related, but also have separate warrants and implications for the round, so I consider them separately most of the time. I very often can in fact conclude that reps must come first, but that your opponent’s reps are better because of some impact framing argument that they are making elsewhere. Also, ROB and ROJ are indistinct from one another to me, and I don’t see the point in reading both of them in the same debate.

Topicality: You can see some thoughts in the policy sections as well if you're having that kind of T debate about a plan. I personally think some resolutions in LD justify plans and some don't. But I can be convinced that having plans or not having plans is good for debate, which is what is important for me in deciding these debates. The things I care about here are education and fairness, generally more education stuff than fairness. Topicality interpretations are models of the topic that affirmatives should follow to produce the best debates possible. I view T like a DA and vote for whichever model produces the best theoretical version of debate. I care about "pragmatics" - "semantics" matter to me only insofar as they have a pragmatic impact - i.e. topic/definitional precision is important because it means our research is closer to real-world scholarship on the topic. Jurisdiction is a vacuous non-starter. Nebel stuff is kind of interesting, but I generally find it easier just to make an argument about limits. Reasonability is something I almost never vote on - to be “reasonable” I think you have to either meet your opponent’s interp or have a better one.

RVIs: The vast majority of the time these are unnecessary when you all go for them. If you win your theory or topicality interp is better than your opponent's, then you will most likely win the debate, because the opposing team will not have enough offense on substance. I'm less inclined to believe topicality is an RVI. I think it’s an aff burden to prove they are topical and the neg getting to test that is generally a good thing. Other theory makes more sense as an RVI. Sometimes when a negative debater is going for both theory and substance in the NR, the RVI can be more justifiable to go for in the 2AR because of the unique time differences of LD. If they make the decision to fully commit to theory in the NR, however, the RVI is unnecessary - not that I'm ideologically opposed to it, it just doesn't get you anything extra for winning the debate - 5 seconds of "they dropped substance" is easier and the warrants for your c/i's standards are generally much better than the ones for the RVI.

Disclosure Theory: This is not a section that I would ever have to write for policy. I find it unfortunate that I have to write it for LD. Disclosure is good because it allows schools access to knowledge of what their opponents are reading, which in pre-disclosure days was restricted to larger programs that could afford to send scouts to rounds. It also leads to better debates where the participants are more well-prepared. What I would like to happen for disclosure in general is this:
1) previously read arguments on the topic are disclosed to at least the level of cites on the opencaselist wiki,
2) a good faith effort is made by the aff to disclose any arguments including the advocacy/plan, fw, and cards that they plan on reading in the AC that they've read before once the pairing comes out,
3) a good faith effort is made by the neg to disclose any previously read positions, tied to NC arguments on their wiki, that they've gone for in the NR on the current topic (and previous if asked) once they receive disclosure from the aff,
4) all the cites disclosed are accurate and not misrepresentations of what is read,
5) nobody reads disclosure theory!!

This is basically the situation in college policy, but it seems we still have a ways to go for LD. In a few rare instances I've encountered misdisclosure, even teams saying things like "well it doesn't matter that we didn't read the scenario we said we were going to read because they're a k team and it wasn't really going to change their argument anyways." More intentional things like this, or bad disclosure from debaters and programs that really should know better, I don't mind voting on. I really don't like however when disclosure is used to punish debaters for a lack of knowledge or because it is a norm they are not used to. You have to understand, my roots are as a lay debater who didn't know what the wiki was and didn't disclose for a single round in high school. For my first two years, I debated exclusively on paper and physically handed pages to my opponent while debating after reading them to share evidence. For a couple years after that, we "flashed" evidence to each other by tossing around a usb drive - tournaments didn't provide public wifi. I've been in way more non-lay debates since then and have spent much more time doing "progressive" debate than I ever did lay debate, but I'm very sympathetic still to these kinds of debaters.

Especially if a good-faith attempt is made, interps that are excluding debaters based on a few minutes of a violation, a round report from several tournaments ago, or other petty things make me sad to judge. My threshold for reasonability in these debates will be much lower. Having some empathy and clearly communicating with your opponent what you want from them is a much better strategy for achieving better disclosure practices in the community than reading theory as a punitive measure. If you want something for disclosure, ask for it, or you have no standing. Also, if you read a disclosure interp that you yourself do not meet, you have no standing. Open source theory and disclosure of new affs are more debatable than other kinds of disclosure arguments, and like with T and other theory I will vote for whichever interp I determine is better for debate.

Other Theory: I really liked theory when I did policy debate, but that theory is also different from a lot of LD theory. What that means is I mainly know cp theory - condo, pics, process cps, perm competition (i.e. textual vs. functional, perm do the cp), severance/intrinsicness, and other things of that nature. You can see some of my thoughts on these arguments in the policy section. I've also had some experience with spec arguments. Like T, I view theory similarly to a da debate. Interpretations are models of debate that I endorse which describe ideally what all other debates should look like. I almost always view things through competing interps. Like with T, in order to win reasonability I think you need to have a pretty solid I/meet argument. Not having a counter-interp the speech after the interp is introduced is a major mistake that can cost you the round. I decide theory debates by determining which interp produces a model of debate that is "best." I default to primarily caring about education - i.e. depth vs. breadth, argument quality, research quality, etc. but I can be convinced that fairness is a controlling factor for some of these things or should come first. I find myself pretty unconvinced by arguments that I should care about things like NSDA rules, jurisdiction, some quirk of the tournament invitation language, etc.

Tricks: I think I've officially judged one "tricks" round now, and I've been trying to learn as much as I can while coaching my squad. I enjoyed it, though I can't say I understood everything that was happening. I engaged in some amount of trickery in policy debate - paradoxes, wipeout, process cps, kicking out of the aff, obscure theory args, etc. However, what was always key to winning these kinds of debates was having invested time in research, blocks, a2s - the same as I would for any other argument. I need to be able to understand what your reason is for obtaining my ballot. If you want to spread out arguments in the NC, that's fine and expected, but I still expect you to collapse in the NR and explain in depth why I should vote for you. I won't evaluate new arguments in the NR that are not directly responsive to the 1AR. The reason one-line voting issues in the NC don't generally work with me in the back is that they do not have enough warrants to make a convincing NR speech.

Hi! I'm an incoming college sophomore currently competing in BP/ APDA, and championed WSDC with Team USA in 2023. WSD preferences/ thoughts below, but feel free to run whatever you want (within reason) as long as you're persuasive, and have fun!

On principles: I won't automatically weigh the principle before the practical. You need to explain to me why you should. I also won't automatically discount a "principle”because it's hung. I'll just evaluate it as a practical argument, so explain 1) why it’s contingent on the practical debate and 2) why it’s not beating your practical impacts.

On third substantives:You don't need one if you don't want one. Just make sure you're flagging extension material in the 2 if you choose not to run a 3rd argument.

Thirds, replies, and new material: I won't evaluate entirely new mechanisms. I won't evaluate entirely new impacts. New analysis of mechanisms and impacts that were brought up in the 1 or 2 is fine in the 3rd speech. New refutation is fine in the 3rd speech. I'm not going to evaluate new analysis and ref in the reply -- you should be using this speech to highlight your winning arguments and explain how you've already beaten their winning arguments.

Intervening: If your mechanism is egregiously wrong and the average reasonable voter (who does not have specialized knowledge about anything) I won't factor it into the round, even if your opponents don't respond at all. Otherwise I'll evaluate it, but keep in mind that the less substantiated your claim is, the less of a response it requires.

POIs: will dock speaks if you don't take at least one, assuming they're offered (please offer them)

LD: Briefly - pref trad debates but can evaluate whatever. Enjoy K v K debates as well. Prefs: Trad, Phil - 1, Policy, K - 2, Theory, T - 3, Tricks, Friv Theory - 4/5.

Hi! I'm an incoming college sophomore currently competing in BP/ APDA, and championed WSDC with Team USA in 2023. WSD preferences/ thoughts below, but feel free to run whatever you want (within reason) as long as you're persuasive, and have fun!

On principles: I won't automatically weigh the principle before the practical. You need to explain to me why you should. I also won't automatically discount a "principle”because it's hung. I'll just evaluate it as a practical argument, so explain 1) why it’s contingent on the practical debate and 2) why it’s not beating your practical impacts.

On third substantives:You don't need one if you don't want one. Just make sure you're flagging extension material in the 2 if you choose not to run a 3rd argument.

Thirds, replies, and new material: I won't evaluate entirely new mechanisms. I won't evaluate entirely new impacts. New analysis of mechanisms and impacts that were brought up in the 1 or 2 is fine in the 3rd speech. New refutation is fine in the 3rd speech. I'm not going to evaluate new analysis and ref in the reply -- you should be using this speech to highlight your winning arguments and explain how you've already beaten their winning arguments.

Intervening: If your mechanism is egregiously wrong and the average reasonable voter (who does not have specialized knowledge about anything) I won't factor it into the round, even if your opponents don't respond at all. Otherwise I'll evaluate it, but keep in mind that the less substantiated your claim is, the less of a response it requires.

POIs: will dock speaks if you don't take at least one, assuming they're offered (please offer them)

LD: Briefly - pref trad debates but can evaluate whatever. Enjoy K v K debates as well. Prefs: Trad, Phil - 1, Policy, K - 2, Theory, T - 3, Tricks, Friv Theory - 4/5.

Midtown '24 Princeton '28

General

I prefer speech drop but put me on the email chain fionabray06@gmail.com

I'm not doing college policy right now, however I am doing parli (APDA and BP) at Princeton

In high school, I competed in LD for three years on both the GA circuit and national circuit, and broke at tournaments for both. I won GFCA 1st year state, 2nd year state and varsity state (junior and senior year). I also broke at NSDA nats senior year. I'm fine with progressive or trad, just do what you want in the round. Generally, I would say don't change your style for your opponent but also don't beat up on traditional debaters. I think a good traditional debater should be able to effectively counter progressive argumentation without compromising their style.

Here's my senior year wiki to see what I readhttps://opencaselist.com/hsld23/Midtown/FiBr

Tech over truth, CX is binding, presumption goes neg

Give a roadmap before your speech. Signpost if you deviate from that but you should signpost anyway

I'm probably a 9/10 for speed, just be clear on analytics. I'll say clear three times then just ignore you.

I don't usually flow until the 1NC on case so I can read evidence

No you cannot insert rehighlighting???? I'm not flowing it unless you say it

Use trigger warnings if you're discussing sensitive stuff (on this, I'll evaluate arguments like neg util/death good and I've run them before but make sure to do it appropriately)

Don't violate accommodations and don't be exclusionary/ad hominem/discriminatory (no sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.; I'll give you the lowest speaks, drop you, and if necessary let your coach know)

Prefs Cheat Sheet:

Policy, K - 1

Trad, Phil - 2

Theory/T - 3

Tricks, Friv Theory - 4/5

Policy (LARP)

Pretty easy for me to resolve, and my favorite to judge. Please collapse in the 2nr, you probably shouldn’t be going for all 6 off. The aff should read a plan for this (even if its whole res), and should probably mention util/SV once in the 1ac for framing.

I’m so tired of having tags with just the word extinction and the card just says we have a couple energy shortages with no major implications. Read your evidence, cut better evidence, and don’t lie in your tags.

Explain the perm. I need more than perm do both with nothing else.

Counterplans are cool but make sure there’s a net benefit. I usually went for 3-4 counterplans in the 1NC and I don't buy condo bad in pretty much every instance unless it's like over 6 counterplans. I think rehighlights as adv counterplans are so good and the more planks, the better. I love counterplan competition! Good counterplan debate>>>

Politics DAs are cool, just please have recent evidence and understand the position. I don’t want a card from 2021 saying Biden can’t win independents.

I love impact turns. The crazier, the better. I like debaters taking risks and I’m open to voting on literally anything. Spark is probably my favorite.

K

Good K debates are the best types of rounds, but bad K debates are frustratingly difficult to resolve (pre-scripted 2NRs loaded with buzz terms that don’t frame anything for my ballot)—know your lit base (theory of power, topic links, etc), make it meaningful. Also please have a clear link to the aff. A generic “the aff has the state” link is annoying.

I prefer alts that are more than just "reject the aff". I want to know what the alt actually looks like. And see some kind of material change. Refusal can be good but you have to do the work to explain what this actually looks like and why it matters. I’m familiar with most literature bases, but the more obscure, the more you're going to have to explain it. Some of my favorites are cap, set col, post colonialism, fem, Baudrillard and Virilio. I'm probably a lot better than most for afropess. I have an unusually large amount of experience hitting afropess, so I have a really good understanding of the K. This means I'm also pretty good for other types of pess Ks. I'm currently writing a paper on Baudy so do with that what you will.

K Affs

Love them. I think topical k affs are great, but non topical are too. Once again, I want to see that the aff actually does something. I don’t care what it is, I just want to know that the aff does something. My personal favorite k aff is fem killjoy. If you’re going for an identity argument or anything debate bad, know the literature and the movement. Rambling about something to confuse your opponent is not fun. Performances are also cool, just bring them up throughout the round and use it. A poem just to confuse your opponent with no later mention is a waste of time.

K v K

A good K v. K round is great to watch, but this does take work on your part. I need some level of effort to evaluate. Please interact with one another, explain the perm, explain the alt, weigh between methods, etc. Absent this, I think it gets really messy for me to resolve.

Phil

Please do not read Rawls if you don't understand it or don't want to defend the actual thoery, I've read a theory of justice 11 times so I will be extremely upset. Honestly, I’m probably not going to be happy to evaluate these kinds of cases in a phil v phil round, but I have a fair amount of experience hitting them and am better than most for judging this. I’d prefer a genuine phil position and not 3 min of spikes. I’m most familiar with Korsgaard/Kant, Virtue Ethics, Levinas, Heidegger, Butler, and Deleuze. I’m not a huge fan when there’s only a single card of offense, 2-4 is probably better. TJFs seem silly. AFC and ACC are bad arguments, the threshold for response is so low.

Theory/T

Not the best for this either, just because I find it difficult to resolve if the debate comes down to just multiplate friv shells. I don’t apply defaults in theory rounds. PLEASE WEIGH BETWEEN SHELLS. I don’t want to have to do this work for you. The sillier the shell, the lower threshold for response. PICs and condo are a good thing for debate, and probably not abusive (please stop running condo on one counterplan).

Reasonability is always an option – similarly, I think it’s actually quite strategic to read reasonability as a paradigm issue for accessibility-type theory

Reading more than 2 shells in-round (on either side) will usually lead me to question your strategic decisions.

A lot of IVIs just aren't IVIs, please warrant how it is one and why it matters.

I think RVIs can be valid. I also think they can be stupid. Give good warranting to why you get one.

T is cool. I like shells a little more fleshed out than generic tfw or nebel. Running a tfw shell beyond just “aff must defend a policy” and going for it in the 2nr properly will give you high speaks. RVIs for T are not real.

Tricks

Not my favorite. Just explain why they actually mean you win. Honestly I have a low threshold for response because I don’t like them, but I won’t automatically vote against it.If you're going to go for it, I understand ethical paradoxes within the time constraints of a debate round much better than logical formulae/dense logic equations—blitzing through a paragraph of “if p then q” will probably give me a headache. Also the grain paradox is probably my favorite paradox

Truth testing against Ks and K affs is not my favorite and a very uphill battle.

Disclosure

Disclosure is good for debate, but beating up on novices or trad debaters because they don’t know what the wiki is is not good for debate. I think the aff should be sent 30 min before the round (unless it's new) and your wiki should disclose positions from any bid tournament. This excludes novices or someone who doesn’t understand disclosure norms. Someone not disclosing their random Georgia local lay case is not abusive, and I’ll have a low threshold for theory. If they don’t have a wiki and clearly don’t understand disclosure norms, don’t run theory, it’s exclusive. DO NOT run disclosure in Georgia, I will not vote for it.

Trad

I mainly did this my novice and some of my second year. These debates are usually simple for me to resolve.

Please provide a coherent framework, with a v/vc structure. Freedom as a value and autonomy as a value criterion means nothing to me. I need to understand how your value connects to the resolution, and how the criterion actually provides a weighing mechanism. I think criterions that are “consistency with the constitution” are probably bad and problematic. Favorite trad frameworks are Rawls, util, and korsgaard. Winning framework doesn’t win the round. Engage with your opponents framework, but literally just agree they’re the same if they are similar. Use your time debating impacts, not whether maximizing well being or increasing pleasure is better. The impacts are going to win the debate here, not quality of life versus wellbeing.

I think link chains are really important here and proper warranting. A lot of evidence in trad rounds that I’ve seen has been horribly miscut or bracketed, with limited author credibility. I don’t want to hear your right wing think tank evidence. Please read the author last name and year before your card so I can flow it. The aff also needs some sort of solvency, implied solvency is not real.

Counterplans are fine in trad debate, but please have a counterplan text (what the cp advocates for). Also make sure the counterplan makes sense. For example, a multiplayer universal healthcare system as a counterplan to single payer universal healthcare makes sense. Solving all global poverty instead of doing the aff is silly.

Traditional rounds are easier to evaluate if you weigh, have clash, and give voters at the end, but are more difficult to resolve in the absence of crystallization in later speeches. Just engage with your opponent please. Weigh as early as possible to make this an easy round (1ac excluded). Tell me how to evaluate the round and vote.

Speaks

I don't listen to requests for speaks generally. If it's a good reason I might be persuaded.

I try and average a 28.5 with a scale of 27 to 30 for most normal rounds. I adjust my speaks based off of the pool.

Things I'll boost speaks for:

• If you run unique arguments and explain them well

• A good DA 2nr!!!

• Using cross ex effectively (gain something, I don’t want 3 minutes of “what was your first contention again?”)

• Good rehighlights of 1AC/1NC evidence

Things I'll drop speaks for:

• Being a doc bot
• Clearly stealing something off the wiki and not understanding it (If it's someone else's rehighlights and it still says their name in the tag, I'll take off a speaker point)
• If you're obviously spreading analytics off a doc at full speed and not sending the doc
• Sending the 1NC before the 1AC starts
• Going for shells in the 2n about out of round abuse that had zero impact on the debate :(

I have been judging PF for four years and am now judging LD. I flow to capture and compare both arguments. I appreciate the need for speed, but also ask that competitors don't speak so quickly, I can't understand them. Respect for other debaters during and after the rounds is very important. Be assertive, certainly, but rudeness is unnecessary. I appreciate debaters who have clearly prepared well and researched their topic sufficiently to be able to address unexpected ideas or approaches to a topic.

I prefer quality over quantity. Please do not spread too fast. Speak clearly and resolutely. I can flow at a medium pace if you are speaking so quickly that you’re gasping for air expect those cards, contentions, impacts to be dropped.

Don't spread. If you insist on it - at least make sure I can actually understand you. I consider myself a trad judge. Strike me for tricks/dense Phil/ theory/ Kritiks. Be topical.

In the event that you have me as a judge and you really reallycan't help but read something not trad, please slow down, I do not want to follow a doc (though I am more than capable of doing so).

I don't disclose speaker points but I will disclose the result of the round.

frasatc@gmail.com - I want to be on the email chain! Please do not send me emails regarding my final decisions.

I understand that I may be on panels with two circuit judges and the round will inevitably be a progressive LD round.

here is a list of circuit arguments I have voted off of

DAs (love these, basically circuit trad)

Ks (set col specific)

Determinism (I didn't want to vote on this either)

Rule following paradox (it was dropped, I do not want to vote on tricks :( )

Overall my "circuit" preferences are LARP (policy) and the K (identity K's think: set col)

If you slow down towards the end of your speech with some clear judge instruction (yes, even if you are spreading) I will figure it out--

Don't post round me- I voted the way I did and demanding I change it or concede that I was wrong is not productive for anyone.

I am a parent judge. Please limit the use of jargons but feel free to send me cases at judylycheng@gmail.com

Here are some guidelines for success:

1) Please speak clearly; I can only vote for an argument I thoroughly understand and is well supported. Please attempt to remove as much jargon as possible.

2) Just because I am a lay does not mean you can forget about warrants. If you want me to buy an argument, I need to know why it is true. Do not just make claims and expect me to buy it.

3) Handle your own time and prep. Create a way of evidence sharing before the round start time.

4) Be respectful to me and your opponents, any form of inappropriate behavior will result in an automatic loss and the lowest speaks I can give you.

5). Confidence, Presentation and Clarity of speech is half the game. Present yourself clean and neat; conduct yourself calm and collected.

I am the head coach of a very active high school program and avid Speech and Debate enthusiast, working as a coach and judge for five years now.

LD/PF:

I understand that debate should focus on persuasion, analysis, argumentation, and clear communication. Debaters should articulate clearly and with intention all their points without pressure to speed read or cover a multitude of topics so quickly. Therefore, I do not look favorably on speed reading, spread debating, counter-planning, and the recitation of interminable quote cards and briefs. I favor addressing the facts and rebuttals given in the round, with minimal pulling from terms not accessible to reasonable intelligence. I am not supportive of progressive debate style inasmuch as it limits the clarity of the debate for the sake of endless information with not anchor or goal in providing one's opponent with a considerate roadmap for the debate.

Debate is a respectful and hopeful exchange of ideas delivered at a reasonable pace with clarity of thought. I do not tolerate pointed or hostile, rude, or supercilious attitude from any of the debaters at any time.

Argue well, speak clearly, and disagree civilly.

World Schools:

I will always value which side presents the more accessible and strategic impact, scope, and globular consequences relevant to the resolution. I will always judge what I receive from the teams, nothing else.

For PFD and LD.

Simple Paradigm, I am a traditionalist when it comes to PFD or LD so I know, when judging on the circuit I will be blocked, but this is not Policy.

Debate the resolution, not something you bought from a college student or topic you find enlightening - the resolutions are chosen, and voted on, for a reason.

It is helpful to "bullet-point" and number your arguments.

Do not bring in new topics/arguments when summarizing. This is unfair to the opposing team who will have had no opportunity to rebut. Doing this will lose points.

So, with that in mind, life is simple, right? If LD your Value should simply win out and and your VC better convince me that all those contentions and sub-points make sense, especially since you (please!) slow downed so I can actually hear them. If you speak too quickly and I cannot catch what you say, it is as though you didn't say it. =) Yes I like smiley faces, life is fun, take a step back and enjoy it! Nevertheless, if I do not catch what you say this will likely result in lost points. This also applies to PFD.

Similarly, acronyms are great short hand but do not assume I will be familiar with them. Define them at the outset before using them freely.

I like consistency in the points made and creative solutions to challenges. Twists in an argument and subtle nuances can be fun as well as win the day! Quantification of issues versus qualification of emotions, and specifics versus generalizations are both approaches which work well. Best is when your position paints a consistent and coherent picture, and exceptions and rebuttals are removed by logic and data. Logical arguments supporting your position are far more important than rewording the same statement, except when there is a need to clarify ambiguities or terms.

If PFD, well your contentions and impact better win out too! Good cards everyone, good cards and roadmap please. If you have evidence for me to see, then make sure I see it. You are responsible for confirming it was received and can be read by me.

Finally, if you want me to tell you when it is time, or 5 seconds or other time before your time is up tell me in advance and be explicit. This includes prep time. It is your responsibility to communicate this and to be sure I received and accepted the message. This is not the time to be subtle. You will only lose points if I have to tell you that you went overtime.

Oh wait, almost forgot, remember this is not policy ! If I am judging policy, well that is a whole other matter.

I am a relatively new parent judge who prefers traditional debate. Please go slow in the round and do not assume that I understand esoteric arguments. I like when debaters emphasize their voters and consistently tie their framework to their arguments. Remember to give me voters for the round during your last rebuttal speech. Keep debate jargon limited and do not be overly aggressive to your opponents during cross.

Quick prefs:

I will NOT evaluate progressive debate or spreading.

tech > truth (to an extent - do not abuse this)

I am still listening even if I am not flowing.

for the most fair round, outline how I should be voting and evaluating arguments (limit judge intervention)

*Create a way to share evidence before the round has started (I prefer using an email chain - cindyapril@gmail.com)

Yes email chain: Averyadover@gmail.com

Please label your email chains; team names, tournament, round

Prep time ends when the email was sent

Debate History

I have debated 2 years an Eisenhower High school

and 2 years at Maize High

And am now debating for the University of Mary Washington.

UK Digital 2022 Update

I have not judged many debates on this topic at all so I will not be familiar with acronyms or what DA's/ Solvency advocates are supposed to mean, so explain things.

Clarity - Especially in online debate

If I cannot understand you, im not just going to look to your doc, I think debate is a communication activity and will judge it as such.

Evidence Quality

Adrienne Brovero said this well in her paradigm, highlighting has become pretty bad. I think evidence quality matters way more than quantity. I am very receptive to pointing out flaws in arguments and bad highlighting. If you highlight word salad, I will judge the argument based on the word salad you read, and I obviously didn't understand.

The Debate stuff

Tech>Truth

I will vote for anything you want to read, if you are technically winning it on the flow. I have read a lot of weird arguments throughout my career, meaning that I am totally down to listen to whatever you want as long as it is not harming people in round.

Cross Ex: Im not strict do whatever you want as long as you are the "Asking team"

Ill go into specifics now

Topicality:

Its a voting issue, and I dont think RVI's are a thing.

I default to competing interpretations, but like everything else, you can persuade me otherwise. If you are going for T I need analysis on why this is important for my ballot. All to often I see debaters undercover or dont provide enough offense of topicality.

Kritiks: I will listen to them but do not expect me to know the nuances of how your K works, you are going to have to explain that to me. Planless affs need to tell me what my position in the debate round is along which how I resolve the problems.

Theory: More likely than not I wont vote for stand alone theory arguments, I think debaters should frame theory as a threshold or mitigation question.

FW: I lean towards resolutional action being good but I can be convinced otherwise.

I will vote on presumption

I love a good case debate.

I think circumvention is underrated, if deployed well, it can highly mitigate the case and provide offense on each advantage.

My favorite arguments in debate are case arguments and impact turns, and I have empirically been known to go for them. If the aff can clearly articulate how their aff interacts with the off case, it can mitigate the offense on the off case.

Counterplans:

They are fine, read what you want, but I can be persuaded on theory arguments. The aff should be able to prove why the counterplan cannot solve the aff, and or why the perm is best.

Conditionality:

This might sounds old school, but I think rampant conditionality, especially when contradicting is hurting debate. This is not me saying you can't read them, just a heads up that if deployed well, I will vote on conditionality is bad.

Impact Calc: This is incredibly important

You can't just tell me you are winning the debate, tell me why you are winning specific arguments and what it means to the debate if you win them.

If you have any other questions feel free to email me or ask me before the round.

Princeton '26

Bronx Science '22

Affiliations- Assistant Coach at Berkeley Prep ('23-'24), Private Coach for Bronx Science teams ('23-)

Email chain:

oneoffthek@gmail.com,

bronxsciencedebatedocs@gmail.com (policy only)

Pronouns: he/him

Haven't thought about debate seriously in about a year. Pretty okay for technical clash debates, not the best for anything else. Would pref me below people who slightly lean against your argument but think about debate frequently and evaluate arguments technically well.

I like debates that happen quick and efficiently and don't want to think a lot. I will easily check out for hidden aspec or enjoy a debate where the block is 2 minutes if the 2AC concedes a counterplan. I will boost speaks if I have to think less. I'll also boost speaks if you don't take prep when you need it - if the 2AC fumbles and its a TKO, stand up speeches would make me happy.

2023 Glenbrooks Update:

I do prefs for some of my teams. I look for two things: first, are they pure tech over truth. I am, I will only evaluate the arguments on my flow and only intervene if necessary. I will vote on dropped arguments and will scratch my head if you don't take the easy way out.

Second, what are their opinions on Framework Kritiks and K Affs.

I prefer to judge kritiks that invest most of their time in framework to moot the aff. I prefer the aff to go for fairness impacts. I prefer the negative to realize that 5 links in the block, specific or not, will not help you with mooting the aff. If mooting the aff is not a negative win condition, you will probably lose to the perm double bind or case outweighs if equally debated. I can judge negative kritiks that fiat big functionally competitive alternatives if the negative is losing framework that is treated as a DA/UQ CP. This likely requires a lot of cards and some way to capture aff offense. Less strategic, although its what I did senior year.

For K Affs, I prefer judging impact turn based strategies. The counter interpretation makes sense to me ONLY when winning some external offense about predictability or limits. Otherwise, in my mind, counter interp will always link to negative offense if predictability is articulated well. I prefer that the negative goes for fairness based impacts that explains the neccesity of fairness for both teams.

KvK debates - I prefer that the negative wins a reason the aff doesn't get a permutation or, a harder sell, that the permutation doesn't sheild the link.

Policy v Policy - I dont trust myself to judge decent policy debates. You likely dont want me in the back for this. You should pref me below the college debaters you're comfortable with taking, successful FYOs that still think about debate, and definitely below college and high school coaches who actively cut cards and think about policy arguments. Since I am not super well versed on the true arguments on things like counterplan competition and such, I will be heavily relying on my technical ability and evaluate drops highly. Going for less and collapsing on one or two pieces of offense decreases the chances of me making a bad decision because I'll need time to parse the card doc and think about how arguments interact. I think infinite condo is good (although I enjoyed going for condo a lot and felt judges sometimes did too much work).

Old:

--I went positive at TOCs my senior year if that matters to you

--Tldr: Do what you do best- I am a technical judge and will vote for the team who did better debating. All of my opinions can easily be overturned by out-debating your opponent. I want to judge high-level debates and recognize that you are giving up your precious time to research and compete. I will be invested in your debate, try my best to catch every argument, read cards during prep, etc out of respect for your preparation, genuine interest in high-level argumentative innovation, and appreciation for technical proficiency. Although I'm not going to lie, I may look bored watching some not high level/not competitive debates

--My favorite judges were clash judges who were flow-centric and did not bring personal opinions into the decision (unless it was necessary to do so). This was because I debated fast, reading 13 off and going for undercovered positions. What David Sposito says here resonates with me "Recently I've found myself advising losing teams in the post round that they should have gone for extremely bad, dropped blips. An argument being 'bad' ALONE does not mean that I will have a 'high threshold' for voting on it (again, these are weasel words that allow judges to get away w/ voting as is convenient for them, or as they please). Teams still must answer an argument satisfactorily. It is true that practically, 'bad' arguments should be unstrategic b/c they can swiftly be beaten w/ the right arguments, but the other team only benefits if they know the right answers (which they often do, but sometimes do not, especially for arguments w/ a bad reputation). But that's not about thresholds, exactly.... Ineffective arguments do not suddenly become better because I want one argument to win or lose--logically, that is bizarre, and practically, it is a violation of giving each team their due."

--So what do I believe are "truer" arguments and "faultier" arguments? Despite mostly going for the K in my career, I found myself voting for Policy teams more often in close clash debates when judging last year. However, I am only coaching K teams right now which shows that I recognize the K's strategic potential. This means that if you are a competent K team that utilizes speed to overwhelm your opponent with arguments that are hard to answer, shotgun extendable arguments against the policy team's "true" answers to your offense, isolate offense that is mishandled, impact out arguments and explain how they interact with your opponent's arguments, then you should not be worried. These are the K teams that end up succeeding anyways- most K teams that make it to deep elims of TOCs and other big high school tournaments pref college debaters that solely read policy arguments and college coaches that will vote strictly off of their flow but will vote for the policy team if equally debated. I will think about clash debates similar to these judges. This means I will moot the aff if you win its good to do so, and I will not evaluate reps links if you win reps links are bad.

--To be transparent, I'm confident I can follow a counterplan competition debate but am not as well versed as college policy debaters nor do I know enough dense critical theory to process blocks that use buzzwords every other sentence. I can handle speed, but I can't process insanely fast mumbling or flow as good as the college debaters and coaches who devote much more time to this activity than I currently do. However, I want to judge high-level debates and am confident I can keep up with skilled debaters that make arguments clear and explain how arguments interact with each other.

--I mostly agree with other community norms seen at high levels of debate: if the "truest" arguments on each side are forwarded, affs get perms in kvk debates, unlimited condo is justified, fairness is the most strategic impact, predictability outweighs limits for the sake of limits, dont default to squo unless its mentioned by the negative, etc. I understand these are not homogeneous views held by the community and are contestable, these views mostly stem from Brian Klarman and Mikaela Malsin along with discussions with other top-performing debaters.

--Send docs out quicker, prep ends when doc is sent, asking what cards were read is prep (asking for a marked copy is not)

--Format emails reasonably. If you need help, "Tournament X Round Y- AFF Your Team Code Vs NEG Other Team Code - Judge Alex Eum"

--If everyone in the round sends analytics and you remind me after the debate, I'll raise speaks, just remind me.

hi my name is nicholas (u can and should call me nick/ nick ford) i did ld for niceville high school in nwfl my senior year on the circuit & am currently a second-year at columbia studying comparative literature; if you are planning on applying there, feel free to ask me questions about it/ the application (ik college apps are hard lol)

email: nicevilledebates@gmail.com -- email chain > speechdrop unless there's like, a lot of people in the room

*for anything EXCEPT docs, pls contact me through my personal email (nicholasaford2@gmail.com)

quick prefs:

*to clarify: these are based on how comfortable i am in evaluating these types of arguments -- i will evaluate anything, but i'm less good at evaluating certain things

k/performance - 1

theory - 1

friv theory/trix - 1/2

LARP - 3

common phil positions (kant/util) - 3

other phil - 4/5

if you have any questions email me/ reach out over fb messenger etc.

general:

just be clear -- if i can't flow the argument you probably shouldn't go for it

tech>truth, extend arguments and warrants so that i can eval them

not evaluating 30 speaks.

the way I think about safety in debate has changed over the past year. i will intervene if i believe that one or both debaters is making the round unsafe in any way, shape, or form. i believe that there is a difference between an ivi for safety (e.g., 'kant is racist, their endorsement of kant is a reason to vote them down to reject racism') and making a round unsafe (e.g., repeated misgendering, using slurs inappropriately).

i will not evaluate 'tabroom solves' for the latter.

i will evaluate 'tabroom solves' for the former.

if you feel as though a safety violation has occurred and i have not stopped the round, you need to explicitly say to me "can we stop the round, i do not feel safe" or something similar and we will proceed from there.

easy ways to get higher speaks with me:

bring me an energy drink (the brightline to an energy drink is 80mg+ caffeine; speaks are a sliding scale based on caffeine content but bringing me a bang will give you negative speaks.)

be funny/clever/do something unique and interesting

easy ways to get lower speaks with me

wasting my time

being generally unstrategic

sending files as google docs/ pdf

k/performance:

identity ks are cool; non-identity ks are cool. like technical k debate; don't like you expecting me to know your lit base. lbl>>>long overviews. extremely bored by k debaters who don't do lbl work and expect to win when they don't answer key args.

theory:

no theory is friv. answer standards. do weighing. fine for the rvi. no defaults. extend paradigm issues.

trix:

totally good for tricky rounds, but i think they can get very messy very quickly. implicate things on the flow. arguments need warrants.

LARP(policy) and lay:

fine for this, but extremely bored by lay debate. be nice to novices/ debaters going to their first circuit tournament. no i wont nuke your speaks for reading theory/k/trix against a lay/novice debater.

phil:

i never read phil so i'm significantly less familiar with these arguments. i'm probably okay for kant but tend toward over-explanation when reading less common phil positions like deleuze, heidegger, etc.

note for PF: not a pf judge. good for the kritik. maybe good for theory. great for trix (altho not sure what tricks exist in pf lmao)

Hello,

I'm Stephen Greer Jr, a National Board Certified teacher of English language arts, IB literature and AP Language and Composition. I've been teaching since 2002, and this will be my first time judging any type of debate. I have an interest in seeing and understanding the different applications of rhetoric and debate is one of the most important, in my opinion, so I am happy to be participating!

As I am inexperienced with not only judging, but debate in general, I'd like to request notes on the arguments you'll be presenting (as allowed by the rules, of course). I'm not sure at all that I will need them, but better to be safe than sorry. It is my intention to do the best job of judging that I possibly can. Be advised, however, that I am absolutely new to this and still learning, so if you have particular points you intend to emphasize, you can help us both by ensuring they are in the notes provided and that you place obvious emphasis on them during your arguments!

Good luck to all of you, and I'll see you all in Atlanta!

EXPERIENCE
High School Debate Team + Judging HS Debate = 7 years
Keynote Speaking from Kentucky to Kuala Lumpur in front of associations, companies, news reporters, governments and the United Nations from 5 to 500 people = 20 Years

DEBATE PHILOSOPHY
Winning is listening.
Hear their argument. And defend yours. Cartoon villain monologuing is not debate. Reading ChatGPT vomit is not. 52 card pickup is not.
No amount of prep or planning can overcome dismissing Neg's argument, or not realizing you were just skewered by them. An argument is to defend with evidence, or a counterplan, with evidence. Not to claim Aff doesn't get it.
Debate is a persuasive exercise...not you & Mrs. Truth versus the criminally misguided. Read the room, are you persuading anyone?

APPROACH
Anything said not in a round, is a prep time.
I will flow, so speak clearly, in structured ideas, or I can't credit you for it. If you don't do that often, no one can.
Judge based on:
1. Hearing a logical explanation of intentions and outcomes that are,
2. Clearly linked to causes/impacts with a,
3. Direct line to a greater cause/impact over your opponent's cause/impact.

HOW TO WIN:
I value presenters who know their craft. And their topic. Show that you know your burdens and how to overcome them. Illustrate your nuanced understanding of the topic (resolutions are chosen because they have nuance). Explain and engage in a narrative, where your outcome is inevitable given the overwhelming evidence you presented, and your opponent's lack of it.
Work your CX to expose Aff's flaws (there are always flaws). Stand your ground when the hits come back. Get creative in your Neg, step up to Aff's first move advantage.
Use your 1AR and 1NR to extend, not repeat. Fortify your defense beyond a shadow of a doubt. Clash the attacks like you mean it. Respect the art form, and each other.
Respond to what's being thrown at you.
(You will also have more fun)

HOW TO LOSE:
- Bold claims without evidence.
- Spreading...just means you have not honed your ideas. It's not a cattle auction. No one talks like that.
- Reading everything....life isn't written down, look at your audience.
- Skipping/Ignoring...like how CX blew your Kritik into shrapnel.
- Not present, or pretending like you don't understand their CX...if you didn't prepare to defend each contention, you just downloaded your case.
- Dismissive, rude or condescending is really your fear of not being good enough (you are, you made it here, so be cool).

Good luck...if you read this far, you are already ahead of your opponent.

EXPERIENCE: I'm the head coach at Harrison High School in New York; I was an assistant coach at Lexington from 1998-2004 (I debated there from 1994-1998), at Sacred Heart from 2004-2008, and at Scarsdale from 2007-2008. I'm not presently affiliated with these programs or their students. I am also the Curriculum Director for NSD's Philadelphia LD institute.

Please just call me Hertzig.

Please include me on the email chain: harrison.debate.team@gmail.com

QUICK NOTE: I would really like it if we could collectively try to be more accommodating in this activity. If your opponent has specific formatting requests, please try to meet those (but also, please don't use this as an opportunity to read frivolous theory if someone forgets to do a tiny part of what you asked). I know that I hear a lot of complaints about "Harrison formatting." Please know that I request that my own debaters format in a particular way because I have difficulty reading typical circuit formatting when I'm trying to edit cards. You don't need to change the formatting of your own docs if I'm judging you - I'm just including this to make people aware that my formatting preferences are an accessibility issue. Let's try to respect one another's needs and make this a more inclusive space. :)

BIG PICTURE:

CLARITY in both delivery and substance is the most important thing for me. If you're clearer than your opponent, I'll probably vote for you.

SHORTCUT:

Ks (not high theory ones) & performance - 1 (just explain why you're non-T if you are)

Trad debate - 1

T, LARP, or phil - 2-3 (don't love wild extinction scenarios or incomprehensible phil)

High theory Ks - 4

Theory - 4 (see below)

Tricks - strike

*I will never vote on "evaluate the round after ____ [X speech]" (unless it's to vote against the person who read it; you aren't telling me to vote for you, just to evaluate the round at that point!).

GENERAL:

If, after the round, I don't feel that I can articulate what you wanted me to vote for, I'm probably not going to vote for it.

I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary.

I don't view theory the way I view other arguments on the flow. I will usually not vote for theory that's clearly unnecessary/frivolous, even if you're winning the line-by-line on it. I will vote for theory that is actually justified (as in, you can show that you couldn't have engaged without it).

I need to hear the claim, warrant, and impact in an extension. Don't just extend names and claims.

For in-person debate: I would prefer that you stand when speaking if you're physically able to (but if you aren't/have a reason you don't want to, I won't hold it against you).

Do not use profanity in round. I will lower speaker points if you do.

Link to a standard, burden, or clear role of the ballot. Signpost. Give me voting issues or a decision calculus of some kind. WEIGH. And be nice.



To research more stuff about life career coaching then visit Life coach.

Update for Princeton Tournament:I haven't judged or kept up with debate in the past two years. I still have high confidence in judging policy and K rounds, but anything else will require more explanation than you might usually give to a judge who's active with the meta. I however don't really care to have debate opinions anymore so I am happy to evaluate anything.

Email: jj4485@princeton.edu

General description of how I evaluate debates.

1] I exclusively debated policy (including topicality) and K in high school. I evaluate all arguments, which has a claim warrant and an impact in the first speech presented but the further you are from how I debated, the less comfortable that I am. I am best for policy v. policy, clash debates, good for T vs. policy K v Ks, ok for phil, meh for everything else.

2] I view debate through a lens of relative risk (magnitude of impact * probability of impact). Weighing arguments bring up the magnitude of an impact and are usually not preclusive filters. If you win that X outweighs Y, I will not evaluate the round on who has a stronger link to X but consider X to have a higher risk. This means that weighing arguments (K vs. theory, warming vs. nuke war, predictability vs. limits) all still need to put defense on the other impact. The exceptions are non-consequential Ks and phil frameworks.

3] This means that I strongly value well-warranted arguments. Risk starts from 0 and goes to 100 with how well you warrant it. A well-warranted, dropped argument has near 100 risk. Good evidence or historical examples bolster empirical debates such as K and Policy (although good evidence alone without spin wont help you). Well thought out logical syllogisms will help in phil debates (don’t require cards as much because of the abstract nature of these debates).

Specifics: All of below can be changed with good debating.

Policy—Not much to add here. I am somewhat worse for convoluted politics disads than other judges. Agnostic on whether I think agent counterplans, process counterplans, states are competitive. Tend to think competing off certainty and immediacy are illegitimate. Near impossible to convince me that international fiat is legit. Any advantage counterplan that doesn’t fiat negative action (US should not go to war) is legitimate. Object fiat is not a real thing. Judge kick is a logical extension of conditionality and unless the aff contests conditionality, I will judge kick.

Ks—Strongly dislike overuse of buzzwords. Bad for framework arguments that make it impossible for the aff to win. Good for links indexed to the plan with root cause, links turn aff arguments. Fiatted alternatives should lose to permutation double bind. Good for alternatives that have a framework argument and establish competing values from the aff. Bad for utopian alts that say that people should be “nicer to each other.” Good for any aff offensive strategy (extinction outweighs, link turn perm, da to the alt). Affs should mercilessly attack the alt. Terrible for Ks that ripoff Afropess when your cards don’t make an ontology claim.

K aff vs. Fwk—Personally think debate has value which is why I spent so long doing it. Good for K affs that re-define words and have a coherent counter-model. Worse for affs that impact turn everything (although I get why it’s strategic with LD’s short 2ARs). Great for fairness and clash. Bad for skills. Hard to convince me that fairness and clash aren’t impacts; can convince me other things matter more. Terrible for five second arguments that debaters treat as TKOs (ci: your interp plus our aff, truth-testing).

Theory—strongly dislike frivolous shells. Hard to convince me that all theory is DTD. Very persuaded by DTA and reasonability. Unwarranted 1AR shells that blow up in the 2AR are unbelievably bad. Think counterplans should be resolved at competition, not theory. Need argumentation for why an argument makes it harder to answer other layers of the debate; otherwise it’s a reason to drop that individual argument.

Phil—I like good warranted phil debates. My understanding is quite bad in these debates admittedly which means that extra judge instruction, warranting, and weighing is needed than if you debated in front of average east coast judge. Agnostic on epistemic modesty vs. epistemic confidence. Personally think nuclear war matters more than lying.

Extraneous thoughts:

Likes (will help speaker points)

Strong historical knowledge/examples

Tasteful snarkiness (see below)

2NRs off paper

Innovative strategies

Dislikes (will strongly hurt speaker points)

Scripted 2NRs and 2ARs

Unfunny/just rude snarkiness

Shiftiness

Shadiness about disclosure

Being rude to novices (don’t think you have to debate down whatsoever but don’t be rude)

Throwing a water bottle because you lost a round

Updated September 2024

Hi! My name is Charles Karcher. He/him pronouns. Myemail is charlesdebate7@gmail.com

I am affiliated with The Chapin School, where I am a history teacher and coach Public Forum.

This is my 10th year involved in debate overall and my 6th year coaching.

Previous affiliations: Fulbright Taiwan, Lake Highland, West Des Moines Valley, Interlake, Durham Academy, Charlotte Latin, Altamont, and Oak Hall.

Conflicts: Chapin, Lake Highland

Top Level

Debate is what you make it, whether that is a game or an educational activity. Ultimately, it is a space for students to grow intellectually and politically. Critical debate is what I spend the most time thinking about. I’m familiar with most K authors, but assume that I know nothing. I want to hear about the alt. I have a particular interest in the Frankfurt School and 20th century French authors + the modern theoretical work that has derived from both of these traditions. I have prepped and coached pretty much the full spectrum of K debate authors/literature bases. Policy-style debate is fun. I appreciate good analytics more than bad cards, especially when those cards are from authors that are clearly personally/institutionally biased. Inserted graphs/charts need to be explained and have their own claim, warrant, and impact. Taglines should be detailed and accurately descriptive of the arguments in the card. 2 or 3 conditional positions are acceptable. I am not thrilled with the idea of judge kicking. Theory and tricks debate is the farthest from my interests. Being from Florida, I've been exposed to a good amount of it, but it never stuck with or interested me. Debaters who tend to read these types of arguments should not pref me.

While I am a strong believer that judges should not categorically prevent debaters from reading certain styles of arguments, there are certain behaviors and norms that I believe should be modeled in the debate space:

1] If you find yourself debating with me as the judge on a panel with a parent/lay/traditional judge (or judges), please just engage in a traditional round and don't try to get my tech ballot. It is incredibly rude to disregard a parent's ballot and spread in front of them if they are apprehensive about it.

2] Speaks are capped at 27 if you include something in the doc that you assume will be inputted into the round without you reading/describing it. You cannot "insert" something into the debate scot-free. Examples include charts, graphs, images, screenshots, spec details, and solvency mechanisms/details. This is a terrible norm which literally asks me to evaluate a piece of evidence that you didn't read. It's also a question of accessibility.

3] When it comes to speech docs, I think about the debate space as an academic conference at which you are sharing ideas with colleagues (me) and panelists (your opponents). Just as you would not present an unfinished PowerPoint at a conference, please do not present to me a poorly formatted speech doc. I don't care what your preferences of font, spacing, etc. are, but they should be consistent, navigable, and readable. I do ask that you use the Verbatim UniHighlight feature to standardize your doc to yellow highlighting before sending it to me.

4] Do not steal prep or be rude to your opponents - I have high expectations for these two things and hope that the community collectively raises its expectations this season. Your speaks will suffer if you do these things.

-----------

Misc. notes:

• I do not, and will not, disclose speaker points.
• Put your analytics in the speech doc!
• Trigger warnings are important
• CX and prep ends as soon as the timer beeps! Time yourself.
• Tell me about inclusivity/accessibility concerns, I will do whatever is in my power to accommodate!

Public Forum

In PF, you should either paraphrase all your cards OR present a policy-esque case with taglines that precede cut cards. I do not want cards that are tagged with "and, [author name]" or, worse, not tagged at all. This formatting is not conducive to good debating, and I will not tolerate it. Your speaks will suffer.

All speech materials should be sent as a downloadable file (Word or PDF), not as a Google Doc, Sharepoint, or email text. I will not look at they are in the latter formats.

RVI’s are not a thing in PF. Ideally, theory isn’t either.

I'm not a fan of teams actively sharing if they are kicking an argument before they kick it. For example, if your opponent asks you about contention n in questioning and you respond "we're kicking that argument." Don’t do it.

Lincoln-Douglas

LD is the event that I’m most comfortable judging – most of my coaching and judging experience is in this event.

I have found that I am increasingly sympathetic to judge kicking counterplans (even though I was previously dogmatically anti-judge kick), but it should still be argued and justified in the round by the negative team; I do not judge kick by default.

My defaults: ROJ > ROB; ROJ ≠ ROB; ROTB > theory; presume neg; comparative worlds; reps/pre-fiat impacts > everything else; yes RVI; DTD; yes condo; I will categorically never evaluate the round earlier than the end of the 2AR (with the exception of round-stopping issues like evidence allegations or inclusivity concerns).

I am not a technical judge. Communication skills are more important, thus do not spread. Refer to link for an example of spreadinghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FPsEwWT6K0
Thank you!

Background:

· Not affiliated with any school.

· Participated in policy debate in high school and university.

Clear Communication:

Since it is your responsibility to convince me, it follows that it is your responsibility to be certain that I can understand every word you say, the case/side that you are presenting and your rebuttal of the opposing case/side. If you speak in a manner that prevents me from understanding you, then it is quite unlikely that you will convince me. For example, I cannot understand you if you speak too fast, too quietly, or with poor enunciation. I cannot understand your case/side and your rebuttal of the opposing case/side if you fail to clearly present them, due to poor structure or failure to clearly lay out major points. Clear signposting is essential to understanding.

Persuasive Structure:

Unless you convince me that some other structure is more compelling, I expect to hear clear claims/contentions, logical/compelling warrants, supportive data, and meaningful impacts. Although each of these four structural elements is important, I view a debate as a meeting of minds, where I am primarily evaluating the logical substance of that which is spoken by those who are debating. Therefore, I care somewhat less about the skill or qualifications of “experts” who are quoted by the debaters. In determining which side is most compelling, I tend to prefer arguments over style and analytics over evidence.

Questioning Periods:

Points raised, disclosed or discovered during the questioning periods (crossfire in PF or cross-examination in LD and CX) will only count toward convincing me when they are woven into the logical analysis of a subsequent speech.

Miscellaneous Hints (merely hints, not a basis for penalties):

My preference is that you do not tell us what you are going to say before you give your speech. Just give the speech. The structure of an effective presentation will be so clear, the flow so obvious, its logic and analysis so easily followed that any “off-time road map” would be superfluous.

Please don’t waste our time by telling us that “time starts on my first word.” It is highly unlikely that any listener will assume that time should start on your second word or your tenth word. Time starts when you begin speaking.

In PF, LD and CX, you don’t need to announce how much prep time you intend to take. Just announce that you are using prep time and then use as much as you wish, within your allowance.

The debate has a pre-determined schedule. Unscheduled long pauses at any point that are not identified as prep time are the result of someone taking unfair advantage of the pre-determined schedule. If you wait too long to begin speaking, should we assume that you are using prep time?

My Commitment:

I will do my very best to be fair and impartial in my role as a judge. I will be an active listener, open to diverse perspectives and arguments, and adaptable to different styles and strategies. I consider it an honor to have an opportunity to evaluate your performance and have sincere respect for your effort, preparation and skill.

What I Prefer to See in a Debate:

1. Please don't go too fast. I can follow arguments faster than parents but not super, super fast.
2. Don't eyeroll your opponent or speak in a manner that's rude, i.e., that they don't know what they're talking about. They may have absolutely no idea of what they're talking about, and you should call them out on it, but just don't be rude, dude. This is also insanely important to me.

Hi, I’m Lauren. I’m looking for strong evidence and a framework that adapts with the round. Arguments shouldn’t just be repeated, they need to evolve with the round and be weighed uniquely against the other case. Love speakers who speak clearly and not too fast.

I am a first time parent judge and would prefer to judge a traditional debate. Please keep the jargon to a minimum and convince me of your arguments. During rebuttals, write my ballot for me - tell me exactly how I should evaluate the round and why your contention is the most important.

TLDR:

• Minimal/no jargon
• Write my ballot for me in rebuttal
• No progressive argumentation
• Add me to the email chain: jessie3890@gmail.com

What I prefer to see in debate:

1. Slow and clear speaking
2. Simple and concise points
3. Know what you’re talking about; be on topic
4. Parent judge: don’t be too theoretical

I am a lay judge.

- Don’t speak fast or spread.

- I'm fine with you reading theory or K's as long as it is well explained and defended.

My debate paradigm is... that you as debaters set the direction for the debate, within both the rules and generally accepted norms of your event.

Show me why YOUR approach to debate is the right one.

.

In addition, remember to:

- Always be respectful of your opponent(s) and audience.

- If you choose to spread, remember that your arguments are only as good as what your audience is able to hear.

.

Mr. Nick Malinak

Head Forensics Coach - The Hill School

NSDA Diamond Coach

Deena R. McNamara, Esq.

Updated for 2025

Please include me on the email chain at deena.mcnamara@ahschool.com before the commencement of the round. If the round starts at x time, then please ensure that the doc is sent or uploaded by x time.

My Background:

I competed in LD and policy debate in high school. In college, I competed in LD and CEDA. College LD and CEDA (back in those days) were very similar to circuit LD. Debaters used T, theory and even Ks back in those dark ages of debate.

I have been a litigation attorney for over 27 years. I have judged LD on and off for the last 20 years. Both of my children competed in LD. Even though my kids have already graduated from college, I have remained in the community as a debate coach and judge. I have been coaching LD for American Heritage Palm Beach since 2021. I believe that debate is life changing for students of all backgrounds and abilities. I view my role as the judge not only to adjudicate your round fairly and to the best of my abilities, but to teach you something that you could do better next time to enhance your skills and arguments.

I have judged at high level competitions and in out-rounds at Harvard, Yale, Emory, Princeton, Glenbrooks, Bronx, NFL/NSDA nationals, CFL nationals, Duke, Florida Blue Key, Wake Forest and others. I always familiarize myself with the topic literature prior to each tournament. I pay attention to every detail in the round. I can flow your case as fast as you can say it… however, if you are huffing and puffing through your speech or sound as though you are hyperventilating then it is not enjoyable for your judge. I will keep saying clear if you are not clear. I want to hear every word that you say as it matters in the round. I take the round very seriously and I even flow CX. CX is super-important in the round, so please make sure that you are not sitting in a desk facing away from me during CX. Judges who think that CX does not matter really do not understand the purpose of debate; I will leave it at that. Additionally, I will not view your speech doc unless my hearing fails me or I am reviewing your evidence for context and accuracy. Please do not mistag your cards. I care about your round and will do my absolute best to judge it as fairly as possible.

I try to be a tabula rasa judge; however, like everyone I do have certain dislikes and preferences.

Important:

Please do not text or message with anyone outside of the round during the round for any reason whatsoever. To be clear, you should not receive any texts, messages, emails, documents or any other form of communication whatsoever from anyone outside of the round during the round.

Case type/argument preferences:

Phil- 1

K -1

Turns on case -1

Turns on FW-1

Line-by-Line -1

Skep- 1

Perm with doublebind argument- 2

T- 2

Disads- 3

Non-T Affs-3

Theory to check abuse which was checked in CX-3

Tricks- 3-4

CP- 4-5

Kicking arguments with offense responded to by opponent- 5

Policy Affs/Plans/LARP- 5

Contradictory case positions-5

Collpasing on an argument in last rebuttal when there is offense on other arguments in round- 5

Extinction impacts- 5- strike

Frivolous Theory read as time suck- you should strike me.

Reading someone's case off the wiki that is not your case- you should strike me.

FW/Phil Debate:

I love phil cases, dense phil cases, detailed frameworks with lots of philosphical warrants and well-written analytics that are interspersed in your framework. I am especially familiar with Kant, Ripstein, Korsgaard, Rand, Aristotle, Locke, Rawls, Rousseau, Hobbes, Mill, Bentham, Petit, Christiano, Moore and probably a few others that I cannot think of off the top of my head. I expect detailed frameworks and contention level arguments that link to the framework. You cannot win on FW alone, unless it has offense sufficient to affirm or negate the resolution.

Ks:

I love Ks when they are well-written. I am familiar with Agamben, Butler, Baudrillard, D & G, Foucault, Hedva, Ahmed, Wilderson, Warren, and some other authors that I have come across since I started reading these books. Just ask me and I will let you know my level of familiarity with the arguments. If you decide to run a K, then provide me the link and alternative. It is insufficient to say, "reject Capitalism" and leave me hanging as to what happens after we reject it. On the ROTB/ROTJ args, you have to make them specific; don't just tell me that you win because you minimize oppression of minorities. Who? How? Also, please weigh your arguments against your opponent's FW or ROTB/ROTJ if they provided a different one. Don't tell me things like "they keep biting into my K" as some justification you expect to win on. Seriously- I need analysis of arguments, not just blippy responses that you think qualify as extensions or arguments against your opponent's args. If you make a blippy argument, then that is how I weigh the argument in the round- minimally. I know that your time is limited in round, especially in the 1ar, so I do take that into consideration.

Plans/CPs/DAs/Perms:

I am not a fan of LARP debate and if this is your style of debate, then I may not be the best judge for you. If you prefer to read a bunch of evidence with heavy stats and nuke war impacts, then maybe you should consider policy debate. Debaters have been reading brink arguments since the beginning of time and we are still here. If you read a Plan or Counterplan in the round, please ensure that it is suffciently developed and there is offense. I have voted down policy affs read by debaters that I adore because there was no offense in their case and therefore nothing for me to vote on at the end of the round. Please do not read generic DAs- make sure they are relevant and specific to the argument made by your opponent. If you read a Perm argument then please slow down and explain it because debates get messy when these arguments are not fleshed out. When you are making arguments against a Perm, please slow down and explain your arguments clearly as to why they cannot Perm or why you outweigh on net benefits. I am not going to go back to your speech doc to figure out what you said and make the connections for you. I do love double-bind arguments and I think they are very strategic in policy debate. If you make a double-bind argument, then please slow down so I can truly enjoy the argument as you make it; I aprpeciate it.

Non-T affs, T, theory and misc.:

I am fine with non-T affs, but I think you can figure out some way to make the Aff topical so the Neg can engage in the substance of the debate; it avoids the arguments that the Aff was not predictable or that the Aff case is non-topical. I am amenable to reasonable topicality arguments - not BS ones for time suck. I enjoy semantic arguments a lot - for what it is worth! I know that everyone wants to uplayer the Neg and read so many positions that the other side cannot answer; however, one of the key purposes of debate is to engage critically with the arguments made by the other debater. When the neg takes no prep time before the 1NC and says that they are sending the doc, I always question what level of engagement will occur in the 1NC if the doc was ready before the Neg even had the opportunity to question the Aff. Please do not just run a generic theory arg because you expect that I will vote on it before your opponent's case. It has to be a legit violation. You have to try to clarify in CX and CX is binding. I am fine with theory ONLY to check abuse. Again, check it in cx. I am fine with flex prep too. I am not a fan of disclosure theory because it is harder for smaller programs/lone wolf debaters to be competitive when they are prepped out by larger programs. However, I do expect varsity debaters at national competitions to email the entire Aff before reading the 1AC and the neg to email the NC that will be read prior to reading it, etc. This does not need to occur a half hour before the round unless the tournament rules say otherwise. I do expect debaters to send cases and evidence in round or to provide hard copies. If your wiki says that you will run disclosure theory if….. (insert made up rule here), then please do not expect me to vote on that. Like I said, theory is supposed to check abuse in the round. I am not voting on what happens outside the round. Also, T is different from theory. If you do not know the difference, then please do not argue with me after the round. I will explain the difference to you, but I won't engage in a lengthy debate with you on it. I get my fill of arguing in Court with pain in the a$$ attorneys. I expect you to address all of your opponent’s arguments and uphold your own in each of your speeches. No new arguments are allowed in rebuttals, but extensions and refutations of ongoing arguments are encouraged (and necessary if you would like to win!) Speaking quickly/spreading is acceptable if you slow down for the tag lines and key arguments; I will yell clear. However, your arguments need to make it onto my flow. I am a flow judge, but if I cannot understand you, then I cannot evaluate your arguments. I will have a copy of your case, but I do not want to rely on it. Communication is critical in the round. If I am reading your document, then I am not listening to you. I can read at home… I want to hear the arguments made in round.

LD as a sport:

LD is a sport. It requires hard work and endurance. You are an LDer because you choose to be. There is no other event like it in debate.

However, LD can also be toxic for some debaters who feel excluded, marginalized or bullied. Please make sure that you are courteous to your opponent. If you are debating a novice or an inexperienced varsity debater, please do not spread like you would in an out round. Try to adapt and win on the arguments. Just be kind to them so that they do not leave the event because they feel they cannot keep up. They may not have the private coaches that you do. It is tough on the circuit when you do not have the circuit experience because your school does not travel, or you do not have the funds to travel. Some debaters are in VLD, but do not have the experience that you do. If you are the better debater and have the better case, then you will win. We want to encourage all LDers because LD is truly the best event.

Please be considerate of triggers and of past experiences that your opponent may have suffered. It is not fun to judge a round where a competitor is crying or losing their cool because of something that is happening in round. No round is worth hurting someone else to win. Plus, if you act like a total d-bag and are so disrespectful that I am angry (which takes a lot to get me angry) then you will lose and be given low speaks.

Voters and what I like to vote on:

Please give me voters- this is not a suggestion, but a kind request from your judge. It is helpful to me as the judge to see why you thought you won the round. If I think you are wrong, then I can tell you on the ballot and you will learn from it. If you are right and I agree with you, then I can use your voters in the RFD. I tend to vote on offense and who proves the truth or falsity of the resolution. I do not have a strong preference of aff or neg so do not expect me to default neg. However, the aff's burden of proof is a bit more difficult. Just be clear on why you affirm or negate. I do not vote on presumption. Finally, I do not necessarily follow the strict "layers" of debate. So if you are curious as to what I will vote on first (in terms of theory, T, Ks, etc.), please ask me before the round. I always want debaters to be clear as to how I will evaluate the round.

Pet Peeves:

Please do not read cases off the wiki written by someone else.It is easy to see that the cards were cut by someone else and the tags and analytics were written by someone else. Using someone else's words and reading them as your own is considered plagarism. I know that it has become a norm on the circuit, but that does not make it right. There is so much information available on the internet to assist you with writing your own cases that I do not think it is a difficult ask. Back in dark ages of debate, I wrote all my cases on paper and my "cards" that I "cut" from Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (or whatever book I could get my hands on) were hand written on 5 by 7 notecards with a full citation also handwritten on each card. I understand it takes time and is difficult, but it is worth it.

Please do not say "my opponent conceded the argument" when they really did not and please do not ask me if you can use the rest of your CX as prep. The answer is obviously “no.” Also, there are some new acronyms and phrases floating around that I am not familiar with so please ensure that you explain your arguments so I do not miss something important in your case. Lastly, please do not read off of a script in rebuttals. Flow and make arguments in the round; that is the fun part of debate! You do not have to send extemped analytics in the round.

TL;DR:

· Make it clear and easy for me to see why you won and you'll probably win.

With More Words:

I've judged and coached extensively across events but at this point spend more time on the tab side of tournaments than judging.

If you want the ballot, make clear, compelling, and warranted arguments for why you should win. If you don’t provide any framework, I will assume util = trutil. If there is an alternate framework I should be using, explain it, warrant it, contextualize it, extend it.

Generally Tech>Truth but I also appreciate rounds where I don’t hate myself for voting for you. That being said, I firmly believe that debate is an educational activity and that rounds should be accessible. I will not vote for arguments that are intentionally misrepresenting evidence or creating an environment that is hostile or harmful.

I am open to pretty much anything you want to read but, in the interest of full disclosure, I think that tricks set bad communication norms within debate.

General Stuff:

Most of this is standard but I'll say it anyways: Don’t extend through ink and pretend they "didn't respond". In the back half of the debate, make sure your extensions are responsive to the arguments made, not just rereading your cards. If they say something in cross that it is important enough for me to evaluate, make sure you say it in a speech. Line by line is important but being able to step back and explain the narrative/ doing the comparative analysis makes it easier to vote for you.

Weighing is important and the earlier you set it up, the better. Quality over quantity when it comes to evidence-- particularly in later speeches in the round, I'd rather slightly fewer cards with more analysis about what the evidence uniquely means in this specific round. Also, for the love of all that is good and holy, give a roadmap before you start/sign post as you are going. I will be happier; you will be happier; the world will be a better place.

Speed is fine but clarity is essential. Even if I have a speech doc, you'd do best to slow down on tags and analytics. Your speaks will be a reflection of your strategic choices, overall decorum, and how clean your speeches are.

Evidence (PF):

Having evidence ethics is a thing. As a general rule, I prefer that your cards have both authors and dates. Paraphrasing makes me sad. Exchanges where you need to spend more than a minute pulling up a card make me rethink the choices in my life that led me to this round. Generally speaking, I think that judges calling for cards at the end of the round leads to judge intervention. This is a test of your rhetorical skills, not my ability to read and analyze what the author is saying. However, if there is a piece of evidence that is being contested that you want me to read and you ask me to in a speech, I will. Just be sure to contextualize what that piece of evidence means to the round.

A Final Note:

This is a debate round, not a divorce court and your participation in the round should match accordingly. If we are going to spend as many hours as we do at a tournament, we might as well not make it miserable.

Sure, I'd Love to be on the Email Chain: AMurphy4n6@gmail.com

Hi! I'm Shruti and I debated for Ridge for 4 years. In LD, I debated on both the nat circuit and the NCFL NSDA circuit, so feel free to debate however you want in front of me. I semid at NCFLS my junior year, qualled to LD toc my senior year, and placed top 14 at NSDA my junior year. In Parli, I did both West and East Coast style debate and semid at the TOC my junior year. I was also a lab leader @ NSD summer of 23 and 24, and now am an assistant coach for Harrison High School.

add me to the email chain: shrutisnbhatla@gmail.com AND harrison.debate.team@gmail.com (pls email it to both)

TLDR; I will evaluate any argument you run as long as it’s not an "ism" and is properly warranted but here's a list of what I'm most comfortable judging. Don't feel like you need to adapt your strat for me, I'd much rather you do you.

K/ performance Aff- 1

Larp/policy- 1

Theory-1

Trix- 3/4 for substantive tricks (probably a 5 if its tricks v tricks)

Phil 4/5

I'll flow at whatever speed you read and will clear if I can't understand you. ll clear you like 3 times and then I will stop flowing. Blitz through constructive speeches but I definitely appreciate some pen time for back half speeches, so slow down on things like 1AR/2NR analytics.

Minimize dead time. Send out the 1AC before start time. Don't steal prep or clip cards. Don't take forever to send docs.

Presumption and permissibility negate unless I'm told otherwise

Yes, debate is a game, but don’t be mean

Speaks are based on strategy, cx, and whether you are funny. I'll disclose speaks if you ask me to

Specifics:

Policy- I like it, it's pretty straightforward. Err on the side of over-explanation for case presses because I might not be familiar with the topic.

--Cps are great, read whatever you want and however many you want. CPs should probably have a net benefit. If you are kicking planks, tell me, I won't judge kick for you.

Theory: I’m super down to judge a good theory debate. Read whatever you want, I’ll vote on friv theory if you properly extend it. I default to no RVI and competing interps, but tell me if theory is DTD or DTA. Please weigh between standards, it makes the debate much easier to resolve. Slow down on theory analytics.

T: Have case lists and definitions. If you read grammar-based arguments, please understand them(ie you should be able to explain what the upward entailment test is if you are running it)

K affs- I LOVE well-written, topic-specific, and innovative K affs. PLEASE clearly delineate the impacts of voting aff and have a clear narrative. If you cant answer the question "what does voting aff do", I almost certainly won't be voting aff.

Ks- I'm familiar with the most common LD Ks- Cap, Afropess, Psychoanalysis, Fem, Puar, Set col, security and most POMO/high theory(D&G, Berardi, Baudy, Lacan, and Derrida). Ks NEED an overview in the 2NR to crystalize the round and to tell me where to vote. Overviews are NOT a substitute for real LBL- I will not do the work of crossiplying implicit clash from the 4 min 2NR overview onto the K page!! K tricks are cool just flag them.

Phil: I'm honestly not the best judge for dense Phil debates, but I will evaluate the round to the best of my ability if you tell me where to vote and signpost. I'm familiar with Kant, libertarianism, and virtue ethics but definitely errr on the side of over-explanation.

Tricks: I’ll evaluate these rounds but an argument is a claim warrant and impact. If you wanna read tricks, I’ll hold you to that same standard. I dislike "eval after x speech", stupid aprioris or condo logic but I will evaluate them. More substantial “tricky” args like skep, determinism and trivialism are much more persuasive to me than an AC that’s just spikes. Answer CX questions- we all know you know what an apriori is let’s be FR.

Parli Specific Stuff:

I ran a lot of progressive arguments on NPDL so I can and will enjoy evaluating circuit arguments. With that being said, I also did NYPDL and East Coast Parli, and am comfortable judging any style
• All offense must be extended in lor, pmr, or mo
• Defense is sticky
• arguments need to have warrants for me to evaluate them but it’s not my job to point out how good those warrants are — i’ll fully evaluate the arg if dropped
• just because a ballot is dropped doesn’t mean you auto-win, i need good weighing to convince me to vote on an off-clash ballot
• be specific and comparative in impacts, sweeping generalizations usually mean i have to intervene
• I can track spreading but pls slow down if someone clears u
• that being said if someone runs spreading consent theory i have no idea what the bright line is and neither do u
• I like a good theory debate, pls prove that the punishments are proportional to the violations, theory arguments should have good warrants too • I will protect the flow but pls still call the POO

**Updated October 31, 2023

Hello everyone!

My judging history will show that I’ve primarily tabbed at tournaments since the pandemic started. However, I’ve been keeping up with topic discussions across LD, PF, and Policy and am looking forward to judging you all!

I’ve been in the debate world for over a decade now, and have been coaching with Lexington since 2016. Starting this academic year, I also teach Varsity LD and Novice PF at LHS. I was trained in policy debate but have also judged mainly policy and LD since 2016. I also judge PF at some tournaments along with practice debates on every topic.

TLDR: I want you to debate what you’re best at unless it’s offensive or exclusionary. I try to have very limited intervention and rely on framing and weighing in the round to frame my ballot. Telling me how to vote and keeping my flow clean is the fastest way to my ballot. Please have fun and be kind to one another.

Email: debatejn@gmail.com

ONLINE DEBATE NOTES

In an online world, you should reduce your speed to about 75%-80%. It’s difficult for me to say clear in a way that doesn’t totally disrupt your speech and throw you off, so focusing on clarity and efficiency are especially important.

I usually use two monitors, with my flow on the second monitor, so when I’m looking to the side, I’m looking at the flow or my ballot.

MORE IN DEPTH GENERAL NOTES

If your argument isn’t on my flow, I can’t evaluate it. Keeping my flow clean, repeating important points, and being clear can decide the round. I flow by ear and have your speech doc primarily for author names, so make sure your tags/arguments/analytics are clear. I default to tech over truth and debate being a competitive and educational activity. That being said, how I evaluate a debate is up for debate. The threshold for answering arguments without warrants is low, and I don’t find blippy arguments to be particularly persuasive.

LD PARADIGM

In general: Please also look at my policy paradigm for argument specific information! I take my flow seriously but am really not a fan of blippy arguments. I’m fine with speed and theoretical debates. I am not the best judge for affs with tricks. I don’t like when theory is spread through and need it to be well-articulated and impacted. I have a decent philosophy background, but please assume that I do not know and err on over-explaining your lit.

On Framework: In LD, I default to framework as a lens to evaluate impacts in the round. However, I am willing to (and will) evaluate framework as the only impact to the round. Framework debates tend to get really messy, so I ask that you try to go top-down when possible. Please try to collapse arguments when you can and get as much clash on the flow as possible.

A note on fairness as a voter: I am willing to vote on fairness, but I tend to think of fairness as more of an internal link to an impact.

On T: I default to competing interpretations. If you’re going for T, please make sure that you’re weighing your standards against your opponent’s. In evaluating debates, I default to T before theory.

On Theory: I lean towards granting 1AR theory for abusive strats. However, I am not a fan of frivolous theory and would prefer clash on substantive areas of the debate. In general, I do not feel that I can adjudicate something that happened outside of the round.

On RVIs: I think RVIs have morphed into a way of saying "I'm fair but having to prove that I'm being fair means that I should win", which I don't particularly enjoy. If you’re going for an RVI, make sure it’s convincing and reasonable. Further, please make sure that if you’re going for an RVI that you spend sufficient time on it.

On Ks: I think that the NR is a difficult speech - answering the first indicts on a K and then having to collapse and go for the K is tricky. Please make sure that you're using your time effectively - what is the world of the alt and why is my ballot key to resolving the impacts that you outline?

PF PARADIGM

In general: I rely on my flow to decide the round. Keeping my flow clean is the best path to my ballot, so please make sure that your speeches are organized and weigh your arguments against your opponents.

On Paraphrasing: I would also prefer that you do not paraphrase evidence. However, if you must, please slow down on your analytical blocks so that I can effectively flow your arguments - if you read 25 words straight that you want on my flow, I can't type quickly enough to do that, even when I'm a pretty fast typer in general. Please also make sure that you take care to not misrepresent your evidence.

General Comments On LD/Policy Arguments: While I will evaluate the round based on my flow, I want PF to be PF. Please do not feel that you need to adapt to my LD/Policy background when I’m in the back of the room.

On PF Theory: It's a thing, now. I don't particularly love it, but I do judge based off of my flow, so I will vote on it. However, I really, really, really dislike frivolous theory (feel free to look at my LD and Policy paradigms on this subject), so please make sure that if you're reading theory in a round, you are making it relevant to the debate at hand.

POLICY PARADIGM

On Framework: ROBs and ROJs should be extended and explained within the context of the round. Interpretations and framing how I need to evaluate the round are the easiest path to my ballot. Please weigh your standards against your opponent’s and tell me why your model of debate works best. While I will vote on fairness as a voter, I tend to default to it as an internal link to another impact, i.e. education.

One off FW: These rounds tend to get messy. Please slow down for the analytics. The best path to my ballot is creating fewer, well-articulated arguments that directly clash with your opponent’s.

On Theory and T: Make sure you make it a priority if you want me to vote on it. If you’re going for T, it should be the majority of your 2NR. Please have clearly articulated standards and voters. I typically default to competing interpretations, so make sure you clearly articulate why your interpretation is best for debate. In general, I do not feel that I can adjudicate something that happened outside of the round.

On DA/CP: Explain why your evidence outweighs their evidence and please use impact calc.

On K-Affs: Make sure you’re weighing the impacts of your aff against tech stuff the neg articulates. Coming from the 1AC, I need a clear articulation of your solvency mechanism and the role of ballot / judge.

Hitting K-Affs on neg: PLEASE give me clash on the aff flow

On Ks: Make sure that you’re winning framing for these arguments. I really enjoy well-articulated link walls and think that they can take you far. I’m maybe not the best judge for high theory debates, but I have some experience with most authors you will read in most cases and should be able to hold my own if it’s well articulated. I need to understand the world of the alt, how it outweighs case impacts, and what the ballot resolves.

One off Ks: These rounds tend to get very nuanced, especially if it’s a K v K debate. Please have me put framework on another flow and go line by line.

Georgetown Day School '24, Princeton '28

I'd like to be on the email chain: markchoiorr@gmail.com

I read a K aff and went for Policy/K's on the neg. Go for whatever you want to and have fun!

General stuff

Tech>Truth--I'll render my decision based on the flow which means even if you think you are correct, it's your burden to explain that. It's worth noting that more truthful arguments should be easier to defend, but you still have to win on the tech. I'll vote on any argument if technically debated, but have no qualms about ending the round or intervening on the basis of racism/sexism/homophobia ect.

I also come from policy so don't know what tricks are, but am amenable to voting for them if explained enough that I understand.

I think debate is a game but it can also be more than that, and different debaters will come to the activity for different reasons.

Specificity is good and will most of the time beat general arguments or tagline extensions. Reading a generic link on a disad/K in the 1nc is fine, but devote time in the block to doing specific analysis on the link with warrants or reading new, applicable links. Similarly, on the aff, you should explaining why the case has a more specific internal link chain or solvency mechanism to help beat back DA's/CPs.

IP topic-specific thoughts

I've judged 9 debates on this topic. It involves a lot of legal jargon and background knowledge, so make sure to explain--especially the aff internal link chain if you're reading stuff like SDO's.

No real topic disad is sad but I think patents good/bad will be pretty core of the topic and Ban IP is definitely viable.

The K links this year seem pretty decent--there's definitely kritiks of property/commodification you can find

I am a parent judge, and have been judging LD for 2 years now.

DO NOT SPEAK FAST. If you speak fast I will dock points off. You should speak clearly, concisely, and make your words understandable to me.

Be respectful to your opponent, everyone is here to have fun. Do not try to post round me or get defensive if you are unhappy with my decision.

What I value most in an LD debate is Cross-Examination. If you can interrogate your opponent well and find holes in their case, or if you can solidify your own case when being questioned is what I see most important in a debate round.

To me debate is about being able defend your own case whilst also taking down your opponent's case, if I see you can do this exceptionally well, I will vote for you.

Prefs:

1 - Trad

5/Strike - Phil, Theory, K, Trix, all circuit, progressive, and policy arguments, etc.

Donny Peters

20 years coaching. I have coached at Damien High School, Cal State Fullerton, Illinois State University, Ball State University, Wayne State University and West Virginia University. Most of my experience is in policy but I have also coached successful LD and PF teams.

After reading over paradigms for my entire adult life, I am not sure how helpful they really are. They seem to be mostly a chance to rant, a coping mechanism, a way to get debaters not to pref them and some who generally try but usually fail to explain how they judge debates. Regardless, my preferences are below, but feel free to ask me before the round if you have any questions.

Short paradigm. I am familiar with most arguments in debate. I am willing to listen to your argument. If it an argument that challenges the parameters and scope of debate, I am open to the argument. Just be sure to justify it. Other than that, try to be friendly and don't cheat.

Policy

For Water Protection: I am no longer coaching policy full time so I haven't done the type of topic research that I have in the past. I have worked on a few files and have judges a few debates but I do not have the kind of topic knowledge something engaged in coaching typically does.

For CJR: New Trier is my first official tournament judging this season, but I have done a ton of work on the topic, judged practice debates etc.

Evidence: This is an evidence based activity. I put great effort to listening, reading and understanding your evidence. If you have poor evidence, under highlight or misrepresent your evidence (intentional or unintentional) it makes it difficult for me to evaluate your arguments. Those who have solid evidence, are able to explain their evidence in a persuasive matter tend to get higher speaker points, win more rounds etc.

Overall: Debate how you like (with some constraints below). I will work hard to make the best decision I am capable of. Make debates clear for me, put significant effort in the final 2 rebuttals on the arguments you want me to evaluate and give me an approach to how I should evaluate the round.

Nontraditional Affs : I tend to enjoy reading the literature base for most nontraditional affirmatives. I'm not completely sold on the pedagogical value of these arguments at the high school level. I do believe that aff should have a stable stasis point in the direction of the resolution. The more persuasive affs tend to have a personal relationship with the arguments in the round and have an ability to apply their method and theory to personal experience.

Framework: I do appreciate the necessity of this argument. I am more persuaded by topical version arguments than the aff has no place in the debate. If there is no TVA then the aff need to win a strong justification for why their aff is necessary for the debate community. The affirmative cannot simply say that the TVA doesn't solve. Rather there can be no debate to be had with the TVA. Fairness in the abstract is an impact but not a persuasive one. The neg need to win specific reasons how the aff is unfair and and how that impacts the competitiveness and pedagogical value of debate. Agonism, decision making and education may be persuasive impacts if correctly done.

Counter plans: I attempt to be as impartial as I can concerning counterplan theory. I don’t exclude any CP’s on face. I do understand the necessity for affirmatives to go for theory on abusive counterplans or strategically when they do not have any other offense. Don’t hesitate to go for consult cp’s bad, process cps bad, condo, etc. For theory, in particular conditionality, the aff should provide an interpretation that protects the aff without over limiting the neg.

DA's : who doesn't love a good DA? I do not automatically give the neg a risk of the DA. Not really sure there is much else to say.

Kritiks- Although I enjoy a good K debate, good K debates at the high school level are hard to come by. Make sure you know your argument and have specific applications to the affirmative. My academic interests involve studying Foucault Lacan, Derrida, Deleuze, , etc. So I am rather familiar with the literature. Just because I know the literature does not mean I am going to interpret your argument for you.

Overall, The key to get my ballot is to make sure its clear in the 2NR/2AR the arguments you want me to vote for and impact them out. That may seem simple, but many teams leave it up to the judge to determine how to prioritize and evaluate arguments.

For LD

Loyola: I have done significant research on the topic and I have judged a number of rounds for camps.

Debate how your choose. I have judged plenty of LD debates over the years and I am familiar with contemporary practices. I am open to the version of debate you choose to engage, but you should justify it, especially if your opponent provides a competing view of debate. For argument specifics please read the Policy info. anything else, I am happy to answer before your debate.

Before we begin

Debate is hard, treat yourself kindly. If you are a debater: Have you had water today? Have you eaten? Take care of yourself and those around you. Good luck, you are going to do great! Remember that debate can be fun, and that you are powerful for choosing to speak a world into being. If you are a coach/debate adult: Treat the debaters you judge, coach, and prep against with kindness and respect. They are not you, and that's a good thing. Your callousness is contagious.

Debate means a lot of different things to a lot of different people, and that's okay. Don't be ashamed about caring a lot. Don't be ashamed about not really caring at all. I hold my profound appreciation of debate in one hand, and my deep frustration toward it in the other. I hold my role as an educator in one part of my heart, and my role as an adjudicator in the other.

If you are ever in a position where you face an argument that you have no idea to answer and the round doesn't feel worth debating, you can forfit the round and we can talk about effective strategies for answering it and I will give you helpful cards and suggestions. I would give you a 28.9 and the winning debaters a 29.5. I would make both teams give a speech at the end of the round and we can use it as an opportunity for individual guided learning.

The Basics

Hi! I debated at SUNY Binghamton and was a semi and quarter finalist at the CEDA National tournament, and won the West Point Tournament. I also debated for Brooklyn Tech, and got some bids. I use they/them pronouns. If you have any questions email me at hpicall1@binghamton.edu and I am happy to answer them! This also works for rounds.

I am what you say I am, I will do what you tell me to do. Explain to me what I should care about and how I should evaluate it. Debate rounds can look like a lot of things, and I am down for all of it. If you make it feel worth it, I will do work for you. Being persuasive, creative, or captivating are all ways to make me give an extra glance at what you are saying. Do something cool! Or don't. I will listen either way.

I don't like the delineation between tech and truth. Tech is truth, insofar as the tecnhe of this activity shapes the parameters of what constitutes truth in the context of the specific round you are in. But if you convince me that what you have to say outweighs whatever argument you dropped, then you will win. I am a very flow centric judge, but the optics and social dynamics of what is happening texture my flow and my willingness to prioritize certain arguments over others. After all, the flow is a written recollection of what happened in the room. But I was in the room, and what happened can make me view my flow with suspicion.

Be good or be good at it. If you want to do something crazy, go for it. But be prepared to do it well. I respect anyone who wants to think outside the box, but you have to explain why the box is bad and why it's good that you aren't in it. Whether or not you do it well, you will have my undying love and support !!!! <3 But not necessarily my ballot. That being said, please email me or bug me after round/in the hallway about ways to improve. For those who dare to think otherwise, I want to see you grow.

Debate is an oratory activity!!! I try my hardest to flow solely based on what I hear, and am very willing to "clear" you. If I have to spend my time chasing where you are on the document I will be sad and probably give up, which will lower your speaks and mean my RFD may frustrate you. Also, I care much more about well warrented analytics and historical analysis than a super fire card.

I think "US Hegemony good" is a more disgusting argument than "death good". I will vote on either. What does this say about me? Who's to say.

I reserve the right to intervene in the round if it is made unsafe due to bigotry. If there is anything that I can do to help facilitate a safe space, I am happy to do so. That being said, I take claims about "safety" in round very seriously. The only argument that I will be transparent about apriori not voting on is "well if what we did made you unsafe, why don't you call tabroom". Tabroom isn't in the room, I am. If the team claiming that certain behavior is unsafe decides to debate it out, I will assume that my ballot then becomes a referendum on the permissibility of certain behaviors in debate. I am fine with that, I think those debates are important to have, but if you want to stop the round you have to explicitly say "can we stop the round, I do not feel safe in this environment" and then we will proceed from there. Questions of what the ballot entails could then come after.

Who I am

If you want to learn more about what I think about debate and have some time to read, I’ll put stuff here. This is for if you are bored looking through paradigms or you think I'm neat in which case I'm flattered !

I am an educator who is currently getting certified to teach english in the DOE, but studied philosophy in undergrad. Much of my experience in debate outside of competing is volunteering at local programs and tournaments. This means, for me, the reason why debate is important is its ability to spread important political education to as many people as possible and from as many backgrounds as possible. Debate is a game, but one with the capacity for intense transformation and trauma due to the social implications that undergird every aspect of the activity. If there are ever questions of accessibility in rounds I am more than happy to help out and make sure debate is as educational and am more than happy to talk with coaches or debaters after rounds to explain my decision and help see small school debate grow.

In debate rounds I did wacky things. No cards on the aff, live music on the neg. I like to talk about the relationship between race, class, and the ways that we construct meaning through semiotic representation. I have been in a lot of different kinds of debate rounds, and it has taught me that there are many different things one can do when the doors close and tab isn't looking. Debate is a game, but it is also a site of creation and expression!

I am a K debater at heart, but in any debate round I am looking for engagement. With the exception of arguments that are actively bigoted (and if you have to ask yourself "would Sonnie think this is bigoted" the answer is probably yes) I will vote on anything. My heart is full of joy but my pen is jaded, connect the two and the world is yours. In high school I debated """"high theory"""", and in college I focused more on arguments relating to the black radical tradition. My favorite rounds are one where different disciplines/school of thoughts interact with each other in interesting and intuitive ways. I enjoy clash rounds and K v K rounds equally.

If you are a K debater at a small school I would be happy to throw some files your way and answer any questions :)

Thoughts on arguments

Plan based aff’s: Remember that the aff is not just a set of moving parts, it is an action that you are trying to prove to me is valuable. The better you explain your affirmative in relation to your impacts and the opponents offense, the better. Case takeouts are very important in my decision calculus.

K Affs: By the end of the round I would like a good idea of what the aff does and how. I like it when K Affs solve things and if yours doesnt it would be smart to have a very robust explanation of your affs relationship to presumption and why you don't have the burden of doing things. Using examples and historical understanding to contextualize your solvency to the world is wonderful. If you do want to break all rules, be prepared to defend it. I am very down to vote on weird things, but you need to win said weird things and prove why that means I vote for you.

K’s: Be clear, both with your scholarship and with how you use it in debate. I will give high speaks to those who are able to articulate kritikal literature in ways that are easy to understand and relevant to the round. Often in the 2nc the K splits up into the framework and plan based flow, and while I am fine with this just tell me where to put my pen.

CP’s: I find very well researched and articulated counterplans to be very fun to watch in action. Advantage CPing out of k affs is baller and not utilized enough, policy teams using their arguments to mess with k teams is innovative and cool.

DA’s: You do you homie. Not really much to say here except going for policy da’s against k affs is a smart strategic move if they defend them.

T: I think T is underutilized against plan based affirmatives. To win T you need to be as specific as possible, highlighting unique moments where the aff utilized the violation to put the negative into an unwinable position that limits the values of the activity. That isn't particularly hard to do given the ways that a lot of policy aff's are written. That being said, go slow and be thorough as I am not caught up on the T lingo/topic jargon.

Theory: Its cool, and I like creative interpretations of theory. Just make sure to send out and not spread your theory analytics too fast so I can understand and flow them. Similar to T, contextualize it to the round as much as possible and apply it to the line by line to explain to me what your opponent can and cannot weigh under your and their interpretation.

Framework: I am making an important distinction between T and FW. T implies the existence of fiat while FW does not (as no part of the resolution implies fiat, but the question of fiat is irrelevant in T debates because it is implied). Most people probably scrolled down just to see my thoughts on FW because this is the Northeast and FW is half of the debates we have here, so I will be more articulate.

• The most common scenario where I vote aff is when the negative has done no work on the case page, as the 2ar gets to stand up and explain how the entire 1ac is a critique of framework and then weigh the entirety of the case against FW, which means their impacts outweigh. The most common scenario where I vote neg is when Framework (and other parallel arguments like "state engagement good" or "roleplaying good") is contextualized to the 1ac and resolves aff offense while still showing that playing the game of policy debate is good and cool.

• While I do not think that fairness is an impact (I see it as an internal link towards other impacts, insofar as participation in an unfair activity discourages people from participating in it and is thus more of an impact magnifier for other impacts) I do think that the most compelling FW impacts are ones based around the question of competitive incentives and clash. Questions I find myself asking in FW rounds are "what is the role of the negative?", "what types of debates are incentived under the aff model, and are those debates more or valuable than plan focused debate?" and "what is the value of bringing this thought into debate?" Kritikal aff's dont neccesarily need to defend a model of debate, but these questions will still linger in my head.
• I see Switch Side Debate and Topical Versions of the Aff very similarly to the way one would view a DA and CP. You have presented an alternative model of debate that avoids the impacts of a DA (limits, ground, etc) while also resolving aff offense. This means the aff conceding SSD or the TVA is not an instant neg ballot if you arent winning any offense against the aff OR why SSD/TVA is better than the affs model (in the same way that in the case where a CP is presented presumption flows aff).

LD Specific

I am relatively new to LD, but don't have the cynicism towards tricks, and theory that many Policy debaters transitioning into LD have. An argument is an argument, and as long as you have a claim, warrant, and impact I will evaluate it. That being said, if you do not contextualize your offense to your opponents offense I won't see why it matters, and the more disingenuous the argument the less work I am willing to do for you. Also, education and clash outweighs is a very persuasive answer to tricks for me. "Even if they win this on the line by line, you should still evaluate X because Y" is something that will make me vote for you even if you concede some smaller phil or tricky argument. Does that make sense?

I will approach phil debates with my background knowledge of having studied analytic philosophy in college. I think they are fun, but I won't know why dropping your small sub-point is an instant win, you still have to do judge instruction and articulate your arguments.

The fact that using personal cellphone numbers has become a disclosure norms is disgusting and wildly inappropriate given debates less than stellar reputation for student-teacher boundaries. There are very few situations I will straight up vote for disclosure on, but it is a good thing to mention when going for other procedurals insofar as it textures other arguments about in-round abuse. All the time and energy you are spending trying to get disclosure is better spent prepping.

Things That Will Get You Good Speaks

- Be cool: I am very down for whatever debate persona you have, and love when debaters are distinct and have a presence in round and will always reward them for that. Feel free to go through the throat, but do it well. I am rarely swayed by "gotchya" moments.

- Be a baudrillard pal not a baudrillard bro: For """""high theory""""" debaters or really anyone articulating abstract theories, you will look so much nicer and get way better speaks by being genuine and helping your opponent understand your arguments than if you are smug and mess with them. The better your opponent is, the more I will allow you to be smug.

- Be tidy: Dawdling, stealing prep, taking long with the email chain, these are all things that make me cringe vaguely. Tighten it up! I want time to decide.

- Don't rely on blocks: debaters who are able to contextualize their arguments to the round in specific ways and can speak of the flow will get better speaks, because it shows that your thoughts are your own or that you have practiced and refined a speech so well that you can do it off the top of your head. This applies more so for rebuttal speeches. It is very easy to tell when you are and are not reading off a block

Shameless plugs

I think about debate more than I would care to admit. Here I write about what the radical potential of debate actually is. Here I write about what debate rounds could look like if we move towards a model that sees conversation as a modality of competition.

I will put my spotify here because I often played music in rounds I debated in so if u wanted to see what my vibes were here u go. https://open.spotify.com/user/calypsocan?si=XMTWgaD3TdOMsDKfL80cHg

I make music sometimes. This is a band I was in in college that was good I think, and if you want to hear my current musical endeavors follow DenpaDollhouse on instagram (the CEDA 2024 champion is also in this band).

Thanks for reading!! Hope u have a nice day/tournament :0

Hi! I'm Abby (she/her). I did 1 year of PF and 3 years of trad LD in high school (Ohio circuit) and now compete in APDA/BP for Princeton.

Pref Sheet Cheat

1. trad

2. policy/phil

3. basic k

4. high theory k/T

5. theory/tricks

General

I keep a rigorous flow and vote off of number and strength of arguments standing at the end of the round.

I will not draw conclusions for you; all that goes on my flow is what you tell me. Generally tech/truth. Feel free to be creative!

Speed: I can handle any speed but probably prefer a 7/10. I think it's a better debate if you don't spread but that won't impact my RFD.

I don't have much experience with super prog debate (Ks, T, tricks, etc), just a general understanding. Counterplans are fine. Try not to make the debate entirely prog.

**Be respectful. I will dock your speaks if you're demeaning or rude to the opponent.**

Round Preferences

Please give OTRs (off-time roadmaps).

If the framework is effectively the same just agree and move on without a fw debate.

The biggest things I'm looking for are warranting, clash, solvency, and weighing. Tell me why your impacts matter and don't just cross-apply you case as a rebuttal. Advance the debate in each speech.

KVIs and weighing in the 2AR as opposed to line by line.

Use abby.poprocki@gmail.com for email chains and let me know if you have any other questions! Have fun!

Parent judge. I’ve judged a decent amount but I’d prefer you not to spread. Please speak normal speed. It would be extremely helpful to define key words and terms at the beginning of your first speeches. Keep track of your own time. Please give me voters and weigh well.

I prefer you running a traditional case. Basic counter plans are probably fine. Feel free to send me your docs, feiluqian@gmail.com.
Good luck.

Experience Level

-I have judged two debate competitions so I would consider myself a slightly above novice judge.

Preferences

- I prefer for debaters to speak in an even tone with minimal jargon. I don't mind technical language if its needed based on the debate topic.

Notes

-I tend to take hand written notes and then add them to tabroom later.

Criteria

-I tend to find knowledge of the overall debate subject most persuasive to me. Additionally, when the debaters are cross examining each other's arguments the debater's ability to defend their reasoning is important.

mrimpel@yahoo.com

I am a parent judge for LD debates.

My email address is psharm9@gmail.com. Add me to your chain.

Do not spread! Please be clear, concise and respectful of your opponent in the debate. Have fun!

Pref List:
1-Trad

5/Strike-K, Phil, Trix, Theory, all circuit arguments, etc

TOC Conflicts 2024: Anika Ganesh, Yesh Rao, Tanya Wei, David Xu, Mason Cheng, Spencer Swickle, Derek Han, Riley Ro

New Updates:

• Feel free to reach out if you have any questions about studying computer science or philosophy in college or if you're interested in computer science research, especially in artificial intelligence or natural language processing!

• Debate is an educational activity, and I feel completely comfortable ignoring arguments that add no value (or negative value) to the activity. Here is my brightline: if you would not feel comfortable extending an argument unless it were completely conceded, you should not read it.Arguments like evaluate the debate after X speech, Zeno's paradox, Meno's Paradox, etc. (at least the way they're read as one-liners) all fall into this category. You have been warned. On the other hand, I would certainly vote on other types of 'tricks' that are interesting and have good warrants (if your argument is carded from a philosophical journal, for instance, it is probably legitimate). If you can execute this kind of a strategy well, I will likely be impressed and reward your speaks.

• I strongly prefer the type of rounds where debaters extemp smart, intuitive arguments, and make high-level strategy decisions about what to do. On the other hand, if your strategy relies on reading mainly off the doc without any original thinking, I am not the judge for you and your speaks will almost certainly be capped. Essentially, your speaks are a function of how strategic your decisions were and how much original thinking you put into the round.

• Check out the Circuit Debater Library wiki for explanations on all of the most common LD arguments!

---

Hey, I'm Zach, and I debated for Scarsdale High School '21 in LD, where I broke at the TOC twice. I now coach LD at Scarsdale and attend Princeton '25, pursuing a major in computer science and minors in philosophy and mathematics.

Email: zachary@siegel.com

I have the most experience judging theory and philosophical framework debates. I have less experience judging policy and K debates, although I will do my best to evaluate all rounds in a non-interventionist manner. I feel fine judging clash debates (e.g. policy v K) but you DO NOT want me in the back of the room if the round comes down to a technical policy debate.

Some musings:

• Arguments must have a claim, warrant, and impact. If I do not understand the warrant of an argument or do not believe it to justify the claim, I will not vote on it. I won't vote on extended arguments if I don't catch them in previous speeches.

• I will attempt to default to the assumptions made by debaters in the round. However, if this seems unclear, on theory, I will default to fairness, education, competing interps, no RVIs, and drop the debater, and on substance, truth testing with presumption and permissibility negating.

• I will not vote on out of round violations that, if contested, provide no clear way to resolve who is correct. That means I will not check the wiki or any other source external to the debate round, and in many cases, I will drop the violation in question if I feel there is no objective way to determine who is correct.

• I will follow the NSDA guide when evaluating evidence ethics concerns. If you want to stake the round on an issue, you may, but know that A. I strongly prefer you debate the concern in round, and B. If you stake the round, win, but I feel the violation is frivolous (e.g. ellipses, brackets that don't change the meaning of the card, etc.), your speaks will be capped.

• I will not vote on argument extensions that logically prevent the opponent from responding by being reliant upon the truth value of the original argument (e.g. extending no neg arguments by saying the neg's responses don't apply because they are neg arguments) because the original argument could only be true if the original argument could take out responses to itself, which is circular.

• Try to have some fun! Debate can become monotonous, and I'm sure everyone would benefit from having a more entertaining round (including your speaks).

Hi, I'm Alison Snider. My daughter does LD, and I am a middle school social studies and debate teacher.

Reminders:

• Please engage with the framework and give voters to the end of the round to post results.
• No spreading. Please speak at a reasonable, flowable pace.
• Extend your contentions and weigh.

Goodluck debaters!

Hello! My name is Yin Thein. I am a judge from Stuyvesant High School.

I am a lay judge.

Regarding the types of arguments, I prefer tech over truth. I will vote for well-constructed arguments with warranted evidence. I prefer quality over quantity of arguments. I do not have experience in evaluating progressive arguments.

A significant factor in my decision is whether the debater weighs and gives voters.

In terms of speed, I do not flow spreading. I prefer slow speed and good enunciation.

I might keep track of time, but I'd prefer if debaters kept track of time themselves.

PLEASE add me to the email chain: yinminthein@yahoo.com

For the tricky goblins competing at Princeton: I do not vote on any "eval after X" arguments

For the tricky goblins competing at Harvard: see above + read DTD or DTA for theory or it has no implication

Email chain: sophia [at] windebate.org with subject line "Tournament Name - Round X: Aff Code vs Neg Code"

Hi! I'm Sophia -- Prospect '24, Penn '28, 3x TOC and won some tournaments/RRs

Relevant links: DebateDrills, Women in Debate, CircuitDebater, my personal CircuitDebaterpage on phil/debating as an independent -- feel free to email if you have any questions about the latter two, especially if you're a small school debater!

Relevant Things

0. Prefs: phil = theory = tricks > policy > K

1. General: I am willing to evaluate any arguments (barring explicit racism/sexism/etc.) but my background doing primarily phil/tricks/theory will probably affect how well I can evaluate them especially if you plan on having dense policy or K debates. Caveat: call-out affs and ad-homs are not real arguments

2. Novices: be nice -- read any kind of argument you'd like but adapt in terms of speed if they ask -- if it's an elim or a bubble then read whatever arguments you want at whatever speed, just don't be rude. Unwarranted aggression is annoying and I will dock speaks for it

4. Theory and phil: read paradigm issues for theory; I do not default and will ignore the shell, similarly, read presumption and permissibility if you are going to trigger it -- will presume the side of least change but I would rather not rely on my defaults. Saying "condo is a voting issue" is not a coherent explanation of what I should do with the shell if you win it

5. Tricks: I ran a fair amount of tricks/frivolous arguments, but I think that most of them lack warrants -- if I don't think that your argument has an articulated warrant in the first speech it's read, I'm open to new responses/not voting on it at all. I would highly prefer "substantive" tricks that are in line with actual literature, e.g., Boltzmann brains, the underdetermination argument, etc.

6. Ks: floating PIKs are incoherent and the emergence of new positions in the 2NR justifies new 2AR theory that I am rather willing to vote on. I am not paradigmatically opposed to non-T affs although I was always on the T-FW side but if you are going for the 1AC/T-FW please weigh between the impact turn and fairness

7. Policy: Judge kick only if the 2NR says so, insert rehighlightings is fine, new 2NR evidence should be directly responsive to 1AR arguments

8. Speaks: I don't evaluate the speaks spike

9. Evidence Ethics: I would highly prefer this to be run as a shell. If needed and I am on a panel, I will use the NSDA rulebook

10. Misc: I have an older paradigm with more thoughts for specifics

11. Cool people who have influenced my debate views: Elmer Yang, Iris Chen, Ava Manaker, Samantha McLoughlin, Zachary Siegel, Max Perin, Daniel Xu, Danielle Dosch, Raffi Piliero, Jack Wareham, Nina Potischman, Varun Bhave, Marshall Bierson, Pacy Yan, and Andrew Garber

I will not flow off your doc. Please do not spread.

While I will not judge based on facts that are not presented in the debate, I do judge arguments against logic and common sense.

If you bring up a fact that may be contested, it is important to have a citation. It is helpful to have some familiarity with the content of the source you are citing, not just its conclusion. Your opponent may probe your knowledge of the source during cross-examination.

A good way to win is to make a strong argument on a point of high impact that your opponent either neglects to counter or counters ineffectively. In rebuttals, it is important to address your opponent's stongest argument head on.

A drop by your opponent may not matter much if the issue dropped was minor or not crucial to their case.

I prefer the concrete to the abstract. The purpose of values and value criteria is to structure your case and make it compelling. Philosphical digression about the meanings of words which does not get to the heart of the resolution is not the best use of your time.

Email: deborah.wus@gmail.com

Conflicts: Pennsbury High School

General:

Be clear, coherent and articulate. I encourage you to take your time both in your speaking and preparation. It is your responsibility that I can understand your words and arguments. One strong argument or rebuttal can be the most persuasive with the right impact. I believe in quality over quantity in all elements of debate (i.e. evidence, warrants, contentions, impacts). Framework debate is how I will weigh impacts. It is not the whole debate for me, but without it, I can’t determine a ballot appropriately. Extinction arguments without plausibility will not be favored over significant impacts with higher probability.

Please introduce yourself by name to me and the other team. Professionalism and respect for one another is paramount. Standing while speaking and maintaining eye contact when appropriate is compelling. Delivery is key, so make sure you are audible with proper volume, pitch and pace.

David Yastremski
Director - Ridge High School
30+ years experience coaching and judging

LD/PF/PARLI
I'm considered a very traditional flow judge within the various competitive debate arenas. I appreciate slightly-higher than conversational rates as a maximum. I will afford you a 'clear' if necessary.

I do expect and reward debate with a clear framework of understanding. I also like direct application of your argument to clear and defined system(s). I don’t believe we exist in a vacuum – there must be context for me to consider and weigh an argument, and I recognize the resolution is created and should be interpreted within a particular context. Therefore, hypothetical worlds must be warranted as reasonable within a pragmatic context developed within the resolution. I appreciate creative, though plausible and non-abusive, House interpretations in Parliamentary rounds.

In LD and PF, all evidence must be clearly tagged and clearly linked to the grounds within your claims. In Parliamentary, examples should be true, contextually-defined, when appropriate, and directly linked to your claims. You can create hypothetical examples or indicate your personal beliefs on an issue; however, if you are unsure what a particular constitutional amendment or Supreme Court decision states, please avoid introducing it. Also, where tag-teaming is permitted, proceed with caution. One or two interjections is fine. More than that diminishes your partner's voice/skill and will be considered in speaker points and, if excessive, the RFD.

Crystallization is key to winning the round. Be sure you allow yourself ample time to establish clear grounds and warrants on all voters. I don’t consider arguments just because they are uttered; you must explain the ‘why’ and the ‘so what’ in order for me to weigh them in my decision, in other words, directly impact them to the framework/standards. I do appreciate clear signposting throughout the round in order to make the necessary links and applications to other arguments, and I will give you more speaker points if you do this effectively. Speaker points are also rewarded for competence, clarity, and camaraderie during the round. In LD and PF, I will not give below a 26 unless you're rude and/or abusive.

Overall, please remember, I may not be as well-read on the resolution as you are. I do not teach at camps; I don’t teach debate in any structured class, nor do I judge as regularly or frequently as others. I will work hard to reach the fairest decision in my capacity. I really enjoy judging rounds where the contestants make a concerted effort to connect with me and my paradigm. I don't enjoy rounds where I or my paradigm is ignored. Thanks for reading this far!! Best of luck in your round.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE:

I have 25+ years experience in Congressional 'Debate' and REALLY enjoy judging/parli'ing great rounds! I evaluate 'student congress' as a debate event; hence, if you are early in the cycle, I am looking for clear affirmative and negative grounds to establish clash and foundation for the remainder of the debate. If you speak later in the cycle, I expect extensions and refutations of what has already been established as significant issues in the debate (beyond just name dropping). I see each contribution on the affirmative and negative sides as extensions of the previous speeches presented; consequently, if there is a significant argument that has not been addressed to by opponents, I expect later speakers to build and expand on it to strengthen it. Likewise, if speakers on the other side do not respond to a significant issue, I will consider it a 'dropped argument' which will only increase the ranking of the student who initially made it, and lower the rankings of students who failed to recognize, respond or refute it; however, it is the duty of questioners to challenge opposing speakers thus reminding the room (including the judges) on significant arguments or issues that have gone unrefuted. In other words, students should flow the entire round and incorporate that information into their speeches and questions. I also highly encourage using the amendment process to make legislation better. Competitors who attempt it, with germane and purposeful language, will be rewarded on my ballot.

Most importantly, enjoy the unique experience of Congressional Debate. There are so many nuances in this event that the speech and debate other events cannot provide. Own and appreciate your opportunity by demonstrating your best effort in respectful dialogue and debate and be your best 'self' in the round. If you do, the rewards will far outweigh the effort.

EVIDENCE: All claims should be sufficiently warranted via credible evidence which ideally include both theoretical and empirical sources. I reward those who consider constitutional, democratic, economic, diplomatic frameworks, including a range of conservative to liberal ideologies, to justify their position which are further substantiated with empirical examples and data. All evidence should be verbally-cited with appropriate source and date. Students should always consider biases and special interests when choosing sources to cite in their speeches. I also encourage students to challenge evidence during refutations or questioning, as time and warrant allows.

PARTICIPATION: I reward participation in all forms: presiding, amending, questioning, flipping, and other forms of engagement that serve a clear purpose to the debate and fluent engagement within the round. One-sided debate indicates we should most likely move on to the next piece of legislation since we are ready to vote; therefore, I encourage students to stand for additional speeches if your competitors are not willing to flip, yet do not wish to move to previous question (as a matter of fact I will highly reward you for 'debating' provided that you are contributing to a meaningful debate of the issues). I expect congressional debaters to remain engaged in the round, no matter what your speaking order, therefore leaving the chamber for extended periods of time is highly discouraged and will be reflected in my final ranking. Arriving late or ending early is disrespectful to the chamber and event. Competitors who appear to bulldoze or disenfranchise others regarding matters of agenda-setting, agenda-amendments, speaking position/sides can also be penalized in ranking. I am not fond of splits before the round as I've seen many students, typically younger folks, coerced into flipping; hence, students should just be ready to debate with what they've prepared. If you are concerned with being dropped, I recommend exploring arguments on both sides of the bill/resolution.

PRESIDING OFFICER: Thank you for being willing to serve the chamber. I look highly upon students who run for PO. If elected, be sure you demonstrate equity and fairness in providing the optimum opportunity for every competitor to demonstrate their skills as a debater and participant in the chamber. I value POs who assert a respectful command and control of the room. Do not allow other competitors to take over without your guidance and appropriate permissions (even during breaks while others may be out of the room). Your procedures of recognizing speakers (including questioning) should be clearly communicated at the top of the round to promote transparency and a respect for all members of the chamber. Mistakes in recency or counting votes happen -- no big deal (just don't make it repetitive). Public spreadsheets are appreciated.

DELIVERY, STYLE and RHETORIC: Good delivery takes the form of an argument and audience-focused presentation style. Authorship/ Sponsorship/ first-negative speeches can be primarily read provided the competitor communicates a well-developed, constructed, and composed foundation of argument. These speeches should be framework and data rich -- and written with a rhetorical prowess that conveys a strong concern and commitment for their advocacy.

After the first speeches, I expect students to extend or refute what has been previously stated - even if offering new arguments. These speeches should be delivered extemporaneously with a nice balance of preparation and spontaneity, demonstrating an ability to adapt your advocacy and reasoning to what has been previously presented. Trivial or generic introductions/closings typically do not get rewarded in my rankings. I would much prefer a short, direct statement of position in the opening and a short, direct final appeal in the closing. Good rhetorical technique and composition in any speech is rewarded.

DECORUM & SUSPENSION OF THE RULES: I highly respect all forms of decorum within the round. I value your demonstration of respect for your colleagues referring to competitors by their titles (senator, representative) and indicated gender identifiers. Avoid deliberate gender-specific language "you guys, ladies and gentlemen" etc. I encourage any suspension of the rules, that are permitted by the tournament, which contribute to more meaningful dialogue, debate, and participation. Motions for a suspension of the rules which reflect a lack of decorum or limit opportunity are discouraged. I also find "I'm sure you can tell me" quite evasive and flippant as an answer.

Hello, my name is Sam Zubler! I was part of the speech and debate team for four years (three in mock congress, one in speech), and this is my sixth year helping to judge tournaments. I have the most experience with Speech, but I got a bit of experience with Debate last year.

Still, please try to limit spreading in debate. Clarity is key. Since spreading can be a bit subjective, I created three basic determinations to make my views very transparent. 1) If you are skipping syllables, you are going too fast. 2) If you are tripping over your words and its not obviously nerves, you are going too fast. 3) If you are gasping/panting for breath between sentences, you are going too fast. Otherwise, as long as you don't get Too technical with your arguments, everything should be fine.

I am a fairly lenient judge, but I do focus a lot on presentation skills due to my speech/congress background. This can include fluidity, but it also covers posture, use of movements, facial expressions, appropriate theatrical accents, and some pronunciation skills. If you are well informed and well rehearsed, you should be fine.

As a heads up, I may get super nitpicky if you are really good. This is for the purpose of being able to rank you, because sometimes the tiniest of mistakes or hesitations can decide your ranking. I want you all to be able to know exactly why you got the rank that you did, because I know that I hated unhelpful comments when I used to compete.

Accommodations: if you need any, tell me. Verbal stutter or slurred voice? Tell me. I will not count such things against you IF you tell me. I can't do anything if I don't know.

Feel free to ask me any questions, ideally before the round starts. I look forward to seeing all the creative arguments and speeches!