gbn '26 she/her

add me to the email chain please! ecatdebate@gmail.com

flow. it'll help you i promise.

clarity > speed. if i do not understand you, i will say "clear". i would rather you get qualitative arguments across to me rather than mumbling something no one can understand just to "be fast".

don't be afraid to make mistakes or try something new, we've all been in the same exact spot you've been in :)

feel free to ask questions about my decision or about debate in general.

good luck! (try to) have fun!

GBN '26
1N / 2A

Please use speechdrop if the tournament provides one through tabroom. If for some reason, you are unable to, ask me for my email.

Please send documents as a Microsoft Word Doc.
If you are using Google Docs, you can do this by clicking File-->Download-->Microsoft Word (.docx).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Call me Judge.

Be nice. Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc.

Tech > Truth, but that doesn't mean that I evaluate the arguments in a vacuum. If an argument is completely nonfalsifiable, or not even close to truth, my burden for answers it are much lower.

Explain why an argument matters. This means you will have to do the following:

1. ARGUMENT COMPARISON. Explain why your defense is more important than their offense, why your turn outweighs the link, etc. You should contextualize your arguments to what they've read.
2. IMPACT COMPARISON. Explain why your impact outweighs on timeframe, magnitude, or probability. Then, explain why that metric for impact comparison is how I should evaluate the debate.
3. EVIDENCE COMPARISON. People in debate oftentimes don't read very qualified evidence. You should capitalize on that. Also, if their evidence doesn't say exactly what they say it says, you can insert a rehighlighting. If your author is very clear on how your scenario works, use language from the evidence in the 2NR / 2AR.
4. JUDGE INSTRUCTION. You should isolate one or two arguments in your final speeches that I should vote on. Go into depth on why this argument is the one that decides the debate, and why you're winning this. If you are doing all of the above for one or two arguments, you will have a pretty good final rebuttal.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Personal Preferences:

Cross-ex is closed. You are novices. You should be learning about the topic and how to answer questions, as this is an important skill. Having your partner answer for you deprives you of that opportunity.

Inserting rehighlightings is fine. If the card is truly not saying what they say it says, you shouldn't be forced to reread it just because they read bad evidence. However, if you spam inserted rehighlightings that are out of context words, I will give you lower speaks.

Your 2NR should consist of a CP and DA / DA with case defense / K / T. You should have a clear scenario for what the world of the negative looks like throughout your 2NR. If you extend multiple scenarios, you just waste half of your time. Your 2AR should consist of one or two arguments on each offcase, clearly explained with detail, and an extension of one advantage with all of the comparison above.

Argument Preferences:

Disadvantages: Your block should almost always include a couple of smart turns case arguments, which are extended as a case deficit in the 2NR. On aff, you should have some sort of case turns DA. I would prefer that your 2AR includes some kind of offense against the DA, whether it be a link turn, impact turn, or impact comparison from case.

Counterplans: I love counterplans. Make sure to explain how the counterplan solves case. Affs should have answers unique to their aff, because most counterplans are highly generic, which should be leveraged by the aff. If your 2AR against counterplans doesn't contain aff-specific solvency deficits, I am probably not the judge for you.

Kritiks: If you don't understand your kritik, I won't either. You have to explain to me what the kritik means. Don't read a kritik that you don't understand. Don't read 15 "framework disads" that can be summed up by one or two offensive arguments, it's harder to flow and will just end up annoying me.

Topicality: I definitely think this topic is a good one for topicality. It has the potential to be an incredibly expansive and challenging topic, and we probably need more limits on what is topical than we currently have. The burden is mostly on the aff to explain why they are the more educational interpretation of the topic and wouldn't overwhelm novices.

Theory: I'm good for theory, but I think the best vision of theory is as a 2AC time skew. Read frivolous theory arguments.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Misc:

FLOW.

HAVE FUN.

MAKE JOKES. IT WILL BOOST YOUR SPEAKS.

I did 3 years of policy debate at GBN (1999-2002). Currently a social studies teacher at GBN, who has also taught PF/LD. I have coached LD/PF and Speech Impromptu and Extemp. I will need you to slow down and take the time to explain your arguments. Avoid jargon, assume I know nothing about the topic. I'll do my best to make the correct decision, but prefer me at your own risk.

Glenbrook North- he/him

If you are visibly sick, I reserve the right to forfeit you and leave.

If the tournament has the tabroom email docshare set up, you must use that. Otherwise, use spipkin at glenbrook225.org. Please set up the chain at least five minutes before start time. I don't check my email very often when I'm not at tournaments.

I won't vote for death good

If you're taking prep before the other teams speech, it needs to be before they send out the doc. For example, if the aff team wants prep between the 2NC and 1NR, it needs to happen before the 1NR doc gets sent out, so I'd recommend saying you're going to do it before cross-x.

1. Flow and explicitly respond to what the other team says in order. I care a lot about debate being a speaking activity and I would rather not judge you if you disagree. I won't open the speech doc during the debate. I won't look at all the cards after the round, only ones that are needed to resolve something being debated out that are explicitly extended throughout the debate. If I don't have your argument written down on my flow, then you don't get credit for it. As an example, if you read a block of perms, I need to be able to distinguish between the perms in the 2AC to give you credit for them. If you are extending a perm in the 2AR I didn't have written down in the 2AC, I won't vote on it, even if the neg doesn't say this was a new argument. The burden is on you to make sure I am able to flow and understand everything you are saying throughout the debate. If you don't flow (and there are a lot of you out there) you should strike me.

2. Things you can do to improve the likelihood of me understanding you:

a. slow down

b. structure your args using numbers and subpoints

c. explicitly signpost what you are answering and extending

d. alternate analytics and cards

e. use microtags for analytics

f. give me time to flip between flows

g. use emphasis and inflection

3. I think the aff has to be topical.

4. I'm not great at judging the kritik. I'm better at judging kritiks that have links about the outcome of the plan but have an alternative that's a fiated alternative that's incompatible with the world of the plan.

5. You can insert one perm text into the debate. You can insert sections of cards that have been read for reference. You can't insert re-highlightings. I'm not reading parts of cards that were not read in the debate.

6. I flow cross-x but won't guarantee I'll pay attention to questions after cross-x time is up. I also don't think the other team has to indefinitely answer substantive questions once cx time is over.

7.Plans: If you say the plan fiats something in CX, you don't get to say PTIV means something else on T. So for example, if you say "remove judicial exceptions" means the courts, you don't get to say you're not the courts on T. If you say normal means is probably the courts but you're not fiating that, you get to say PTIV but you also risk the neg winning you are Congress for a DA or CP.

8. If your highlighting is incoherent, I'm not going to read unhighlighted parts of the card to figure out what it means.

Put me on the email chain -- rrodebate@gmail.com

General Notes:

• 2024-25 topic -- Haven't judged any/many rounds yet so would prefer if you explain topic specific terms/acronyms used because I'm 99% sure I have no idea what they mean.
• I will tend to follow the speech doc but I only write what I hear. Slow down on analytics please. And please sign-post!!
• Default tech over truth, unless told otherwise in-round.
• Can vote neg on presumption.
• CX is binding if you say it's binding.
• Only saying "they dropped x argument" is not an extension to said argument.
• Clarity > speed (obviously, but some of you...). (Note: I've recently made the transition from flowing on paper to laptop and I am significantly slower, so keep that in mind if you decide to spread analytics).
• Any intentional racist/sexist/homophobic/etc comments = 25, and I will vote you down.
• Feel free to ask me about any arguments pre-round that aren't on my paradigm.

Specific Arguments:

DAs - Specific links/internal links > generic links (if it's still applicable to the AFF it's fine).
Weigh the impacts please.

T - If they don't meet your interpretation explain why I should consider your interp over theirs. Please flesh out your standards.

CPs - CPs should solve enough, have a net benefit, and preferably carded, please. Otherwise I will probably vote on the perm.
Multi-planks are good if you say they're good (and vice versa). PICs/PIKs are good if you say they're good (and vice versa). Delay CPs are good if you say they're good (and vice versa). I think you get the gist.

Ks - Love specific links to the AFF, but Link of Omission is fine if not answered properly. The links should be properly fleshed out by the 2NR.
I'd say at the very least I have a basic (and I mean BASIC) understanding of some common K's (Cap, SetCol, AB, etc). I'm not that great with high theory stuff like Baudrillard but if you really want to read it don't let that discourage you from doing so. That being said, please explain your stuff instead of just using K jargon.
Specific alts > vague alts, but that doesn't mean I won't vote for it. Judge kick is debatable.

Theory - I can vote on theory but I wouldn't recommend going for it unless there is clear in-round abuse. Similar to the T, flesh out the standards and impacts. Two condo is good, Three+ can be sus. New AFFs bad is generally bad argument in my opinion (with the exception of tournaments that have AFF's preffed and rules around that). Can vote on perf-con. Aspec is funny. Disclosure theory -- eh.

K AFFs - Always incorporate all of your AFF throughout the debate. PLEASE be thorough on your solvency mechanisms.
Explain thoroughly how your permutation works when answering a K. Would prefer if you provide a role for the Neg/ a way for the Neg to engage with the AFF if they ask rather than saying "that's not our job." ROJ/ROB flesh out your standards so that I know why I should prefer your interpretation. Would prefer if you explain the jargon you use as much as possible because I may not know the words you're using. Reading a generic advocacy/K AFF that can be used in literally any other resolution is not necessarily my favorite and can be an issue if brought up by the NEG in the T/FW debate. I prefer when K AFFs teams get more creative with their advocacy statement and solvency mechanisms.
For the NEG:
I can vote on T-USFG/FW (preferably with a TVA(s)). The TVA does not have to be perfect. I also value SSD a lot as well, so please read it! Additional note: going for portable skills is a bit of an uphill battle for me, I tend to buy arguments that we won't end up being policy makers after this activity anyways. In general, just explain why your model of debate is better than theirs and you should be good.
I can also vote on CPs that solve and/or DAs/Ks that link.

pasdebate@gmail.com

Maine East ‘20

University of Pittsburgh ‘23

TLDR- Good for clash rounds, okay for K v K rounds, bad for Policy v Policy rounds simply based on lack of experience. I will boost speaker points if you follow @careerparth on TikTok

I took most of this paradigm from Reed Van Schenck:

Career wise, my arguments of preference were more critical (Afropessimism, Settler Colonialism, Capitalism, and the likes). I enjoy judging clash debates, policy vs critical. Traditional policy debaters should take note of my lack of experience in policy v policy debates and rank me low on their judging preferences.

The one thing you should know if you want my ballot is this: If you say something, defend it. I mean this in the fullest sense: Do not disavow arguments that you or your partner make in binding speeches and cross-examination periods, but rather defend them passionately and holistically. If you endorse any strategy, you should not just acknowledge but maintain its implications in all relevant realms of the debate. The quickest way to lose in front of me is to be apprehensive about your own claims.

When in doubt, referring to the judging philosophies of the following folks will do you well: Micah Weese, Reed Van Schenck, Calum Matheson, Alex Holguin, & Alex Reznik

Everything below this line is a proclivity of mine that can be negotiated through debate:

I think that debate is a game with pedagogical and political implications. As such, I see my role as a judge as primarily to determine who won the debate but also to facilitate the debaters' learning. Everything can be an impact if you find a way to weigh it against other impacts, this includes procedural fairness. When my ballot is decided on the impact debate, I tend to vote for whoever better explains the material consequence of their impact. Use examples. Examples can help to elucidate (the lack of) solvency, establish link stories, make comparative arguments, and so many more useful things. They are also helpful for establishing your expertise on the topic. All thing said, at the end of the day, I will adapt to your argument style.

I dislike judges who exclude debaters because of what they decide to read in a debate round, I will NOT do that as long as you don't say anything racist, sexist, etc.

Speaker points are arbitrary. I tend to give higher speaker points to debaters who show a thorough understanding of the arguments they present. I am especially impressed by debaters who efficiently collapse in the final rebuttals. I will boost speaker points if rebuttals are given successfully with prep time remaining and/or off the flow!

Public Forum Debate

The faster you end the debate, the higher your speaks.

I am a flow-centric judge on the condition your arguments are backed with evidence and are logical. My background is in policy debate, but regardless of style, and especially important in PF, I think it's necessary to craft a broad story that connects what the issue is, what your solution is, and why you think you should win the debate.

I like evidence qualification comparisons and "if this, then that" statements when tied together with logical assumptions that can be made. Demonstrating ethos, confidence, and good command of your and your opponent's arguments is also very important in getting my ballot.

I will like listening to you more if you read smart, innovative arguments. Don't be rude, cocky, and/or overly aggressive especially if your debating and arguments can't back up that "talk." Not a good look.

Give an order before your speech

he/him

GBN '26

Just call me Andrew. "Judge" is fine too. Automatic 25 speaks if you decide to call a high schooler "Mr. Yim."

This is unorthodox, but please don't use email chains if I'm in the back of the room. Use Tabroom's built-in share feature or speechdrop.net instead.

Don't be -ist or -phobic.

General Stuff - Always Applicable

Top-level

• Speaks are generally 28.5-29.5, but there are absolutely exceptions.
• Asking me questions after the round is good and strongly encouraged. Monopolizing the time or being rude about it is not. Remember that there are three other people in the room who might have questions themselves!
• Punctuality matters. The 1AC should be sent out before the round starts.
• If you say something silly, I will probably make a face. If you notice that and audibly backtrack, I'll be very impressed and reward you with speaks.
• If anything about this paradigm confuses you or you're curious about my judging preferences, feel free to ask before the round starts!

Impacts

You can go for whatever impacts you want. Pre-fiat, post-fiat, extinction, structural, I don't care. I do care that you explain why your impact is more important than the other team's. A terrible impact with great framing/impact calc will usually beat a great impact with terrible framing/impact calc.

Speaking

• I flow by ear. If I can't understand what you're saying, I'll say "clear." Besides that, go as fast as you want.
• I should probably test this more, but I don't think mumbling makes you very much faster. I think speaking clearly feels a lot slower than it actually is. But I'm not entirely sure.

Clash

Argumentative interaction ("clash") is better than reading blocks straight down. The more you clash, the more likely I am to vote for you.

Good clash involves:

• Answering every argument on a page.
• Explaining why your arguments, warrants, evidence quality, etc. should be preferred over the other side's.
• Contextualizing the blocks you read to this specific debate.

A good sign that you are performing good clash is that you are answering arguments in the same order they were presented. ("Arguments" as in arguments within a page - you can order the flows however you want.)

Flowing is a prerequisite to good clash. If you show me your flow after the round & before I give my decision, I will give you both feedback and speaks!

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

Arguments

• Argumentative innovation and creativity are fun. That can mean whole new affs or off, but it can also mean smaller things like well-thought-out analytics, perms, interpretations, etc. The more fun the round is, the more liberal I'm likely to be with speaks.

Theory

• I think it's underused. Theory is the best answer to a lot of off and should not be ignored.
• "Reject the argument, not the team" is only a new argument if it's new in the 2AR or the other team has a good justification for something being a VI.
• The more specific your theory arguments are, the more likely I am to vote on them.
• If the other team asks for "reasons to reject the team" in cross, you don't have to list reasons to reject the argument. That's their fault for asking a bad question.

Case

• Do whatever you want, I don't really care.
• I think K affs are fine in front of me? We'll see as the season goes on.

T

• You need an interp/CI. You should probably have a card for it.
• Bonus speaks if you get the other team to concede "in means in" in cross.

CPs

• Space out your perms. I'm not going to catch five in a row, and I'm not reading your doc if I miss a perm or an argument that came after them. Reading multiple perms with the same strategic utility is a waste of time.
• Clever perms will be rewarded.

Ks

• The less generic these debates get, the more invested I'll be. 18 minutes of blocks from either side is fundamentally uninteresting. Creative framework interps, specific links/link turns, detailed alt/perm debates, strategic cross-applications, etc. are great ways to convince me to vote for you.

DAs

• You need case defense if you're going for a DA. Case proper, CPs, and DA-turns-case are all fine. If you have zero defense, it'll probably be hard to outweigh the case.

Aspec

• This probably shouldn't get its own section, but it does.
• Hidden aspec probably gets cross-applications and maybe even new arguments. Aspec on its own flow needs to be answered in the 2AC.
• Aspec at its best has both 1NC and 2AC cards. The words "Mandel 17" are never uttered in aspec at its best.

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

Quirks

• I am an unabashed Swifte and ABBA fan. Funny jokes about either will probably get some speaks
• Outside of debate, I also enjoy math and programming. Ditto above, though I'm not sure how many math/programming jokes exist.
• Apologies if I drop a pen in the middle of your speech.

Quotes

• Emina Catic: "don't be afraid to make mistakes or try something new, we've all been in the same exact spot you've been in :)"
• Emma Lee: "please don't read something that you don’t understand at all"
• Ethan Camp: "don’t expect me to vote on dropped severance perms are a voter."
• Faiz Fatehali: "clipping is bad"
• Joe Rozenblat: "Don't make me vote on presumption."
• Kristin Cho: "debate is supposed to be fun, so please don’t make the round terrible to participate in."
• Liana Malishkevich: "novice year is to get used to how debate works. don’t get so upset about losing."
• Liora Kalinovskiy: "we've all said things that we don't understand, this is the time to learn from it"
• Matthew Ciancanelli: "HAVE FUN."
• Mihika Pandit: "theres a difference between being smart and knowing your arguments (being confident) and being rude and derogatory and I will probably make a face if I see you doing the latter"
• Michael Greenstein (formerly): "flow"