I competed in Public Forum and some Interp/Speech at J.P. Taravella High School. Judged my last year before returning to it in late 2022.

Generally, I am a flow judge. I'll plot the arguments, whether they've been successfully turned, refuted, defended, and carried throughout the round and vote on my observations therein. However, I place heavy emphasis on linkage between arguments, impacts, and the topic. If you can weave into your case an argument that systematically demonstrates how the resolution's chain of events leads to an impact, it will be hard to dissuade me, and I find that the line-by-line argumentation defending or refuting that linkage can lead to a wonderful clash/debate.

I've been frustrated by poor judge feedback in the past and I've made it a point to use my flow to point out missed opportunities, places where the argument may be improved, and leaving no room to contest as to why I decided a round. The care I aspire to put into a ballot means I've got to spend some time on it and organize my thoughts, so it's unlikely that I can explain my reason for my decision immediately after the round's end, but I may try :).

Debate was formative for me. I hope it is for you, too. Have a good debate!

- For any round-related correspondence, please utilize the following email address: jasondbarton15@gmail.com.

Background:

- I am an assistant debate coach at Albuquerque Academy in ABQ, New Mexico (mostly coaching CX and LD).

- I recently finished my Ph.D. in philosophy at the University of New Mexico. I specialize in German Idealism, hermeneutic phenomenology, and Lacanian psychoanalysis.

- I debated CX, LD, and PF (though mostly PF) in Dallas, TX and the surrounding areas throughout high school (2011-2014), and I debated on the NPDA/NPTE circuit with Rice University more recently (2015-2019). My partner and I finished second at nationals (NPTE) our senior years. I consider myself to be comfortable with traditional and progressive styles of debate.

- My pronouns are he/him/his.

Crucial Points:

- Please attempt to be as courteous to one another as possible.

- In terms of argumentation, I do not necessarily have a preference for which kinds of arguments you present (e.g., policy affirmatives, DAs, CPs, Ks, Theory, etc.), but I would like them to be thoroughly explained, well-warranted, and impacted out (including weighing/impact calculus) throughout the debate.

- I gravitate towards evaluating framework very highly in the round (e.g., sequencing claims pertaining to competing methodologies). It is very likely that, if you are winning the framework debate, you are ahead in the debate (according to my assessment).

Theory/Topicality:

- I approach theory and topicality by analyzing the interpretation/violation layer first and the standards/voters layer second. If the opposing team wins a "we meet," they have effectively no linked the argument in my judgment (and thus need not even address the standards/voters).

- In assessing the standards/voters layer of the theory/topicality debate, I am looking for (a) extensive comparison between the respective standards of the interpretation and the counter-interpretation with respect to the voters (i.e., internal link analysis) and (b) priority claims in regard to voters (How do the voters interact with one another? Does one ground the possibility of another?).

CPs/Ks:

- On CPs and Ks themselves, I would prefer clearly marked solvency for both positions (I think CP/K solvency is pretty important - especially the question of "how do you solve the aff?" if this is an aspect of your position).

- I would like K links to be specific to the affirmative as opposed to more generic K links ("you use the state/capitalism/etc.") - if that's not the case, I am receptive to "no link" arguments from the affirmative.

- I think framework debates on Ks can be really educational, and I value framework pretty highly when considering which impacts matter in the round. Root cause claims can function as tiebreakers between competing frameworks.

DAs:

- I like DAs with precise/lucid uniqueness stories and specific links to the affirmative.

- I enjoy arguments from the affirmative about how the DA links to the CP. I think some valuable offense can be garnered from these.

Perms:

- I believe perms are a test of competition and not an advocacy, but I'm willing to evaluate the contrary.

- Also, if the perm text doesn't make sense (e.g., "do both" when alt text says "reject aff"), I will consider this argument in relation to the viability of the permutation.

Hello! My name is Neeraj Budhiraja!

I am still new to the world of debate as I am a parent judge.

I request limited or no kritiks, jargons, and counterplans as I don't know a lot about them.

I am an appearance judge also known as a lay one. I will judge on the eloquence of your speech; that means I would like you to slow down a bit and not rush through your speeches.

Thank you! I hope you found this paradigm useful.

If you have any questions; don't refrain from asking me.

email: ebed250@aa.edu

AA '25

tldr: Have fun and learn something! Debate is a game with educational benefits. You win either way because you always learn something :)

You can treat me as a flow judge. I have over four years of experience in New Mexico's local circuit and the national circuit.

Tech > Truth*

*That doesn't mean there aren't bad arguments and good arguments, but a bad argument that is well-articulated and reasoned will probably beat a good argument that is poorly-articulated and reasoned.

My main event is Policy, but I have competed in Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum as well. My familiarity goes something like this: CX > LD > PF

I am good with speed but must be able to understand you.

You needn't take prep when sending out docs or anything to that effect, such as setting up a stand. However, egregiously long times between the end of prep and the start of the next speech will have me wondering if you're stealing prep.

Needless to say, any racist, homophobic, misogynist, or any other personal attacks will result in an auto-loss and low-low speaks.

For November Springboard Capstone

I am familiar with the topic, but that does not mean you should assume I know all the jargon. Erring on the side of caution by explaining or spelling out acronyms and jargon would be wise.

Please do not spread. This is a novice division, and I'm both skeptical that speed will improve the debate and conscious of the risks to having a good debate that come with it.

I understand that the norm in LD, at least in novice divisions, is not to send out speech docs. That is fine, but you should be prepared to share evidence with me if I feel like it is necessary for me to make a decision.

You should have your camera on during the whole round if that is possible. I understand if there are technical barriers, but otherwise I expect to be able to see the competitors.

Stock issues, top case, and impacts take priority. Especially probability. if I don't believe it's likely to happen, the effects don't really matter. If I look like a deer in headlights, you're talking too fast. otherwise, go for it. I won't fill in the blanks, or extend things for you.

Debate is a wonderful activity for reasoned civil discourse; don't be a jerk to your opponents.

I do like to be included on the email chains if that's okay with everyone, at johng518@gmail.com.

With regards to speed, for speeches without any docs to send out or closely follow, just be sure to speak up and enunciate on the tag lines/citation and I should be fine to follow along. For speeches where you'll be adhering closely to a doc you sent me, you're free to go at whatever speed you'd like. Regardless of what speech it is, if I do want you to slow down, I'll either hold up a fist if I'm in your line of sight, or say "clear".

I've always tried to lean on the tabula rasa/clean slate approach to judging, where I don't approach a round with any pre-existing biases about a specific type of argument or format. For example, you won't find anything like "don't run topicality" in one of my paradigms. This gives me more flexibility to really weigh the round based on how well-developed your arguments are and how well you're able to use your evidence. And I do like to sit and read cards during prep time (I'm a paralegal in my day job so I love reading fine print lol)

I don't normally disclose a winner after a round unless I'm judging at a tournament where that is the norm/encouraged/required. As far as general feedback, I'm better in writing, so I usually point people to my ballot for that as well.

LD Debater at West Bend High School in Wisconsin

Email: dakotagunnare@gmail.com

Favorite movie: Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter

TLDR: Run anything you want, I'll listen to everything. Experience in mostly LD, but I'm familiar with PF. If I'm judging policy you're in trouble. Tech > Truth (duh).

Novices

I have infinite patience for novice debate. Everyone starts somewhere, do your best, have fun.

Never give up on refuting an argument. Try to respond to all your opponents points even If you think you don't have anything to say.

General Thoughts

Any speed is fine. I have never seen a debate that is too fast for me.

Tech > Truth. 100%.

Evidence is good. Analysis is also good. Evidence and Analysis <3

Debate is a safe space. Intolerance will not be tolerated. Personal attacks or marginalizing behavior - whether careless or intentional - which are repeated without apology after an objection is raised (by myself or anyone else in the room) may also be grounds for a loss, especially (but not only) if your opponents raise the issue.

I have experience in both super traditional and national circuit debate. I am familiar with most types of arguments, and I am open to anything you want to run. That being said, never assume I know something. Complicated arguments that are explained well are my favorite.

Don't be mean. If there's a large skill gap between debaters, the more experienced debater should not make the round obnoxiously hard.

Please please please give me your path to the ballot in your final speech. I want you to make my decision for me.

I will time your speeches and your prep but please time yourselves as well. Going more than 5 seconds overtime is a pet peeve.

I'll disclose the result and give a verbal RFD unless I'm told not to.

Lincoln Douglas

Your value and value criterion are important (or any other framing/ROTB). If you never bring up framework again after your first speech I will be very sad. Even if you agree on framing, please prove why you solve better under the framing in your final speech.

Not taking place in the real world is what makes LD unique. I'm a huge LD enthusiast and I love very LD philosophical arguments.

I really like cross x. I won't flow it, and it's not a path to the ballot but if you do a good job in cross thats big for your speaks. Connecting back to cross in your speeches is awesome.

I like theory if it means something. Debating about what LD debate is and setting positive educational norms is important. I am fairly opposed to frivolous theory but I'd vote on it if you did a good job. Topicality is fun too!

Counterplans/plans are okay with me. I'll be especially receptive to them if your plantext is specific. I like theory/topicality arguments about counterplans/plans. I don't understand PICS if you can make me understand them I'll be very happy.

I love K's. I prefer topical K's but I'll listen to non-topical K's (especially receptive if you help me understand them). Don't assume I'm familiar with your literature, if I'm really confused I'm less likely to find your path to the ballot. K aff's are awesome. That being said I'm always open to theory about topicality good/K aff bad.

I like dense phil but assume I'm stupid when your explaining it to me.

DA's. I like them but I want them to be well developed. A bunch of blippy DA's makes me unhappy.

Condo - tbh I think condo in LD is bad. It's not an automatic drop, if you do a good job at defending it in round or your opponent does a bad job at explaining why it's bad I'll pick you up on it.

PF

I'm not familiar with PF norms. Please explain things to me.

To be honest I don't really care about presenting a good story. In PF, I like numbers and analysis or good impact calculus under any non cost-benefit analysis framework. Good evidence > narrative.

I'm open to anything weird or out of the box you wan't to run.

I like framework (it's the LD in me). I will not be mad if you don't have one but if there is one I'll weigh under it.

Don't just read me card names for extensions. Explain at least a little bit.

I really like analysis and I dislike buzzwords. When your weighing or clashing ideas I want you to explain it to me with real words. We win on magnitude < Explaining the numbers again.

Weigh in your summary!

Clearly outline your bath to the ballot in your final focus.

I teach math and serve as chair of the math dept at Isidore Newman School in New Orleans. I am a frequent tournament administrator (e.g., LD at Greenhill and Apple Valley, Speech at Glenbrooks, Emory, Stanford, and Berkeley). I retired from coaching high school at the end of the 2017-2018 school year. I coached Policy and LD (as well as most every speech event) for over 25 years on the local and national circuit. In the spring of 2020, we started a Middle School team at Newman and have been coaching on the middle school level since then.

I judge only a handful of rounds each year. I don't know trends and norms nearly as well as I used to when I was coaching high school debate. You will need to explain topic specific abbreviations, acronyms, etc. a little more than you would normally. You will also need to go slower than normal, especially for the first 30 sec of each speech so I can adjust to you.

My philosophy is in three sections. Section 1 applies to both policy and LD. Section 2 is policy-specific. Section 3 is LD-specific.

Section 1: Policy and LD

Speed. Go fast or slow. However, debaters have a tendency to go faster than they are physically capable of going. Regardless of your chosen rate of delivery, it is imperative that you start your first speech at a considerably slower pace than your top speed will be. Judges need time to adjust to a student's pitch, inflection, accent/dialect. I won't read cards after the round to compensate for your lack of clarity, nor will I say "clearer" during your speech. In fact, I will only read cards after the round if there is actual debate on what a specific card may mean. Then, I may read THAT card to assess which debater is correct.

Theory. Theory should not be run for the sake of theory. I overhead another coach at a tournament tell his debaters to "always run theory." This viewpoint sickens me. If there is abuse, argue it. Be prepared to explain WHY your ground is being violated. What reasonable arguments can't be run because of what your opponent did? For example, an aff position that denies you disad or CP ground is only abusive if you are entitled to disad or CP ground. It becomes your burden to explain why you are so entitled. Theory should never be Plan A to win a round unless your opponent's interpretation, framework, or contention-level arguments really do leave you no alternative. I think reasonable people can determine whether the theory position has real merit or is just BS. If I think it's BS, I will give the alleged offender a lot of leeway.

Role of the Ballot. My ballot usually means nothing more than who won the game we were playing while all sitting in the same room. I don't believe I am sending a message to the debate community when I vote, nor do I believe that you are sending a message to the debate community when you speak, when you win, or when you lose. I don't believe that my ballot is a teaching tool even if there's an audience outside of the two debaters. I don't believe my ballot is endorsing a particular philosophy or possible action by some agent implied or explicitly stated in the resolution. Perhaps my ballot is endorsing your strategy if you win my ballot, so I am sending a message to you and your coach by voting for you, but that is about it. If you can persuade me otherwise, you are invited to try. However, if your language or conduct is found to be offensive, I will gladly use my ballot to send a message to you, your coach, and your teammates with a loss and/or fewer speaker points than desired.

Section 2: Policy only (although there are probably things in the LD section below that may interest you)

In general, Affs should defend the resolution and propose action that solves a problem. The Neg should defend the status quo or propose a competitive alternative. HOW debaters choose to do that are up to the debaters to decide. Any team may choose to question the method or framework chosen by the opposing team. Although I have the experience with Affs who read topical plans, I will not reject an Aff team simply because those don't do that.

I think K's need a solid link and a clear, viable, and competitive alt, but I best understand a negative strategy if consisting of counterplans, disads, case args.

Section 3: LD only (if you are an LDer who likes "policy" arguments in LD, you should read the above section}

Kritiks. In the end, whatever position you take still needs to resolve a conflict inherent (or explicitly stated) within the resolution. Aff's MUST affirm the resolution. Neg's MUST negate it. If your advocacy (personal or fiated action by some agent) does not actually advocate one side of the resolution over the other, then you'll probably lose.

Topicality. I really do love a good T debate. A debater will only win a T debate if (1) you read a definition and/or articulate an interpretation of specific words/phrases in the resolution being violated and (2) explain why your interp is better than your opponent's in terms of providing a fair limit - not too broad nor too narrow. I have a strong policy background (former policy debater and long-time policy debate coach). My view of T debates is the same for both.

Presumption. I don't presume aff or neg inherently. I presume the status quo. In some resolutions, it's clear as to who is advocating for change. In that case, I default to holding whoever advocates change in the status quo as having some burden of proof. If neither (or both) is advocating change, then presumption becomes debatable. However, I will work very hard to vote on something other than presumption since it seems like a copout. No debate is truly tied at the end of the game.

Plans vs Whole Res. I leave this up to the debaters to defend or challenge. I am more persuaded by your perspective if it has a resolutional basis. There are some topics where a plan may actually be reasonable/necessary to contextually the topic. And even if the aff doesn't read a plan per se, examples of what it means to affirm are often helpful. Whether it's fair for an aff to have a fiat power over a specific plan is subject to debate. However, "plans bad because this is LD, not policy" is a really bad argument as to why plans are bad in LD.

Hi, my name is Katie. I am a former competitor from both high school and college. I did LD, PF, Congress, and in college: IPDA and TeamIPDA (think Extemp debate). For Speech: Extemp was the name of my game, so I generally know what I'm talking about regarding politics and whatnot. I don't judge terribly often, so be merciful with acronyms, abbreviations, and debate nuance.

SIGNPOST(x1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000)

Please weigh impacts and give voters. Otherwise, I will create my own voters, and you don't want that.

If it is not on the flow, I will not look to it. That being said, I will not extend things for you. If you want it to be important, it needs to be extended all the way through all speeches you give.

I don't adore speed, but I can listen to it and flow it. Be strategic about it.

If it seems a little out of the box as an argument, please break it down for me.

Also, unnecessary yelling is not really something I vibe with. I get it, passion good, but if It's the first round of the day and you make a conscious effort to not give me a headache, I will be much nicer on speaks and ballot comments.

If you want to run theory, either put it in a shell or make sure that you talk about all the important parts of the theory. If it isn't impacted or accompanied by how I should change my vote, it has wasted round time

Background

I debated LD for 4 years, went to NCFL 2 times in LD and NSDA once in LD. I competed in PF for one singular tournament.

LD Specific

I will not vote for disclosure theory unless you have reasoning that is like the best thing I have ever heard. I'm fine with most theory. I don't like K's but I'll vote on them if there are good links and explanation

After flirting with LD and OO early in my freshman year, I fell in love with Extemp. This was in an era when Extemping entailed clipping the newspapers weekly, and creating boxes of "files" that we would haul with us to different debate tournaments.

Although I haven't competed in over 30 years, at least once per month I find myself getting ready to speak to some group despite not having had sufficient prep time. To this day, I reflexively reassure myself in those situations by thinking: I still have more prep time than I did in Extemp. More than anything else I did in high school, Extemp help me the develop skills I rely on to this day.

I am told some folks look at these Paradigms to figure out what a Judge wants to hear. While I generally follow the standard rubric for whatever event I am judging, I do have a soft spot for intellectual risk taking with rigor. The rigor is, of course, the key ingredient. But high school - and especially high school speech and debate - should provide you with a space to explore thrilling and risky ideas.

I am an honest broker