Hello, I am Jouseline Alvarez I attend Harrison High School and I quite enjoy the formatting. I debated both my freshman and sophomore year and I am now a senior. Below are my personal opinions and how I look at the round however I will evaluate any argument that has a clear claim, warrant, and impact. Another personal belief is that debate is not a game, but an educational space for people to yes compete but also express themselves. Be respectful if anything and add me to the email chain: jouselinealvarez@gmail.com

Shortcut:

Ks/K Affs/Non-T Affs - 1

Trad - 2

LARP/T - 3/4 **READ THE BREAKDOWN**

Theory - 4 minus

White Phil - 4/5 (Your typical Kant business)

Tricks - nah, strike

Extinction impacts - boring

Ways to make the round good --> good speaks!

1. Clashing with your opponent
2. Having a clear understanding of your case and extending
3. Being clear
4. Time yourself
5. Making the round a little fun and silly

Kritiks: I freaking love Ks etc, I'm more than comfortable evaluating almost any K position as long as the links and alt are well explained. Performance is awesome and probably my favorite form of debate. However, do not just read this because I like it if you don't know your stuff because you might get roasted...

Trad: I prefer trad a lot of styles of debate. If this is what you feel the most comfortable with then go ahead. Although it can get quite boring it might be really fun if debaters use more creative arguments than just the same arguments everyone reads.

Interesting Phil: Complicated stuff Phil is probably something I would not be great at evaluating, and a lot of debaters really don't explain their arguments quite enough for me to feel comfortable voting on this. That being said, I am not an expert in many phil positions, so run these at your own discretion, and thoroughly explain the philosophy, especially if it's dense.

LARP/T: Big fan of the CP-DA game, PICs can be very clever as well. What I do NOT enjoy are long link chains that impact out to util extinction scenarios, especially since util is like kinda racist. BUT, I will evaluate them, just know it's not my favorite thing by far. T is interesting, if there are real warrants for a violation, of course run it and I will evaluate. I'm even somewhat tolerant of clever T shells that aren't frivolous when I'm in a silly goofy mood. But, if you're reading T against a non-T Aff, it's kinda like slapping someone who said they are being slapped. Granted, if the shell is completely dropped, I will evaluate. There's tons of great ways to respond to non-T Affs that I'd be happy to share if you chuck me an email!

Theory: You know when you're reading a shell just to waste time, and so do I, so basic theory shells like disclosure are fine, but once you start getting into frivolous theory shells (or friv th) like shoelace theory, I become less tolerant. While I understand the basics of theory and how it functions on the flow, I do NOT necessarily enjoy hearing rounds that devolve to theory... If there is a real violation then go ahead! I support it fully.

Whitey Phil: I will evaluate any argument I can understand (please pick up on the staleness of this sentence). I had experience hitting these positions, but I never ran them myself, so my understanding is limited. I'm not a fan of a priori knowledge, I don't particularly like evaluating it. I think Kant was racist (probably because he was) and hearing the words of a racist spread throughout debate rounds is not it.

Tricks: Strike me. While I understand and can appreciate how goofy some tricks are, they are uneducational and I will not tolerate them. Additionally, many tricks are ableist or racist, some (if you're lucky) are both! I'll vote for any argument made against them almost immediately, if your opponent reads one please take advantage of the easy W and roast them. If tricks "magically" manage to sneak their way into the round, I will not evaluate them. I won't tank your speaks, but you won't win from them. I say we leave tricks to magicians.

PF:

I'm pretty new to Public Forum (or PoFo, as my West Coast friends like to call it), but I have a lot of experience and success in traditional LD debate, which I've been told has some similarities. I've judged one tournament of middle schoolers, so that's my experience. I suppose to be clear, persuasive, sign post, and give a clear ballot story! Also keep in mind the only PF I have ever judged is middle schoolers.

As a brief underview:

• You get good speaks by being clear and respectful while also demonstrating a clear understanding of what has happened in round
• You will get low speaks and perhaps dropped if you are any type of offensive, I have a low tolerance. Obviously, mistakes are alright we all learn!
• Credits to Charles for the stolen paradigm
• Please email me if you have any questions let’s chat!

Hello, I am a parent judge.

Don't spread. If you insist on it - at least make sure I can actually understand you. I prefer trad - strike me for tricks/dense Phil/ theory/ Kritiks.

In the event that you have me as a judge and you really really can't help but read something not trad, please slow down, I do not want to follow a doc.

Please add me in the chain: bourque_amy@yahoo.com

My cell is 917-494-9645

Please be clear, concise and respectful of your opponent in the debate. Have fun!

Hello! My name is Xiaorui Hang and I am a varsity debater for Lexington High School. I am experienced in Lincoln-Douglas debate. I was born in China and moved to America a few years ago. English is not my first language. You can call me Raymond.

I am one of the best video game player in NA! Feel free to talk to me about videogame :)

Yes I want to be in the email chain: xiaoruihang@gmail.com. Send me the speech doc on time or early.

I believe that disclosure is a good practice. Please send your doc. I will yell clear once then your speaks can take the hit. If I didn't flow it it didn't happen.

Evidence ethics is more important than the debate itself. Do not miscut cards, and do not use sources like Reddit. If your opponent violates evidence ethics in any way, bring it up to me immediately.

As a general note, don't go for too many argument late into the round: collapse and crystalize. Don't make me do the thinking: tell me what to write on my reasons for decision. Give voters and signpost clearly. Also, remember to weigh between layers and in different layers

I have read a lot of arguments so far. I settled on reading Kaff, and I mainly read postmodern Ks on neg

Defaults:

1. Neg win on presumption
2. Condo good, PIC good
3. Theory is drop the argument, no reverse voting issue.
4. Layers: T -> Theory -> K -> Framework -> Substance
5. Debate is good or else you wouldn't participate in it
6. CP's have to be both functionally and definitionally competitive.
7. Do not post-round. You can not change my decision. Feel free to ask me any questions, however.

You can spread (<320 wpm), be as progressive as you want, literally make whatever argument you want in round as long as it doesn't support any -isms. If you do, I will probably instantly drop you with an L 25.

Have fun! Debate is a game after all. Winning and losing don't matter as much as having fun in the game.

I am a student at NYU with 4 years of HS Public Forum experience.

I flow so go whatever speed you want as long as it does not impede clarity. Read whatever arguments as long as they are not sexist, racist, etc.

Guaranteed good speaker points if you:

1. Collapse offense in the back half of the round

2. Weigh

3. Are not rude

Tech > Truth - Any dropped argument is considered true. I will not intervene.

Add me to the email chain: Akhil.khade@gmail.com

General Stuff:

I do not flow crossfire, so if something important happens, bring it up in a speech.

When bringing up a new piece of evidence, just the author and date is fine (you don't need the organization or credentials).

Speaker points are not based on your presentation, they're based on what you add to my flow. If you are excessively rude, I will dock though.

It's silly to go for a turn to an argument that you just read defense to if that defense responds to the turn. Your opponents need just point this out at some point in the round for you to lose that turn.

If there is no weighing, I default to strength of link, meaning I vote for the team who wins their offense most cleanly.

Important: If you do not read a content warning on a sensitive argument and your opponents object in any way, you will be dropped. Sensitive arguments do not just exist within the round and they can affect the people around you so please be considerate of others.

For MS PF'ers: treat me like a lay judge

HS:

General Stuff:

I may ask you to treat me lay if I'm tired (I apologize) but in general, tech judge.

• make email chain pre-round and add me (elamalsakini@gmail.com)
• send case before speech; I don't need docs for other speeches but no spreading (stay within ~225 wpm)
• have cut cards
• you have three-ish minutes to find a card when asked before it's dropped and we move on
• anything you want evaluated in decision should be in speeches
• i'll evaluate Ks + T but be clear/treat it like an argument
• tech > truth (don't use that as an excuse to not warrant/implicate)
• pre-flow before round
• don't be a bad person + have fun

Speaks:

I average somewhere between 28 - 29, but I go higher often enough.

Hi, I am Elizabeth Miani. I am a lay parent judge.

I am fine evaluating whatever you want to present; just do not spread, and if it is progressive, then just explain how I should go about evaluating the argument.

You are best off running a traditional case in front of me as that is what I have experience judging.

BE LOUD AND CLEAR AND SIGNPOST. If you want to run progressive-style arguments, make sure you explain it SLOWLY. For example, if you say, "Impact turn this, cross-apply that," that doesn't tell me what I have to do as a judge, and I will be lost.

The round comes down to clarity. I am not able to properly assess your arguments if you are not clear in your delivery of said arguments.

Give the reason to vote for you!

Please also note I have an accent, but that does not mean I do not understand you perfectly. I do.

Remember, simplicity and clarity will go a long way in winning the round with me as your judge. Good luck!

Fifth-year assistant coach at Ridge High School.

I teach AP Government, Politics, & Economics, Global History, and AP Euro there as well. I will be able to follow any content/current event information you include.

I've coached and judged all major debate topics. I work most closely with our Congressional debate team, but also have experience judging PF, LD, and Parli.

PF: I think it's important for you to remember the goal of the event. Anyone should be able to walk into your round and follow the debate. With that said, I do flow and will try to give tech feedback as well as general commentary. I think some speed is ok in PF, but I think spreading absolutely does not belong.

LD: I am not a former debater myself; I really struggle to follow theory debate, K's, and spreading in general. I've learned a little about it over the past few years, but if you are a tech/theory/spreading team you should probably strike me (just being honest!). For all other levels--I will flow both framework and case and have voted on both. Try to be concrete in connecting your evidence to your claims. I've found that LD debaters can sometimes get carried away with "debater math"...and no, not everything can lead to nuke war. I am partial to probability arguments--I'm a realist at heart :)

Congress: As a teacher of Government & Politics, I really enjoy this event. You should always be roleplaying being an actual representative/senator. What would your constituents think about your speech? Why is your advocacy in their interest? I really like constitutionality arguments--we have a federal system, and sometimes bills being debated are directly in violation of those principles. Feel free to cite those Supreme Court cases all day. I think any well-prepared Congress competitor should be ready to flip at any point, and I look very favorably on whomever can save us from multiple Affs/Negs in a row. As you get later into the round, I will be highly critical if you are just repeating points from previous speeches. I want to see crystal/ref speeches later on--as do your fellow competitors, I'd presume.

add me to the email chain: joydebatecx@gmail.com

Email should be titled with tournament name and the team names.

I did policy debate for about 2.5 years, and right now, I am doing LD.

Open cx is fine with me.

I'll try not to insert any bias, so pretend that I'm a child and explain everything to me, tell me what I should weigh.

Know your evidence, strong analytics that tell the story of your evidence > evidence dumping.

I'm fine with speed just make sure you are clear. If you are spreading really fast I usually won't flow authors so when extending refer to the argument.

Now for the sides

Aff:

Don't ever ever drop your case. In any way shape or form. Unless you're running theory and you can explain to me the reason why you're doing that. The 2A should have line-by-line at least on the case if nothing else. The 1AR should be focused on what the neg pushed in the neg block; if they dropped it in the block, I don't think you need to spend time on it (make sure you say neg drop).

NEG:

I find that running 6+ OFFs doesn't really do anything for debate. Have a productive debate. Make sure that the link is unique and that you're offs are actually something that will happen. There needs to be an internal link chain; a story. How do we get from point A to Z. Don't pull out impacts from anywhere. I need a chain of events as to how we get to the impacts.

Arguments

DA:

Again give me a link story. Need a unique link to aff, generic links are boring but it is what it is. Aff shouldn't drop the DA, willing to evaluate "link is non unique so we don't cause impacts"

Hi, I'm Samantha (Sami)! I'm a senior at Harrison. I debated my freshman, sophomore, and a little bit of junior year. I primarily read critical literature and enjoyed performance :)

add me to the email chain please: harrison.debate.team@gmail.com

Shortcut:

K/Performance/Non-T - 1

T/Theory - 2

Policy - 3

Phil - 4

High Theory - 5

Tricks - 5

Things to keep in mind

***I won't hack for anything I mention I like or hack against something I don't like, I just put my preference below

good speeches start with an overview! tell me what the big picture is and how I should be evaluating the round

you can probably go top speed but you need to send a speech doc if u have analytics - I'm okay at flowing

I will vote on an ivi on in-round performance if warranted + implicated to DTD & not handled properly

I don't think rob's r self-serving & arbitrary :(

explain the abuse story if you run theory

I generally would not like to see a phil debate

I will vote on almost anything if it is won (with the exception of anything sexist, racist, etc.) That means you have to explain the implication of the argument, whether it is conceded or not.

tech > truth

extensions need the card name/claim, warrant, and impact.

pls do the work for me and I'll wanna vote for u!!

signpost,weigh, and give judge instruction!

If you have any questions of course email me or ask me before the round

make the round chill, easy for me to evaluate, and have fun & I'll boost ur speaks!

Hello! My name is Oliver Schenk and I am a current senior at Harrison High School in New York

I was in the traditional debate club at Bernard High School for a year before transferring to Harrison. I am not currently an active team member, but I'm so happy to judge an activity that I love so much!

I first and foremost look to debaters' speaking ability. Even if your argument is correct, I want to hear it presented using Ethos, pathos, and logos!

I want to see a good clash of argumentation with good weighing, and voting issues at the end. I'm not super familiar with the topic, so please overexplain your arguments. I'm also not that familiar with circuit debate jargon, so please don't read progressive arguments, or spread (I hate this!!).

Please be nice to each other and have FUN debating!!!

P.S. I do not plan on disclosing

Hi! I’m Nicole, and I’m a 3rd year LD debater at Lexington High School. My pronouns are they/them. You can call me Asa if you want to(AH-Suh), but best if one of y'all actually knows me personally or else it's. slightly. cringe (also no debater has ever pronounced it right so seriously reconsider), you can call me Nicole, you can give me non-derogatory nicknames, you don't need to refer to me as Judge in round or out round - I don't care what you call me and you can do whatever you want <3

For any questions you have, feel free to ask me pre-round.

Debate wise I am most influenced by Devane Murphy, Sai Karavadi, Joshua Adegoke, and most definitely and importantly, my lovely coaches Sheryl Kaczmarek and Janet Novack.

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.

My email: nwang0651@gmail.com for email chains, but seriously, whatever you do please do it quickly, just save me some time. You should always give me your speech docs.

The email chain should be formatted as the following:

Natcir:

Subject: Tournament Name Round Year # Flight x # --- AFF [Team Code] vs NEG [Team Code]

Name of document: Tournament name round flight - side [Team Code]

Locals (except Needham bc flights exist - also except Big Lex but Big Lex is NOT a local):

Subject: Tournament Name Round Year --- AFF [Team Code] vs NEG [Team Code]

Name of document: Tournament name round - side [Team Code]

Novice LD / General:

Overview and general judging philosophy:

For MSDL, please scroll down to the MSDL NLD section after reading this.

(I know, it’s really long, but please carefully read through it (at least skim), it's the two minutes you spare now that might end up giving you my ballot, I also realized this is not novice enough since it expects you to know that you should weigh, you should properly extend, signpost, collapse, organize your speeches and know how to properly utilize cx... blah blah blah. Just reference this if you're a novice - this is my friend Ting's novice paradigm and it really says everything you know in much more concise language because I can talk for hour on this - and you can see the length of my paradigm, I really have a lot to say about debate - reading Ting's paradigm is enough if you find nothing on mine makes sense and your varsities haven't taught you what stuff here means, but if the things on Ting's paradigm makes perfect sense to you and seem basic enough that you want to see my preference, please read mine. Actually how about let's just read both if you have time, perm do both sounds awesome):

Arguments need proper extension and comparative weighing to be voted on. Be clear during speeches and despite I can take really fast speed, clarity>speed at all times. I will not vote on anything that's not physically on my flow (yes I take notes in cx and cross is always binding), and I can definitely flow you, but I might not be able to flow the combo of you + mumble + echo + distance + whatever else you got there (debaters never fail to surprise me), if you'reunclear (even after I clear you 20 times), and you lose the round because I missed stuff, I will not take "oh I swear I said it tho here here there there" when I look at my flow front and back and it's simply like, not there. Instead of explaining all this again, I'm probably just going to look at you likethis, pretend you don't exist then quietly walk off before you start yelling at me, and somebody's speaks will likely suffer. (theoretically should NOT happen in locals because I rarely miss non-spreaded arguments but you never know)

I'm very expressive, if you see me looking up frustrated/confused/paused flowing an argument, that likely means I didn't understand, so you should explain again closely and more clearly! Please signpost and provide roadmaps, so I can better organize my flow and make sure things go where they're supposed to be (Flowing your offenses and defenses where they're supposed to go will really help you).

An argument needs to have extended warrants to be voted on. Concession doesn't mean blippy or no extension, please still properly extend and explain. Extend warrants, not card cite, and not labels. I need the warrant in order to vote on the argument and "extending the whole aff now move on to lbl" is nowhere near sufficient, "extend the turn now lbl on other stuff" is also not sufficient because I need the warrants for the turn. Suffering risks >Extinction is persuasive and I enjoy those debates. IVIs need warrants and impacts to be voted on or it is not complete (unless the offense is so bad I will directly drop them). Also, please have clear clash. A round where there's zero clash force me to essentially embody this. I will be very sad if there's no clash.

Your last rebuttal should write my ballot for me. Tell me exactly why you win, on what argument, why that argument matters, why your opponent should not win and why their response on your argument in wrong - etc. Properly collapse, line by line and weigh. Even if you feel like you have won fw, weigh under both fws and tell me why either way you win.

I do my best to be tab and I am most 100% tech>truth(unless you are going to tell me something blatantly anti-history or infuriating i.e. slavery/colonialism/WWI&WWII never happened) If the clash is such a wash and there is literally nothing else I can evaluate, I WILL GO FOR TRUTH. However, NEVER RELY ON ME TO INTERVENE. I heavily dislike doing extra work for either side, and intervention is the one way to get the judge tired, annoyed and both debaters upset, so please just do not force me to do that. I also will read through your actual evidence and I suggest you do so to your opponents as well, because despite I dislike satire sources to the biggest extent, I'm forced to buy an argument purely backed up by a satire article before someone calls it out.

Please be nice and respectful to each other and understand ANY isms that I catch(by which I feel extremely uncomfortable and noticed) will immediately (without any hesitation) make me furious and result in a drop with the lowest speaks I can possibly give, and I expect the opposing team to hold them accountable in the very next speech/cross (+speaks if you do!). IF I am having suspicions and got an ick but I'm not sure, I will likely stare at you like this. (that's my signal for you to start properly explaining yourself and I'm considering whether I should drop you) I refuse to pretend it has never happened, and will probably question/call out in my rfd.

Read this article. After reading that article, you should feel compelled to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Though at this point it should go without saying, I will make myself clear once more: I have a zero-tolerance policy for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and all other forms of bigotry, prejudice, hatred, and intolerance. You are smart enough to find impacts for the most esoteric and outlandish of arguments, I am certain you are aware of the impact of your words and actions on other people. Simply put: respect each other. We are all here to learn and grow together.

Do not misgender people.Do not misgender your opponent, do not misgender me. If you did, please apologize and do not do it again. Don't read my VLD paradigm and decide that if you have a good enough reason you can swear. You have zero reasons to swear. Profanity is not allowed and your speaks will suffer. Don't attack your opponent personally - ad homs result in nuked speaks and me being upset for the rest of the day.

Debate should be a safe space for everyone, so feel free to either ask questions or communicate with me before or after round/any time in the tournament, or email me at any time if you want help(I really will send you my files). Do what you're best at and most importantly, have fun debating!!

What I like:

• close line by lining
• judge instructions and overviews
• off-time roadmaps
• lots of weighing
• close interaction with link chains
• lots of turns and nuqs
• clear signposting (please tell me where you are on the flow...... please)
• good FW debates where direct warrants are clashed and line-by-lined
• CX pressing on links
• cross-applying offense
• carded blocks
• good perms make me smile
• Collapses and clean ballot stories
• organized speeches

What I dislike:

• making arguments in cx
• no warrant (it's my initial but NO)
• new arguments in 2N and 2A
• jumping across flows back and forth
• no signposting
• extremely unclear case reading in an attempt to be fast
• extreme aggression in cx (I like heavy cross but no need to be a jerk - I can tell if someone's pressing on link chains and if someone is just plainly being rude trust me)
• bad citations (or NO citations)
• blippy responses
• y'all, plain repetition is not a good extension. A four-minute 2N followed by a greatest hits album where you repeat your favorite arguments twice word by word might not get you the ballot, but good weighing and explanation with cross-application and engagement with framing most certainly will!
• If you are reading multiple offs, or even just contentions, OH. MY. GOD. Don't jump around and have random three lines of DA work in the middle of your CP lbl it kills me when you get flows messy please don't I am begging!
• lying. If you say your opponent dropped something when they put 5 turns four NUQs 3 cards two analytics and one overview over it, I will not moot their offense, and speaks will be bonked. Also to the other team, please call them out.
• Using jargon when you don't understand them - even if you do, still explain your argument because what you think something means might not be what I default to in my head.

*(other misc things at the very bottom - consider reading them plz.)

Novice Speaks

speaks start at 28, usually highest around 29.5 and lowest around 26, and this is the approximate scale I use:

Delivery (clarity, stable speed, tone, emphasis, word economy): +1/-1

Line by line: +1/-1

Weighing: +1/-1

Cross: +0.5/-0.5

If you make the debate frustrating to judge (to an extent): -1.5

Isms: lowest speaks possible +L

Funny/creative: +0.2 (if the argument is successful +0.5)

Ethos (esp in K debate): +1/-1

Points are influenced by a variety of factors, including, but not limited to: Communication skills, speaking clarity, road-mapping, obnoxiousness, disrespectfulness, theft of prep time, quality of and sufficient participation in 2 cross-examinations and 2 speeches, the quality of the debate, the clarity of your arguments, the sophistication of your strategy, and your execution.

Update after Princeton: I find myself extremely generous with speaks when the round is a safe and friendly space and both debaters are very respectful to me and each other - this will change as time goes on and y'all grow more throughout the year - but as long as you don't really really get on my nerves your speaks shouldn't drop below a 28.

Update regarding novice frameworks:

I realized I needed this section. Sigh. I also realized I got slightly aggressive when I was writing this, so I apologize beforehand. When I say I dislike util, SV, and the way they're articulated, I really mean that I equally dislike traditional frameworks altogether (more like traditional debate altogether), so read anything you like because at that point I really have no thoughts or preferences. (FWs I do love: TFW & KFW <333 but you shouldn't be reading them in novice!!!!!!)

General Util & SV rant:

As the way I was taught and lectured by Jacob Nails (I'm not influenced by him at all debate wise but I took this one in), I don't really believe SV is a real framework*, more like the extreme under-warranted version of Rawls. However, as much as I dislike it, I would vote on SV like normal, just like how I absolutely despise util yet still vote on it.

*: most MSDL frameworks like "liberty", "freedom", "government legitimacy" are not real fws. They're way more fake than sv and calling them moral frameworks are a massive stretch. Whatever - if you win it I weigh it.

I find most weighing under SV that I've heard weak and not the most persuasive argument they could've made. Cyclicality and temporality warrants are very good and underused (I've somehow never seen them used and it confuzzles me), and extremely strategic against extinction arguments (you can ask me for those cards and analytics after the round!). Even under pain and pleasure weighing SV can make winning arguments that I just rarely hear debaters make, because of the misconception that pain & pleasure matter automatically = util and extinction, which is untrue.

On the util side, hedonic theory can prioritize minorities as well, and majority util, extinction o/w are all separate arguments you have to step by step justify for me.

I do not like Commisky 94 as a card. Just read Blum, I'm so serious - I think Hedonic util is a much smarter position and also much less problematic.

Here is the standard util syllogism justification in my head:

pain & pleasure (Blum 18) ---> hedonism ---> majority util ---> extinction outweighs

NOT (trust me I've seen this way too many times and every time I end up like this):

pain & pleasure (Blum 18) ---> YAY I WON FRAMING!!!!!!!!!!!

Pain and pleasure matter, so? Maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain, theoretically, ten people each breaking a fingernail doesn't outweigh one person breaking 30 bones, right? Now put this in an SV and util context, in a debate context. Ten people living perfectly happy doesn't outweigh one person living in torture (which is why util does not justify slavery). You still have to justify the rest, because hedonism and util are not the same on my book.

On this note, I find util warrants against minority arguments often problematic and violent, such as:

"prefer aff bc neg causes extinction," (good!) "and minorities would all die under extinction, DONE!" (erm!!!!) AND people leave it here with no more engagement, no lbl, no telling me why the other side doesn't do anything for minorities, or neg don't solve, or anything else, I find that extremely unpersuasive and upsetting. You're telling me that letting minorities survive now is a privilege? Are you telling me that there's a binary between the needs of majorities and minorities, and in that case minorities suffering in the squo is tolerable as long as they don't die? I know what you originally meant to say, but that's not the way you should've phrased things. In these situations, your speaks cap at a 28.

In this case, If you're unable to prove 100% solvency of extinction (which means you have to win extinction and solvency!) and the other side stands up and does good work on linkchains, extinction and solvency, properly explains to me, that minorities being alive in pain, exclusion, violence, forever ignored and oppressed, extinction rhetorics are the reason this continues in the SQ and any risk they don't solve is a unique reason why I should vote for SV framing, tell me that the extinction rhetoric is threat construction and their solvency being a form of cruel optimism (give me the warrants plz), weigh the timeframe and magnitude, or even go above and beyond with pre-fiat arguments, I'll 20/10 vote for SV.

Also, please do not tell me racial, gender, sexual, and other minorities are not disproportionally harmed and/or even privileged in the squo, this is the one time I will auto truth, it is not. It is infuriating. Ignorance is never bliss. In these situations, your speaks will very likely cap at 26.5.

Novice Kant rant:

I have a feeling 90% of novices reading Kant do not understand what they're reading except "cOnsEQueNceS dOn'T MatTeR" is a great and easy way to cheat out of actually debating substance. If you can't explain your own framework in your later speeches at least somewhat coherently, that gives your opponent lots of leeway and framing advantages. I pulled out the syllogism from my notes - here is the very very basics on how Kant works in my head:

Practical reason --->

1. Everybody is fundamentally equal (everybody has the same capacity for practical reasons) pr binding ---> a. Arbitrary to make moral rules for some but not others - same rules have to apply to everyone ---> b. Anything else means ethics is non-binding if certain ppl/positions don't have to follow rules you can just put yourself in that position --->

2. Principle of noncontradiction (statement true, then can’t be false at the same time) ---> a. If I argue against noncontradiction saying they can be, my own arg. falls apart because that applies to everything ---> 2. Impossible to conceptualize something contradicting at the same time to FW

Conclusion: to be moral under kant, maxens need to pass the test of universalization and see if it’s contradictory.

i.e. if I wanna kill someone, then we need to universalize this maxen ---> I can kill ---> everyone starts killing ---> if contradiction then immoral ---> universalizing my maxen kills my maxen ---> if everyone kills, someone would kill me, so then I can no longer kill ---> maxen fails ---> killing immoral under Kant

You probably want to be able to explain all the above to me coherently without buzzwords, or else my feedback will likely become "read a fw you understand".

Don't read 30 cards and just tell me: hey my opp dropped this one so consequences don't matter vote me!!!! Engage with framing, lbl, tell me consequentialism fails, tell me moral naturalism vs. non-naturalism, tell me what "rational beings can never be treated merely as means to ends; they must always also be treated as ends in themselves" actually means instead of shoving me a quote and calling it a day.

Also, please don't have a deontological framework paired with consequentialist impacts for your own good.

The varsity phil section goes a lot more into my thoughts on reps, but here is a tldr: when you cite Immanuel Kant himself, reps become a significant issue that you cannot no-link out of. Just read Korsgaard, and explain why kantian theory is not homophobic/racist/ableist, I think you'll be fine.

If you are reading the dense version of Kant, i.e. ideal world, performativity, and that stuff, erm, there are a few issues I have with that.

1. You probably didn't write your own cases, which is fine? team cases exist and I get that
2. You will need to actually spread to get through these cases - I've seen them executed and ran something a bit similar. You need to spread to get through framing no matter how short substantive offense is (in my case it was only two cards paired with four minutes of ripstein)

Novices spreading is bad on its own terms because approximately 15% of NatCir varsities actually spread clearly, and approximately 1% of novices can actually spread. Talking faster than conversational pace is not spreading - my threshold is anything above 250 WPM, and I guarantee you novice clarity will go moot at that speed. Please don't. Any attempt to shove dense phil into novice means syllogisms with missing pieces, stretched link chains, incoherent cards, and cards that have been forcibly under-highlighted, which is just sad. I also refuse to fill in the blanks for you - it's the debater's responsibility to explain whatever they're running.

Very important note to novices:

DO NOT, novices SHOULD NEVER adapt to me, this is exactly why I do not tell you what I read on this section of my paradigm, please do what you are good at for the sake of our collective well-being and sanity. I am extremely progressive and technical as a debater, which yes, spills a bit into how I judge as I will smile if you spam perms, turns and DAs to case, but certainly doesn't mean I judge likethis.

In fact, I prefer you do what you do which is perfectly fine than seeing this, this and this when I'm judging novices, I rather listen to some cute larp trad and disads.

Here's a little rant on progressiveness in novice LD.

1. It's going to be bad no matter what. Novices should stay away from progressive stuff at least until February.
2. I'll be frustrated if you butcher my favorite argument in debate, and I will tell you what went wrong rather harshly.
3. because I'm very familiar with it, I will have strong opinions, preferences, and most importantly, a threshold as high as Mount Everest for it. This means as much as I may love it, I also would be more prone to dropping you if things are not articulated nicely.
4. For progressive arguments, I will not lower my threshold for novices, and you should be expected to get judged like how I would judge varsities.
5. It makes judging very upsetting - mindless uplayering is really not fun to judge because there's zero clash!
6. I refuse to vote for non-T affs in the novice division, as much as I love them.
7. So please don't run it, or AT LEAST show me and ask about it before the round starts and I'll tell you my thoughts :)
8. Also none of this is to encourage you not to learn progressive debate, it's just I sincerely believe novices should let things settle a little bit and leave this stuff for next year!

NLD - MSDL/misc novice stuff:

MSDL (except debaters who are prominent in NatCir, the entire lex team and a few others) generally has horrible evidence ethics - varsities are questionable enough, the novices I judged (except for one) not surprisingly have unbelievably bad ev ethics - I'm talking about violating nearly every single NSDA evidence rule there is. For the love of anything, please format your cases nicely and properly cite sources. It's frustrating to see these violations never being called out and even more sad to hear stories about fake evidence , emperics and made-up cards- since MSDL doesn't have a norm of disclosure (in fact, very actively working against disclosure, even results of debates), and parents cannot care less about rules. Also, if somebody else cuts a card and you take it from them, give them credit, esp when the person who cut it is literally asking you whether you took it (and they're not even your teammate). I tag my cards really weirdly so it's seriously funny when debaters try to pretend they cut it themselves, it's a horrible look. Plus, never read evidence somebody else cut without rehighlighting/recutting + reading the article/book and making sure you know this is a piece of ev you understand, can explain and defend. When ev ethics is an issue, I don't care whether you cut the card or not, I will follow my usual procedure of evaluating.

Don't ask me: Can I start prep? Can I take cross ex? Can I do my speech? It's your debate, your choices, your freedom... also I'll get annoyed.

If you don't have a value debate you will get higher speaks. Values have nothing to do with the round.

Whenever I can disclose I will. Not targetted to hurting debaters' feelings, but I really can't give coherent feedback without disclosure, and relying on my memory and energy to write loooooooooooooong feedback in the rfd is just cruel. I want y'all to learn real things, not "oh you should weigh better"(the word better by itself means legitimately nothing) without giving you a nuanced explanation of exactly what you could've done to get the ballot, or "what line would've made it better", "what warrant was missing", "is this argument sufficient", "should I have spent more time on this argument" are all qns the rfd can answer. I can probably rant for three years (and I have been ranting for the past three years) on why I think lay debate is anti-educational, why MSDL actively worsens the current issues with lay debate, why we need to reform the way we think, why we need better judges and judge trainings but let's not go there.

You will not get away with the following ridiculous things I've seen on the MSDL if I'm in the back of the room:

1) under two util fws, losing everything on case, concede aff causes horrible impacts and a random uplayering to deontology (i.e intent) new in the 2AR

2) 2AR dance of utopian fiat and shifting to another planet

3) ethos rebuttals with nothing except slogans

4) "Is this really liberty? Is this really justice? Judge, think for yourself." Is this really a warrant? Is this really an argument? You think for yourself.

5) "magic"

Very important note/yap regarding debate:

Here's an excerpt from the paradigm of my good friend, one of my biggest influence in debate and in many ways my mentor, Micah Byron-Smarra. I agree with every single letter and every single word written here as their thought on debate have always been adjacent if not parallel to mine (we rarely differ), while they are one of the smartest debaters I've seen and known in my life. This excerpt also says a lot about the way I view debate, K debate, accessibility and what we should aim towards as a community.

"I don't think debate is necessarily a game. I think it can be a game and for many people it certainly is, but at the same time for many people debate is a site for activism, a survival strategy, a home-place, and a research activity. It's important that we as a community acknowledge what debate is to different people rather than being dogmatically stuck in our understanding of what debate is or should be. I generally think that the judge should be either an educator, a policymaker, or something somewhere in between. That's not to say I will automatically not consider judge as an adjudicator, just that I believe that judge as an adjudicator is contrary to the pedagogical goals of debate. I am becoming increasingly concerned with the state of our collective debate community. I think the deepening divide between UDL's, local circuits, and the national circuit has become troublingly wide. Even more so, the divide between PF/congress, vs LD/Policy is extremely large. I don't necessarily believe this is simply because we as a community have people who prefer lay debate and policy debate. As someone who did PF for four years it is rather clear to me that a lot of this divide really divides us into which side of the clash of civilizations you fall on. In full transparency, I'm very ideologically invested in critical debate, performance debate, and debate practices that are more inclusive to marginalized groups within the community. That isn't to say everyone who wants strictly plan-focused debate does not believe in this, not in the slightest. I do however think that the urge to be in a debate format that does not have critical arguments is often the urge to not have to confront structural inequities in debate and in the real world. I understand the sentiment that kritiks are not accessible, I really do. But as a small school debater (the only debater from my school) kritiks are really the opposite. They lessen disparities between big and small schools because they have a lower prep burden, not to mention make debate more inclusive. Also, I highly encourage you to read up on the history of college policy debate. I'd recommend watching some old NDT documentaries, in particular the CSTV 2004 NDT documentary which documents the Lousville Project quite well. Linked here:https://youtu.be/Xq_F_hPeSkM?si=uChobSpxCv3v6ZKR. You may find Scott Harris' ballot in the finals of the 2013 NDT very interesting, reading this ballot gave me goosebumps -https://debateus.org/the-best-ballot-ever-scott-harris-ndt-2013-final-round-ballot/+.5 speaker points if you read this and can tell me what the Lousville Project was."

Aside this, I encourage debaters to seek out towards resources - there'speptalk,WIN debate(love),circuitdebater, all being organizations which I've had experience with and enjoyed being a part of. Being informed regarding the history of debate is also a wonderful thing, I recommend every single debater watch and study Devane Murphy and Nicole Nave (now Nicole Murphy)'s rounds (Rutger MN); Reid Brinkley's rounds, Elijah Smith's, Taj and Iyana's, in LD Zion's rounds; or go back in time to the early days to watch some of the first rounds which debaters utilized performance, music, poetry and explored different styles; the history of K debate is fascinating and emotional as you watch generations of debaters navigate strategies of survival inside the debate space, which most can agree, is often an excluding and violent site.

I believe we should feel for each other, recognize we don't ever give our opponents, judges and tab adequate respect and care. Often times we categorize and tag ourselves and each other to fit in, justifying for horrible action done to other person - alienating them from you, saying it's ok if you were being mean in round or purposefully acting rude because they come from x school, is friends with x debater, reads x arguments, doesn't have x amount of bids, because they're not someone you need to care about. We're all at debate tournaments and doing debate for fundamentally similar reasons, and we need to learn how to properly care about each other and be nice.

I do not and will never blindly think that all people in this activity are kind, trustworthy, non-cheaters, good intentioned, or will not do or say anything in the name of competition or malice towards others. Please miss me with having faith in people in an activity that often reveals people engaging in misconduct, exploitation, sexual harrasement, verbal assults, bullying, grooming, or other inappropriate activities that often times NEVER get reported. MANY of you have purposefully created and further perpetuated a culture of toxicity, ablism, elitism, then you are shocked when the chickens come home to roost.

Varsity/JV LD:

TLDR:

Queer Ks, performance - 0

Ks, K affs - 1

Theory - 1.5

T/TFW - 2

High theory, basic phil - 3

larp - 4

Phil (non-basic kant included - think Sophia), Nebel T, Truth Testing (stuff that Scopa's kids read), very complicated dense larp - 5

trix - strike (Don't care if it's theoretical or philosophical - if it can be called a trick it's out the window)

Please don't make me judge a trad round if you have literally anything else to read.

debaters stop stealing prep challenge. level: impossible. ☹

it's sad when your NC/AC looks like mona lisa and NR/AR overview looks like the starry night but then the actual lbl looks like my sketch of my friend's cat. It's obvious, it's pathetic, it's a bad look. Can we have anything genuine? Can we have real argumentation instead of old recycled pre-written blocks with warrants that doesn't even sound responsive to the particular arguments your opponent read?

No, I'm not really a K hack, more like I just don't hack for anything or anyone. I don't care what card is 'supposed' to win a given debate, or who is 'good' and "supposed to win" and "famous" while who isn't, I evaluate off the flow and that's it(except if you want me to talk about my favorite debaters in debate history - I would love to talk about it. In this case I'm referring to who "got an easy pairing" and who "is already done, cooked and screwed" before the round even started. I really, really hate it when debaters come into the round disrespecting their opponent and overlooking them, acting like they've already won and so, especially if their opponents are less experienced, novices or second-years, people who haven't spent thousands of dollars or have more connections, coaches and prep, people from smaller schools. Seriously, be nice, especially when you may have been there as well. Know better.)

"Like many before me I have decided that I am not a fan of cop-out or cheap shot strategies designed to avoid clash and pick up an easy ballot. This means my threshold for an argument that is warranted and implicated is much higher and I feel more comfortable giving an RFD on 'I don't know why x is true per the 2ar/2nr.' If you would like to thoroughly explain why creating objective moral truths is impossible or why disclosing round reports is a good norm then please feel free to do so, but 10 seconds of 'they dropped hidden AFC now vote aff' isn't going to cut it." - Lizzie Su

Overview:

Honestly read whatever you like - just warrant it, make it make sense, don't make it boring, and understand there are things I really am not that great at evaluating. As a debater I mainly read queer theory, performance affs, non T affs, but have lots of experience with theory and T, larped a good chunk and read approximately 3 rounds total of phil (ripstein). Unless you read tricks (strike me), I don't think you need to adapt to me. Yes, I'm a K debater at heart, I'm a K judge, but you shouldn't read something just because I did. Do what you're good at (unless you're good at trix only then strike me).

I would love to vote for the debater that I need to do less work for to determine a ballot -- I need warrants for claims that you make and I think these warrants need to be defended in cx, explained in later speeches, and developed with contextualization, examples, and cross-application -- meaning, you need to make sure you warrant everything because I will feel uncomfortable voting for something I can't explain back to you without intervention. This kinda just means I wanna hear internal links and their warrants, and/or a strong overview defense of your impacts, a clear and strong link chain, that kind of stuff.

I have a rather high threshold for warrants and really need them to make sense - so quality>>>>>quantity (same with thoughts on offs, I really don't believe it's more the better as I've read 7 offs and 1 off K, and there's a reason I stuck with the latter), pls don't read more than 5 offs - at some point spreading through a ton of arguments desperately waiting for something to be dropped and blow up on becomes sad for me because I really wonder if it's still debate anymore.

Also, do not spread through dense analytics if you are not going to give me a doc, especially in theory rounds or K aff v T when every single warrant matters. I promise you I'll miss stuff despite I hate to tell you this, because my handwriting is not as fast as I wish and I can't hear the 5 subpoints you dashed through while I was trying to write for 2 seconds, and I have an audio processing disorder so let's just not.

On the point of spreading, my ears automatically shut off when you go faster than 350 wpm, and for the love of anything meaningful please at least slow down for tags and make clear distinction between tag and card. I rather you slow down and be clear than if you go at 370 wpm and say gibberish because then I can't flow anything. Things I cannot flow will not impact into my decision.

I love link and impact turns (not spark!!!!!!!!! and never read these two against the same argument for your good), perf cons, ivis (make it complete please), etc. — just make them clear and warrant them. Also, misgendering, slurs, impact turning racism, etc. -- those are reasons I will drop you.

Defaults unless you tell me otherwise (NOT a reason for you to not read paradigm issues - you don't read it you don't get offense):

Substantive defaults: comparative world, tech > truth, presume neg unless the neg reads a counter-advocacy (CP/alt), permissibility affirms.

Procedural defaults: competing interps, no RVI's, drop the debater, no reasonability, fairness is an internal link to education.

If something makes no sense to me, I can't vote on it.

non-negotiables:

You MUST take prep time or CX in order to ask questions. I have zero problem with flow clarification when it occurs on your own time and won't penalize you but I will nuke speaks if you are not running a timer when you should.

Safety first. I refuse to vote on "arguments" such as "Truth Testing/Skep takes out misgendering/racism/other objectively morally repugnant things." You can still go for "Truth Testing/Skep takes out this substantive argument (like a K)"* but do not expect me to vote for you if you go for "you can't vote on misgendering because they conceded truth testing." Be a decent human being or else expect an L with the lowest speaks I can give.

In these cases I will go to tab, where tab will tell me to use my own judgment, then I will evaluate as me and not under contrain of the ROB/ROJ and truth testing don't matter.

*truth testing/fw arguments does not take out issues of whether you're racist/homophobic/transphobic/sexist - which also means these qns are a true prior side contraint to stuff like "weigh case extinction o/w vote aff".

Cross-ex is good and is best used as a speech. I am fine with you prepping while asking and answering a question but you cannot say "I'll take the rest of CX as prep."

Arguments I refuse to vote on regardless of how you warrant them.

1] Evaluate the entire debate after (x speech) that is not the 2AR.

2] Ad homs/arguments about a debater/ callouts (if something is genuinely unsafe for you, let me or tab know before round, I will do whatever I can to help out - don't hesitate to talk to me.)

3] Any morally repugnant arg (i.e. saying racism good, saying slurs, self-harm good, etc.) (Heg good and death good do not necessarily cross their barriers but that's up to debate) The debate will end.

4] Shells that dictate what your opponent must do outside the context of a debate round/dress/you get the idea. (Disclosure is something in the round).

5] Give me/my opponent [x] speaks

6] No aff/neg arguments, or any other argument that precludes your opponent from answering based on the truth of the argument. I will not vote on no 2NR I Meets or the like.

7] Arguments that were read in a speech but you say were not in CX or that you do not mention if asked what was read (for instance: if being asked if there are any indep. voters and you do not mention one, that is not a viable collapse anymore)

Prep ends when the doc is saved. Please don't abuse this privilege to take 2 minutes to send a speech document.

Here's the really ranty and long version:

The short version is still under construction because Nicole doesn't know how to not rant when it comes to debate.

PF - General:

I don't know PF well although I do know the basic rules and how things overall work, I've watched a good amount of PF rounds and tried PF a few times for fun. How I evaluate arguments stay adjacent to how I eval LD - please reference the general paradigm. No argument is ever sticky, you don't extend it means you don't get it.

Expect me not to know the topic well - I'll be completely tab.

Warning: Reading Ks and theory in PF rounds = you automatically sign up for me judging them based on how I know they work. Although I know how Ks work very well, that understanding is very likely different from how you know they work. It means reading these arguments at your own risk. I also have no idea how PF Ks work because if con speaks first there's like. no aff to kritik. so where even does your rhetoric links come from, how do you have anywhere enough time to impact things out -- sigh. I'll do my best to evaluate them, I guess. shells also work weird in PF - you know what, how about we just don't.

Speaks

speaks start at 28, usually highest around 29.5 and lowest around 26, and this is the approximate scale I use:

Delivery (clarity, stable speed, tone, emphasis, word economy): +1/-1

Line by line: +1/-1

Weighing: +1/-1

Cross: +0.5/-0.5

If you make the debate frustrating to judge (to an extent): -1.5

Isms: lowest speaks possible +L

Funny/creative: +0.2 (if the argument is successful +0.5)

Ethos (esp in K debate): +1/-1

Points are influenced by a variety of factors, including, but not limited to: Communication skills, speaking clarity, road-mapping, obnoxiousness, disrespectfulness, theft of prep time, quality of and sufficient participation in 2 cross-examinations and 2 speeches, the quality of the debate, the clarity of your arguments, the sophistication of your strategy, and your execution. You can use profanity only if you have a good reason to - i.e certain performance rounds, reclaiming purposes. Aside that, let's just not.

important misc. debate stuff

Questions on strat, certain arguments, and feedback are def ok and I do that a lot (please, in a respectful manner) but post-rounding aggressively and yelling will never, ever change my ballot(I stand by this firmly), it would most certainly only tank your speaks (If I didn't submit my ballot yet). I also surprisingly have a very good memory when it comes to people (especially debate people) so make your best judgment on what is appropriate to do and not!!

I'm good if you want a more chill/relaxed round. Judging and debating are both tiring and I get that, and you can definitely be less uptight with me than with other judges, no need to be all formal up. I'm just someone that, if I happened to judge locals, very likely knows/is friends with your varsities, so get a bit loose and no need to do that lay appeal on me, I will not judge like this. Playing some music in prep if you want to is also very good on my terms.

Flex prep is good, don't need to ask me if you're taking prep, CX is definitely binding but I don't flow it (unless it's a round where I think I'll really need it later - for dense K rounds cx matters and I will flow), disclosure is typically a good norm with certainly many exceptions. (these are procedural defaults - if you need to do something else or argue otherwise feel free)

Ivis need a warrant and an impact - they can't be one liners.

Insert rehighlighting is fine if explained AND it's in the same part of the article/book whatever. If it's a different part of the article, read it. By insert rehiglighting, you must explain in the speech you insert it what you are trying to assert... i.e you must say "X piece of evidence concludes (insert fact) Insert!" You cannot do "X concludes neg. Insert!" The former is evidence comparison. The other is stupidity. Same thing applies to inserting perm texts.

You need to give trigger warnings for explicit mentions of suicide, self-harm, sexual violence, graphic descriptions of violence, anti-queer/gendered/race based violence, slurs(reclaiming purposes), mental health issues, and anything else your conscience think you need a TW for. For the sake of your opponent and for me.

Not giving adequate TWs make ivis very convincing and easy for me to vote on.

Prep Time: Most tournaments have a strict decision time clock, and your unclocked time cuts into decision time. Most of you would generally prefer the judges has the optimal amount of time to decide. Please be efficient. Prep runs until the email is sent. I will be understanding of tech fails, but not as much negligence or incompetence. Dealing with your laptop’s issues, finding your flows, looking for evidence, figuring out how to operate a timer, setting up stands, etc. – i.e. preparation – all come out of prep time. I will let you go most of the times - despite I will probably be a lil annoyed.

If you have disputes regarding my decision, here's how you respectfully post-round:

I actually have a few questions if it's ok for me to ask? (usually I'll say go ahead)

How did you evaluate x argument / how did you evaluate x argument under x framework?

What did you think about x part of the debate (fw, DA, CP...)?

Do you think x argument would've been sufficient?

Should I have spent more/less time on x arguement/x part of the debate?

Would you have understood x argument better if I phrased it this way: xxxxxxx

Would x speech change the ballot if it contained x argument?

If x came earlier in the debate and went properly extended, would that be a sufficient route to the ballot?

Other important misc. debate stuff:

1. I will probably not give you a 30 if you ask for it. Unless you give me 13 reasons why and also did really well, then I'll consider. (novice only - I don't give 30s for varsity)
2. I will not vote on anything that polices what clothing other debaters are wearing — this is not negotiable sorry and yes, that means I will not vote on shoes theory or formal clothing theory — I don't feel comfortable deciding what other people should wear.
3. If you are reading a card with more than one color highlighted in it, please remove the highlights of what you're not reading -- it really messes with me and I have issues processing that -- it's not a huge deal, but it will help me adjudicate better.
4. Evidence ethics is extremely important to me -- just cite stuff and use MyBib if you are unsure how -- lack of citations is a big issue (the minimum is the author name, name of the book/article, where it was published, and when) and so are clipping, etc.
5. If you do an evidence challenge -- I will stop the round, use NSDA rules standards, and vote -- W 30 and L 0
6. Pronouns are super important — misgendering is not cool w/ me, so try your best — I recommend defaulting to “they” anyway -- I will definitely vote on misgendering.
7. If you answer something someone didn't read and skipped, I will not be happy -- you can ask for marked docs tho! -- Be prepared for CX and please flow.
8. Please give me a heads-up if you're gonna read explicit discussions of self-harm or suicide - it's triggering for me. You can read them in front of me but I would really like a warning as early as possible - number/email is the fastest way to reach me during tournaments, and you can find those on my wiki via code Lexington NW. Give me a call or text me - just in case the internet is not working in our favor.
9. Safety, especially in round safety is very important to me, and if there is a genuine safety concern that is preventing you from engaging in the round, I would prefer it be round ending as opposed to a shell - if you are feeling unsafe in a round, please feel free to email, text DM me and I will stop the round, consult my coaches, then intervene in a way that both satisfies your request and is approved by an actual adult's judgment. In the case where I could not reach my coaches within two minutes, I'll consult tab about what I should do.
10. Never hesitate to contact me outside of the round/tournament for more feedback, help, ask qns, and/or anything else you need. If you're going to postround me in my literal inbox, please hesitate.

11. I may look grumpy/apathetic/tired during rounds; I promise it's not usually because of anyone's actions (if it is, I'll be explicit about it after the round), and is more just my face. I deeply appreciate people's commitment to this activity and want to emphasize that I'll do my absolute best to adjudicate. Further, I feel like most of the learning I've had in the activity can be attributed to the comments provided by judges after round. Following that, please know that no amount of questions is too much, and I'm happy to answer any and all of them to make your time in this activity more valuable.

Non-important misc. TMI

1. for locals, yes, Yueling Wang is my mom. Feel free to talk to me about getting judged by her.
2. I will, judging by the day and time, have 1-3 plushies on me. You can borrow one for a round, but you need to give it back to me. I will seriously hunt you down if you do not. You should also NEVER leave a tournament with my plushies!!!!!! I'm really serious about this >:(((
3. Being humerous thoughtfully will likely boost your speaks by a little bit.
4. Do not be late!! I'm not a fan of lateness. Theoretically I should not be late and you shouldn't be late either. Unless you're lost then it's all valid. I cannot promise I won't be lost unless you're speaking of Lexington tournaments. You should never be late for online tournaments.
5. Full list of influences in debate: Hunniya Ahmad, Shruti Narayanabhalta, Ansh Sheth, Brooklynn Hato, Liz Elliot, Lizzie Su, Sumya Paruchuri, Micah Byron-Smarra (these people I know personally and/or lectured me and taught me debate), AJ Persinger, Nae Edwards, Eli T. Louis (and a variety of race/queer theory debaters whose rounds I have studied/watched/flowed)
6. I will be playing loud music in my ears when writing my rfd, please don't tap me in the meantime because I will jump. You should give me music suggestions!
7. When I'm judging novice I will likely have hi-chews or mints on me. Feel free to ask for some.
8. Don't bring me food/energy drinks.
9. I find my paradigm absolutely hilarious but if you have issues with it you should contact me!