Hi, I'm Jackson. I do PF on the circuit for Nueva. I have very little judging experience.

Round preferences

I quite like K rounds. Policy rounds are fun too. Theory rounds would be fun if people had original thoughts. I have not spent much mental energy developing opinions on other classifications of arguments.

Basics

Set up an email chain or speechdrop (ask for my email in round). Speed is good but clarity matters. I won't use my ballot to endorse death or self-harm. Let me know if there is an in-round safety concern.

Tech>truth. Nothing is sticky. My one goal in life is to avoid intervening.

Please make sure to weigh, extend, and warrant.

New weighing in 2nd final is a new argument, so weigh early in the round and keep it consistent. Answering your opponent's weighing is a good idea. Weighing turns is also a good idea.

I hypothetically like framework debate in policy rounds, but I also have heard few policy-round frameworks that wouldn't be better as weighing or a K.

Please do what you can to create and *develop* the clash in the round. Extending contradictory narratives past one another, with no comparison of the two, is very hard to evaluate and lessens the educational value of debate.

K preferences

I'll vote on anything. I've read cap, foucault, deleuze+guatarri, bataille, bifo, and hardt+negri---but I'm not an expert in critical literature.

Clash > KvK / KvTFW > Theory Spam. I strongly dislike uplayering the K with random theory violations, and will reward a strong execution of more substantive responses.

K responses should be more adaptive to the details of the K itself. Specific analytics > vague backfile cards. Explaining the perm > just saying "perm do both" and moving on.

I have no biases on K Affs vis-a-vis T-Framework. I like K Affs that interact with the topic, even when they don't affirm it, and that clearly understand their literature base.

Ks saying "don't use X word" are suboptimal. Try to kritik the assumptions at the root of their language, not just their language.

Theory preferences

I think theory is useful as a way to generate norms in debate, but theory rounds are usually uninteresting to judge and out-of-round abuses are difficult to evaluate. I think disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad, but tabula rasa still applies in theory rounds.

IVIs aren't good; make it theory or make it a kritik.

Almost forgot this: TKOs are not a real thing.

Hi, I am a first time judge. I will be flowing on my computer, no spreading. I have no tech experience.

Hello! I'm Mars (they/them) and I am a sophomore and varsity debater at Nueva. In general, I want everyone to have a fun and educational debate, so please do not try to skew your opponents out (e.g. spread or use jargon both sides do not understand). Always read trigger warnings and keep the debate space accessible!

General:

• I like POIs! I would encourage taking at least two to keep rounds educational. That being said, I do not like POIs that are just statements or complicated questions to confuse your opponents.

• I will protect the flow (new arguments in the LOR or PMR) but please call the POO! I can miss stuff and I’m not going to hold calling multiple POOs against you. (Keep them respectful though!!)

• I encourage you to read offtime roadmaps and sign post.

Case:

• Please have fun with weighing mechanisms! I default to net benefits but I’m open to hearing any wm. Make sure if you propose a counter wm, that you tell me why I should prefer yours.

• In your UQ, I like statistics but make sure you have the analytics/logic to back them up!

• I like links with warrants. Give me an example of another time this policy was implemented, and its impacts then.

• Terminalize your impacts! I will weigh impacts as they are read. If your impacts are: econ growth/collapse, war, or simply poverty, try to go one step further!

• Give me a really clear path to the ballot in your final speeches. Explain to me why one of your contentions is the cleanest way to vote and write my ballot for me.

Theory:

• I will vote on theory, especially if you are using it to make debate more accessible for yourself and others. That being said make sure if you do run theory you try to make it engageable for the other side. I will have a high threshold voting for something like tropicality against a completely novice team.

Hi!! My name is Charlotte and I'm a junior debating on Nueva's parli team. Please make sure you signpost where you are on the flow and make sure to have clear impacts. Also it would make my job a lot easier if you do your best to tell a clear story in the LOR/PMR with impact weighing!! I will vote based on arguments, not the way you speak.

What I think makes for a great debate: thorough responses on the opposing team's case, clear collapse (choosing a few arguments that you think you're winning on and then proving you win the round because of that in the last speech), well structured contentions, overviews, great evidence, and, (#1 tip:) a clear narrative/story for your side.

but above all: be inclusive and have fun!!!!! good luck!!