I am okay with any type of argument you decide to run, but make sure that it is a fully fleshed out argument and you keep it organized. I am a fan of line-by-line analysis but then paint the bigger picture and crystallize the round for me with clear voters. You should be comparing your impacts and as to why your side's world should be preferred. IMPLICATE YOUR ARGUMENTS!!!

T is fine as an argument, but if aff can prove that they are reasonably topical that should be fine. If neg goes for T, then they should really go for T.I like substance arguments more than anything, but I will vote on procedurals and framework. I will vote for Ks and CPs with no issue. They do need to be debated well though, don't assume I will vote for you just because you ran an argument without implicating it.

If you drop an argument in an earlier speech and then try to bring it up in a later speech, that's not a clean extension and I am highly HIGHLYUNLIKELY to flow that your way. Most of my firsthand experience with debate is in CX debate since I debated that all 4 years in high school. Now I coach debate and have experience coaching all the formats: CX, LD, PF, WSD, and Congress.

Philosophy:

I walk into any debate round with a clean slate. All preconceived notions and opinions I have are left at the door. The students do not need to know what I believe. They need to be able to build their case against their opponent in order to convince me that they have the right of the resolution over the other side. Using resources, clarity, ethical competition, and respectful decorum are my expectations for a quality debate. The essence of a great debate is listening and speaking to make your points against another who has done the due diligence to compete thoughtfully and without bias or malice. Competition with respect and embodying the strength of character it takes to do these speech and debate events properly is the root of what these events are. That is my expectation, no matter what event is being judged.

Policy @ Northwood -> UCLA '26 (Environmental Science/Conservation Biology)

Email Chain - alexfu004@gmail.com

LD and PF paradigm at bottom

TL;DR

• Debate is a game
• Do impact calc
• I'm more familiar with Policy strats
• Slow down on analytics, especially on T, theory, or jargon
• Tech determines truth

2024 Update: ~20 rounds judged.

General

Don't be a bad person, you've seen it on other paradigms, no racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia, etc.

DA/CP

I love them! Your disads should be specific to the aff, but generic links fine too if you put the work into them and contextualize them to the aff. Condo is probably good, internationall/private/object fiat is probably bad. I mainly read process counterplans and states in high school so make of that what you will.

K

I mainly went for the Cap K and find myself voting for SetCol pretty often, but I'm still not the best judge for the K. Case specific links would be great! The Aff should explain the perms instead of just throwing them out there, at least by the 1ar but preferably in the 2ac. I'll treat framework like an impact debate, but I tend to lean weighing the aff.

Ks I'm more familiar with: Cap, SetCol, Berlant/Suffering, Yellow Peril/Orientalism, Security, Militarism

Ks I'm less familiar with: Deleuze, Bataille, "pomo"-esque Ks (with reason), Kant

T

I'll vote on it, but I'm persuaded by reasonability more than other judges. The neg needs to win a clear instance of abuse beyond just "it's what they justify," and the Aff ideally should have specific reasons why the counterinterpretation resolves or turns neg offense.

Planless Affs

I have very limited experience with reading K affs (maybe 3 or 4 times ever), but I'm receptive to them. I think that having a stasis is necessary for debate, and I think that fairness is good, whatever fairness means. That said, I do think that K Affs can provide unique educational value, and if the Aff can prove their aff is important to talk about certain issues I can still buy it. Framework is probably your best 2NR against K Affs, I went for education and movements mainly in my junior and senior year in high school but I can be persuaded to vote on fairness as well.

Theory

Reject the arg, not the team is persuasive in almost every case, condo aside. I lean neg on condo; I can be persuaded otherwise, but it's an uphill battle for the aff to win on it. International and Object fiat are probably illegitimate, and require more work to be done on theory if you want to win on them as the neg.

Speaks

• being creative, strategic
• clarity, especially when spreading through analytics
• efficiency between speeches, sending out docs, etc
• if you're funny
• clear signposting!
• i was inspired by another judge but please get me food (+0.1? speaks) (but dont bankrupt yourself it's not worth it) (better to just speak better probably)

LD

I'll judge it like I judge a policy round, and I'm not familiar with a lot of LD theory. I'll try to adapt but please exercise discretion.

Public Forum

I used to do PF, don't worry about having to adapt too hard

Everything above applies, don't spread if your opponent is not okay with it though. Don't read policy-esque arguments just because you can, PF probably should be a bit more accessible. I'm more receptive to Ks than most PF judges, but don't read incomplete arguments i.e. a K without an alt just because PF doesn't have advocacies.

Hello, I'm Lauren!!

I competed in policy debate for two years in high school, and am now majoring in public policy at UH! Go Coogs!! I am open to all arguments, just as long as you're having fun running them!! - harming your competitors should go without saying. Make sure to emphasize your framework. I love a K and I'm good with speed so long as you CLEARLY SIGNPOST!! - if speech gets too slurred then I'll say clear.

Most importantly:

• Don’t be mean or I will dock speaks.
• + speaks if you make me laugh
• IMPACT WEIGH!!!!
• live laugh love clash :)

*lauren.debates21@gmail.com if you have any questions or concerns!*

Hello friends! I'm Kiran, I do policy debate at the University of Houston and help out Kinkaid in policy and PF when I can :)

Don't need to take prep for tech issues, sending cards, etc. but please don't end prep and keep talking to your partner about what you need to do in the speech.

Also, please be nice and a good human being during rounds (and outside of them!)

Yes, I want to be on the email chain: kiran.debate@gmail.com

General things:
I know very little about the high school topics argument-wise, but know quite a lot generally about IPR.

Do whatever and do it well! I read ev during the round but am not flowing off the doc, fine with speed, and I evaluate only what makes it onto my flow.

I won't vote on ad-homs or things that occurred outside of the round. I don't flow RVIs.

I vote on arguments with a claim, warrant, and impact.

You can insert evidence.

Policy v Policy:
These are my favorite debates to judge and the ones I'm best at adjudicating.

Default is judge kick but can be persuaded the other way.

There can be 0 risk of an adv or DA, but it is very difficult.

CP theory is better expressed as competition arguments.

Internal link comparison>impact comparison.

NEG leaning on condo.

Topicality:

Default is competing interps.

More persuaded by AFF flex than a big fight on precision.

Policy v Ks:

Prefer links specific to the AFF with good turns case explanations

Don't love big overviews that try to filter the whole debate, but more and specific examples that illustrate your theory of power are much better

I won't arbitrate a middle ground interp on framework unless it's advocated for

K Affs v Framework:

Pretty sure my record is 50/50 in these debates

Fairness is an impact, but I'm more persuaded by clash

Framework is the large majority of my 2NRs v K AFFs, but I am a lot less persuaded than most by a 2NR that does not mention the case

Need to know what the AFF does before the 2AC

K v K:

Almost never in these debates, not super familiar with the lit, if I am judging a debate where this is the strat-I need clear explanations and examples

Tricks:

No.

Speaks:

I start at a 28.5. Don’t ask me for a 30.

PF:

I largely evaluate PF rounds the same as policy rounds

Don't need big picture things, just explain why your thing outweighs the other team's

Defense is not sticky, I have no idea what that even means

I die a little every time a team paraphrases or spends 20 mins figuring out which cards to send after a speech, please do this before your speech or I will dock speaks.

Speeches are so so so short, you don't need to explain the entire story of your arg each time, just explain why it matters, what your opponents missed, and how I should evaluate it.

Feel free to send me questions, and have fun y'all! :)

Baltimore City College (BCC) 23’

Morehouse 27’

RKS 22'

[he/him]

TOC [K] debater w/ 3 bids! (Dont ask my record though lol)

Email is - plzreadcomics@gmail.com

I'll keep this short!

• Im more K leaning (not an autovote) but I am willing to vote policy if the argument persuades me(which is the way I evaluate all rounds) which means... Debate how you want!

• To reiterate the last point, persuasion is key!!! i shouldn't be piecing your speeches together for ya, so tell your story!

• Dont let the last two rebuttals be two ships passing in the night!

• Not a great judge AT ALL for HIGH theory debates

• PLEASE have fun! Boring debates are bad for yall as debaters cause why spend a weekend doing something you’re not interested in?

• OBVIOUSLY... no racism, homophobia, religous attacks, identity attacks... dont be a d!ck okay? If I hear you being a d!ck trust, your speaks will reflect

•DO NOT CALL ME JUDGE CAUSE IM NOT OLD PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF JAH

• TIME YOURSELF!!!!! Unless you're a new novice to debate, you should know the times n whatnot- ill be keeping track of times but I have faith that you all know how to count #blessed

• If you have any questions- lmk in round, shoot me an email, yknow allat good stuff

Fox Chapel '24

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign '28 ('27?) (Not Debating (for now))

Other conflicts/coaching: Whitney Young SV/MB, Gunn KB, Edison BB, Jenks GH

Email: adhi[dot]thirumala[at]gmail[dot]com

Varsity only, add this as well: realartistsofguantanamobay[at]googlegroups[dot]com

I've decided to do version-control on this page; you can find previous versions at my github.

I've been every speaker position, gone for every kind of argument, and debated at every level of the activity from the most lay to the most circuit. This used to be a lot longer. I thought that I needed to express all these random thoughts about the activity, but as I kept going on, I realized that I don't actually care that much. Now, imagine that I quoted that line about science fiction, trolls, and blank checks.

I will intervene and end the round only in one of the three following circumstances.

1. A debater asking to end the round.
2. A debater not capable of communicating to me that they would like the debate to continue (e.g. someone unconscious, linguistic barrier, etc.)
3. Tabroom telling me to make a decision in a certain manner.

A couple of thoughts from an older version of this document that I think are still necessary for me to express.

1. Remember to have offense. Posturing and asserting that your opponent has gone for a "bad" argument does nothing to beat back the "badness" of it.
2. Send me emails with proper subjects, WORD documents with proper names and headers, and time your prep. Preferably nothing in the body of an email either. My computer is already cluttered; don't make it worse.
3. I don't want a card document. I think most judge screws come from judges going rogue and reading evidence. I will try my hardest not to do this unless instructed to by debaters. I also think that card documents give debaters an incentive to add cards not extended or rewrite headers to imply arguments not made. I don't want to deal with that.

UTD '28

add me on the email chain: robunderdebate@gmail.com

TL;DR

tech>truth, in the most literal sense ever. technical skills outweigh truthful claims. read whatever you want. what i like does not matter. I have no dispositions.

my personal preferences do not render any impact on my evaluation and decision.

do what you do best! and I mean that. just make sure you explain it well.

I want you to tell me how to vote and explain it to me. I am not going to do any work for you, so this is super important. (i want to take the path of least thought to the ballot) writing my ballot for me is key to getting good speaks and possibly a W. and being technical. clash is probably how you win my ballot absent judge instruction. be clear, be concise, be nice.

you can go as fast as you want, but I will not be forgiving of unclear speeches, I am not going to look at the doc unless you tell me to - please just be clear. - if i cannot understand you, I will not flow it

the most important thing in this part is to have fun, debate is supposed to be a fun game. don't be hateful, don't be mean, and most importantly don't be an abhorrent and bigoted person. Also, my name is Rob, no need to call me judge and whatnot

also I know some folks are bigger fans of other forms of file sharing, with programs like speech drop, but email is definitely preferred. If we have issue with email then for times sake we can use still probably use email

Also, I don't want to read your evidence, and I probably won't. I generally don't want a card doc. It is YOUR job to explain it to me, after all debate is a communicative activity.

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

Specifics

First off some procedure stuff- prep ends when the doc is sent. stealing prep isn't cool but it happens a lot and has become super normal (stolen prep=.1 lower speaks for every 10 seconds (rounded ofc, up or down depending on how egregious it is). also, email chains are the most preferable for any sort of document sharing. you have your own labeling system but please try and label it by tournament -- round x -- team name -- vs -- team name. it helps a lot.

I am not interested in voting on anything that happened outside of the round

You keep your own time, be honest about your time, if you are not someone will know (me, I will definitely know)- also prep ends when the doc is sent

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

policy debate stuff

this is the event I have dedicated the most time to- either prepping, coaching, or debating. I have put countless hours into this event.

I am not a big fan of hefty overviews- do the work on the line by line and you'll get good speaks

I will not read your evidence unless it is a point of contention on the content , my belief is that it is your job to explain it to me. I will read insertions, but I need you to tell me as to why that insertion is important.

T args

I like T a good bit- I think it can be a fun and useful argument as long as you engage in it properly. what that looks like depends from round to round, also impact out the argument- like please. What does education mean? What does fairness mean? What does clash mean? TELL ME THE ANSWERS PLEASE!

theory

It's fine, I have a hard time justifying rejecting a team unless it's something that is pretty bad or you dedicate a lot of work to impacting it out - just because I have a hard time with this does NOT mean that I will not pull the trigger on it.

counterplans

explain . explain . explain . counterplans can get convoluted - just explain permutations, like why the counterplan can/cannot interact with the affirmative impacts, and why the counterplan actually has solvency (and why that solvency is better!). If I cannot explain the counter-plan at the end of the round then odds are you did't make the right 2NR decision. I don't like the condo debate but do what you want. just tell me how to vote, just like everything else

disads

I like disads, they are cool. I know from coaching this topic that the ground is abysmal... so yeah, just do good debate please.

kritiks

this is the argument that I have spent the most time dedicated to. that is just the way my debate career has gone, I have a pretty basic understanding of most literature bases in debate, I have the most understanding of (in order from most to least) PoMo (I read theory in my free time), Cap theory, Settler Colonialism, Humanism Stuff (Wynter), Disability studies, Wilderson (and other flavors of antiblackness args), and Psycho

on that same token, since I have experience with the K takes a little bit more work - especially on the link page - the kritik should link specifically to the affirmative and have a clear theory of power, I do not like to see Frankenstein Ks of 7 different authors from 7 different schools of thought BUT it is the affirmatives job to prove why that's bad if you do read it.

specifically with PoMo (Baudrillard, Bifo, Deluze, Bataille, Derrida, Foucault, the works- you know em, I love em) I have a high threshold for proper explanation. While this may seem kind of silly, I think that there is a bad rep for a lot of reasons around this type of theory but some of it stems from people not understanding it, then being bad at explaining it, then the whole cycle repeats itself. I’d recommend at least knowing what most of the words mean before you read it in front of me… but more knowledge is probably how you win with it. Just know your stuff.

when debating the K you should probably not kick the alt, I don't really think it is the move all that often unlesss you're reading the cap K... I think that the FW debate isn't super hard, as long as you clearly outline the ROJ and ROB, however anything is fine as long as it is done to the extent that I understand it, what that extent is, well, that’s for you to determine.

affirmatives

USE THE AFF!!!!!! card dumps are not cool and they are not beneficial to debate really so pls don't do them - I do not want 3 or 4 cards (honestly prob no cards) for something that could have been covered by explaining 1AC evidence - use the aff for a lot of things, often times all a good aff needs is analysis - I enjoy hearing unique affs and enjoy it even more when the aff is the crux of the debate. Don't be lazy, just do the work.

planless affs

I think they are fun and can be good for debate. you probably need to have a clear theory of power, and you need to explain the way in which the affirmative interacts with either 1) Debate as an academic game or 2) the topic as a structure or a magical third one… BOTH. I have no disposition to them, I read them, I have read them, and I have had them read at me. Debating them is fun - but this only applies if they do something. if they do not do anything then you have to explain to me probably a little bit more than usual why the aff is good. Please just let your aff do something.

i don’t want to be confused on two major things 1) what your method is and 2) how your method solves the impacts of the aff either long term, short term, or in the interim. Also is your method a viable strategy… not a reason I won’t vote for you, just food for thought.

neg against a planess aff is cool. I like FW as an argument, and the TVA is generally persuasive (probably ask abt fairness). I love a good KvK throw down, while I know cap is the go-to, I think there are definitely other Kritiks and lit bases that link to most (if not all) theories of power. I haveno problem with either forms of debating the aff and that is fine if you choose to go for one or the other, just don't go for both lol.