Put me on the chain with this email: chen.kent@husky.neu.edu

Did policy for 4 years in hs

I don't care if you run kritik or policy as an aff just make policy interesting if you are. I vote on the flow, Don't just read a card and don't explain why you win on an argument. Make sure you know what you're saying. Please clash and explain, it makes it easier for me to vote. Do the work for me on the flow.

I can't stress this enough, please explain why you win an argument and why you should win. It gives you so many advantages to just tell me what to do on the flow rather than assume that I'll know what your intent is.

Sign-post, makes it easier to flow.

Roadmap, makes it easier to flow.

I'm okay with whatever speed you read at, just make sure I can understand what you're saying.

Generally I give 28's. Please don't make me give anything below.

Generally you should pref me low if you a policy aff, if you do run policy make it interesting. I don't like the use of nuclear war as an impact for extinction, something like climate change as an impact is better.

Lior S. Beloborodov

liorbeloborodovdebate@gmail.com

he/him

1 year debating policy

2023 jv city champ

if you reference any rock band started between the years 1960-90 I will give you very high speaks

if you are in middle school - congrats you are ahead

I do flow cx but please bring it back up in speeches

I believe in 0% judge interference, in other words if you don't walk me through your arguments like I am a child I wont make the logical steps for you.

Speak clearly and persuasively, I treat it with more importance that other judges.

Have fun

If you're reading this as a middle schooler,, you've probably already won

If you or your partner say 'riddle me this' in any of your speeches I'll give you both an extra speaker point

make a Hamilton reference and I’ll be super happy

Hi.

I’m Amishai (pronounced ah-me-SHY) call me Amishai or "judge." Don’t call me Mr. Goodman-Goldstein. I am in college so even if you think I’m old you don’t need to tell me.

ADD ME TO THE CHAIN--please use my email and do not use speech drop/file share. Varsity debaters must send PDFs—no Google or Word docs.
Agoodmangoldstein@gmail.com

TLDR - experienced policy debater, coach, & judge. I will handle whatever you throw at me, but I am a truth judge. I do not like nihilism. I do like substantive debate. Do not run a “throw a ton of stuff at the wall and see what sticks" strategy. Warrant warrant warrant your arguments. Explain what exactly matters, why events will happen as you say they will, etc.I will not vote on the dropping of an argument that I haven’t been convinced I need to care about. Do not think of this round as a whack-a-mole game.Use your absolute best sportsmanship with me, your opponents, and your partner.

Disclosure of case is good. Do it and don’t run any anti-disclosure/selective disclosure arguments.

I am somewhat familiar with this year’s resolution (IP) having judged a few tournaments including nat’l circuit.

NOVICES AND MIDDLE SCHOOLERS, you might not understand everything below and that is more than ok! Don't be intimidated, I am here to help you and not just judge you. Ask questions!

LD & PF debater note:

I am primarily a policy judge — and if your round is LD or PF, I will be judging it vaguely like I judge a policy round, so just read my TLDR and you’re good. I don’t often judge those events but if I do, I don’t ascribe to the idea that a member of the general public needs to understand the round and am fine with theory/whatever.

I AM NOT A TECH JUDGE!!!!!!!!!! Run a bunch of highly contradictory arguments and I am going to vote you down, no pretending that I’ll consider it. Too many students are nihilists and debate reinforces that. I refuse to be a propagator of nihilism. Believe in something, some sort of consistent line of reasoning with clearly warranted and articulated impacts (and Ks can totally do this), you’ll be good. I flow, but I’m not voting on tiny sub points on the flow basically ever unless the round collapses on those.

To make that even clearer: I will be considering all of your arguments in the same universe, and if they can’t coexist in that universe or aren't important, you are going to lose. Substantive argumentation is so much more important to me than "dropping subpoint b of evidence Average Joe '95."

Most debaters shouldn’t be too affected—positively or adversely—by how I judge but if you’re a debater who uses your extensive experience to beatdown your opponents in the nihilistic style I outline with rapidfire mutually exclusive, unwarranted arguments, you can either change your approach in my debate room or I will vote you down whether or not your opponents call you out for it. Up to you.

If you are talking about the US Government/Judiciary with regard to policy implementation, get your facts straight or just say fiat.

I don’t typically flow author names or years, you need to extend by referencing your claims--please. I flow online in shorthand.If you reference cards by page numbers/source names, I may botch the flow.

kritiks:

Ks are perfectly fine, if your K is generic I'll have seen it, if not I can still work with it and will understand the concepts at least at the elementary level. I think the burden of proof is higher for K affs on T and fairness. Your alt should be truly competitive and must carry impact beyond the debate space.My contradictory arguments standard includes Ks. Your K must coexist with any other arguments you run.

Topicality, when not obviously trivial, is good substantive debate—do not drop topicality if run against you, you must give a non-lazy defensive argument, and if it you think their topicality attack is trivial and unimportant, explain why. For negs running topicality, tell me why it matters. I am willing to vote on T.

I know when you’re overdoing analytics as filler, so do the work and get all the cards you need. A constructive which is largely uncarded is rarely a good constructive.Analytics must be warrant-heavy. I’m not going to start tech judging just because “we read X so they’re wrong.”

WEIGHING, LINE BY LINE, IMPACT CALC AND VOTERS
Do it. You do it, other team doesn’t do it, you’re not guaranteed a win but your chances go way up. Do the work on the flow for me, tell me why their warrants are wrong, why their arguments don’t matter, etc. If there’s no semblance of basic impact calc/weighing/voters, I don’t have any guidance from you on how to weigh different args. WRITE MY WHOLE RFD TOP TO BOTTOM IN YOUR 2AR/2NR, DOWN TO THE SMALLEST PARTS OF THE DECISION—BUT PLEASE DON’T GIVE ME A TECH RFD THAT CONTRADICTS WHAT YOU READ HERE, IF YOU DO I DEFINITELY WON’T USE IT.

Style and Sportsmanship:

Do not appear visibly annoyed at something your partner or opponent does in round, hit the table, loudly sigh, etc. Be silent when your opponents are speaking. Do not interrupt ANYONE unless reclaiming the floor when cross examining. Speaker points will be docked if you do any of these and I’ll call you out.

Spreading is fine but if you’re spreading so fast you’re gasping for air that’s extremely unhealthy for you and it’s going to hurt my flow. It also doesn’t make sense for non-tech judges like me. On a 1-10 of speed, I like a 6 BUT if you need to go slower to be clear do so. I may or may not tell you to slow down if you’re too fast so pace yourself appropriately.

Run your own timer and be honest about it. I won’t give you time warnings but I’ll run a timer of my own as well.

Clash is good, personal attacks are not. No hostile tone or bullying. Profanity in speeches is fine but cursing out your opponents, including questions like “do you really ******* believe that…” are unacceptable.

If cross ex is open you and your partner both need to be asking and answering questions. You can choose to split the CX periods and have only one person talk in each one even if open but IF ONE PERSON DOES ALL OR 75%+ OF CX TALKING, I WILL REDUCE SPEAKER POINTS FOR BOTH TEAM MEMBERS.

Just because I may seem personally inclined to certain ideological arguments DOES NOT mean I am going to vote for them by default. An idea isn’t good because it’s progressive or conservative—what about it makes it those labels?

Do not make arguments which imply that my ballot should be awarded based on immutable characteristics of debaters. I vote on ideas, not identities. Tell me how your identity fuels and interlinks with your ideas instead.

Openly bigoted arguments will automatically lose. There's plenty of room to debate tough issues without making bigoted arguments.

I will NOT flow or vote on cross examination but you should still view cross ex as binding. You need to use cross-ex to extract points to make for the rest of the round; it’s not an argumentative speech. I’ll dock speaks if you start making a speech in cross.

Don’t steal prep.

Please try to clarify everything you need to with me prior to the 1AC.

Reminder—clipping and cutting are not the same! Being explicit that you are cutting a card is fine, deceptively clipping lines in your card and/or selectively choosing to read certain words with others to make the card say something it doesn’t actually say is certainly not fine. If you catch your opponent clipping or doing any other sort of evidence violation, say so as soon as they’re done talking so I can review the cards and proceed according to NSDA rules.

SPEAKS/DECISION/POSTROUND

I'm lenient with speaks. You start at 28 which is a very satisfactory but unremarkable performance, or a good one with small errors. You have to make major gaffes to go below a 27, but I happily give 29s to very strong speakers.

Asking questions after my decision and feedback is fine, especially if you’re confused as to why I voted how I did.

Out of respect for the dignity of everyone in the debate room, if you lose, you may not suggest my decision should be changed after or imply that your opponents did not deserve a win. If you do, you and your partner get zero speaks and I report you to tab immediately. I have done this and will do it again.

Have fun, be nice, take the round seriously but not too seriously, and we’ll all have a good time!

Hello, I'm Julie and I've judged Policy, Congress, PF, Speech etc. at the TOC, national qualifiers and at the Massachusetts state and local level for a decade.

Policy: If you are amazing at spreading, I have a hard time understanding at the highest velocity, so try to remember to slow it down. I'm willing to have a debater persuade me of a technical violation, but it's not of default focus for me, so articulate it clearly.

Congress: I highly value mutual respect for one another in my chambers, so please be persuasive while also being respectful. Argue the issues, not the people. I immensely dislike rudeness as I think it's a malady of the times.

Thanks,

Hello everyone,

My name is Phebean, and I participated in policy debate(Boston Debate League) throughout high school, reaching the varsity level. Additionally, I served as the debate captain in my high school. I am in college now, and although I am not debating anymore, I have some experience judging policy debates.

Debaters can go at their own speed, just speak clearly.

Brandon Ren--brandondebate25@gmail.com (add me to the chain duh <3)

he/him/his

BUDL/BDL/BLA'24

UMass Amherst'28

***Pref me higher for nontraditional/K teams (I'm fine with policy too)***

My background (if u even care lol)

I've debated for 6 years in the Boston Urban Debate League. So, to all my Urban debaters, YALL R A TROOPER!! Graduated and debated for Boston Latin Academy 2020-2024 locally and nationally in the Varsity CX circuit. I have ran Policy for 2 years and Ks/Kaffs for 4 years. Entering University of Massachusetts--Amherst as a freshman majoring in Legal Studies and a minor in Asian/Asian American Studies.

Thank you to Moselle Burke, Liv Birnstad, Roger Nix, Tyler Kirk, Micky Yang (22-23 partner), Alana LaForest (23-24 partner) and many others that have guided me to become the debater/person I am today <3 Love yall from the bottom of my BIG, YELLOW, ASIAN HEART

Short version

1) Experienced in judging traditional policy, Kritiks, and Kaffs

2)Not really a theory person and def not high theory, but if u run basic theory (like condo) I'm willing to evaluate especially if teams run 6+ offs (really need you to COOK IT THOROUGHLY)

3) Don't care about speed (just make sure it ain't sounding like an un-discovered language) or else I will yell clear two times before docking speaks (0.2), just let me silently cook on my paper

4) Pretty familiar with most K lit (Racial/Regular cap, Afropess, Model Minority, Techno-orientalism, Set col, Academy, Queer theory, etc.), but don't act like I know what it is bc I need y'all to be on your game. Don't let me catch u slacking 4k

5) Tech > Truth (if both teams are ahead in the tech debate, then truth will act as a tiebreaker) + Quality > Quantity

6) Make my job easy to do, don't force me to physically and mentally go through my messy asf flows

7) Any sort of evidence violation (Card-clipping, improper citation, and evidence misrepresentation) or NSDA Guideline violation WILL result in an automatic judge intervention

Long version (I'll try my best to not yap, but I can't promise anything)

1) Generally, I love clear instruction in the rebuttals about where you want me to focus my attention and how you want me to filter offense. For policy teams I think this is more about link and impact framing, and for more critical teams I think this is about considering the judge’s relationships to your theory/performance and being specific about their role in the debate.

2) I've obviously debated for quite a while (scarred for the rest of my life), so I've debated and judged both tradition and non-traditional styles of debate. However, I do have to say is that I get way too bored at traditional policy affs because it's so "typical". Everytime whenever an aff team say that its a policy aff it's like my mind automatically maps out the general idea of what's going to happen. I'm willing to entertain your hypothetical, government, policymaker scheme tho don't get me wrong. IMO, impact calc is the best part when it comes to policy aff bc that's the only time where you're actually "alive" rather than just spreading through a bunch of cards like a machine. Impact calc allows me to better evaluate the aff and let you guys deliver your rebuttal in a organized fashion to answer the ultimate question: "why should I vote for your policy"? For DAs, give me a good and BOMBASS link story and impact calc.Paint me THE MURAL OF CATASTROPHE of all the shitshow that would happen if the AFF is passed or even considered and why that OUTWEIGHS EVERYTHING. For CPs, explain how your cp works better than the aff. If i can't recognize what the cp is or how its better than the aff, I will most likely not vote on it.(Although I haven't personally ran things like Process CP, Advantage CP, or anything along the lines of those BUT I'm willing to vote on it as long as u EXPLAIN <3)

There's not much I can say on my preference when it comes to a traditional policy bc I really don't have much preference about it :p If you do have questions you want to ask me, please do so <3

On the other hand, I WILL EAT UP YOUR Ks and Kaffs. Like I am ✨OBSESSED✨with everything that goes in it. For the majority of my debate career, I've always been a K debater (and will always be) because the educational value you get out of this is truly unquantifiable and also the amount of creative autonomy you get creating these is what makes it all a beautiful process. I'm familiar with rage politics, disruption politics, utopian/dystopian world, poetry, performance, etc. However, during these debates I need y'all to have really flushed out arguments particularly the link debate and the alt/solvency debate. Being able to have more than 1 link gives you more room to manuever around, but having clear and flush out link stories on reasons why the aff or neg is problematic will make your life so much more easier especially when doing the perm debate.Within any Ks/Kaffs, the adv/alt is the essence of it all because that is where I get to imagine your world. SO TELL ME ABOUT IT. What does it look like? How does it operate? How does it resolve the link? WHY is this better than the aff? Explain your methodology. Tell me what my role in this space is and why that should be preferred. (I really love having fun if you couldn't tell)

3) I don't care if you're spreading or not just make sure it's not some other worldly language. I will shout clear twice before I start docking speaks (0.5). I'm fine with however many offs you want to run, (depending on how much you're running) but if I'm not looking at you here and there while you talk don't take it personal because I'm just trying to cook on my paper. I'm human, let's get over that fact that I don't have sonic speed handwriting. However, if your opponent (before the round) request for you to not spread, please don't spread on them. It is violent and I will dock 0.5 speaks for it. If the opponents makes it a voting issue, I am gladly to vote on it. Debate needs to be more accessible to EVERYONE, so don't be a dickhead <3

4) 2NR and 2AR should prioritize persuasiveness and condensing down your argument as much as you can. I (won't hold this against you, but I'll be annoyed) hate when the negative tries to juggle with more than 2 arguments as they approach the end. Strategically, it's overwhelming for your opponents, but obviously you would risk trading off your persuasive articulation on those few condensed arguments that you're actually winning on.

Case

1) I love myself some good case debate bc that's when your directly clashing and interacting with each others literature. Negative team should have a variety of arguments on every important case page there is. Simply saying states good isn't a "good enough" answer to a Kaff.

2) Please elaborate and extend the substance of your argument. "Dropped X means nuke war and case outweighs on magnitude" don't mean anything if you just say it like that. Like don't be dry and boring bc the juice is infront of you, just TELL ME WHYYYY(?)

3) Overview should only be present to help you accomplish something. Don't get me wrong, overviews are great. However, if they don't really serve a purpose, it rather serves as a time waster when you could be getting to more important things. If there's any long overview throughout the flows, please alert me (like I begggggg)

Framework

1) I think both sides should also clearly understand their relationship to the ballot and what the debate is supposed to resolve. At the end of the debate, I should be able to explain the model I voted for and why I thought it was better for debate. Any self-deemed prior questions should be framed as such. All of that is to say there is nothing you can do in this debate that I haven't probably seen so do whatever you think will win you the debate.

Performance + K Affirmatives

1) Love myself a good performance/Kaff. If the performance aspects is included as the aff's methodology, I will gladly evalute as if its like any other types of methodology. So please emphasize on it during or later on in the speech and make sure that I understand the importance of this methodology. At the end of the debate, I shouldn't be left feeling that the performative aspects were disconnected from debate and your chosen lit base

Kritik

Like I have said, I am a K debater deep down from the bottom of my BIG YELLOW ASIAN HEART, which means for K teams

1) I am well versed in many of the k literature used in debate. Even if I might not know your specific k literature, I will know what you're talking about when you explain and use the details of your theory.

2) Don't ever assume I'll do the work for you. At the end of the debate, there should be a clear link to the AFF, and an explanation of how your alternative solves the links

3) Please don't kick your alt (unless you really have to then ig I can't stop you :/). Links to the AFF’s performance, subject formation, and scholarship are fair games. SO this really has to be a life or death for you your mind even come across kicking the alt

**************************************************************
If you have any question, please feel free to reach out! Otherwise, good luck and have fun pookie(s)!!!!

Hey y'all,

Introduction: My name is Ariella Taylor and I am a freshman at Case Western Reserve University. I have experience running Ks (black futuristic stuff and afro pess) and regular policy cases.

Voting: Impact Calc and Internal link explanations are key for my vote. If the debate is coming down to fw please tell me how I am supposed to engage with these arguments, tell me what my role as a judge is in this round.

If you run - DA - CP - Inherency cards, I need you to explain to me why these arguments matter. Many Aff teams state a problem but do not articulate how their plan solves it. I will buy the internal link between the plan and solvency impacts if the neg does not bring it up, but if they even hint at it I will agree and concede to a huge gap in your case. I try to come into each round unbiased, in most cases, I will not care about (for example) whether black people can vote or not, or billions of people dying in a nuclear war if you do not tell me why I should care. Moreover, please please do not assume that I will just buy args because I am black, I will not.

* Note for the Aff: Please try to get to your solvency in the first speech

* Note for the Neg: Do impact calc on your Das and turns

* I will vote any team down for clear bullying.