I greatly enjoy policy debate, even though I did not participate in it during my high school or college career. I’ve coached it for 5 years, attended coaching camps and trained coaches and judges. 

Background: My background is in public policy and I hold a masters’ in public policy from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. I enjoy hearing debates about the pros and cons of a specific policy, and I will admit that I have a bias towards case that engage on the field of policy. However, if you argue effectively for why you should receive my ballot, you stand a fair shot at winning my vote.

Structure: As far as debate structures and rules, I believe that constructives are 8 minutes, rebuttals 5, and that CX ends at 3 minutes and should be open where one person asks and the team being cross examined can both answer.

Speaking: I’m ok with debaters being aggressive, as long as it doesn’t go overboard into the realm of disrespect. I’m not accustomed to swearing in round as our league has strict rules about etiquette, so if you choose to use profanity I suggest doing so only if you are prepared to defend why it helps your case should the other team attack you for it. Fast speaking is fine as long as you are clearly articulating your words to the point where someone accustomed to listening to speed reading can understand them. I also will want any files you are reading flashed over to me before you start.

Argument Style: If you choose to answer an affirmative with off case positions, I’m looking for argument structure in your answer.

With DA’s, I need strong links and impacts. Impact calc helps. If you are going against a DA, make it clear what you are attacking, don’t make me guess.

CP’s need to be net-ben better than the AFF when all is said and done. If you’re going to go into the conditional/unconditional theory on either side, make sure to explain in round why that helps you win.  

K’s need to have some sort of plausible link, impact and a clear alternative. If it’s a more philosophical K, clarifying role of the ballot and my role as a judge helps your case immensely. As I said before, I have an admitted bias towards traditional policy, but if you do a good job with your K and explain why it outweighs or turns the aff team’s arguments, I’ll vote for you.

T is absolutely a voter, but needs to be well presented. It needs to include not only the definition and the violation, but to persuade me I also want you to give me standards and tell me why it is a voter.

I’m not a fan of theory debates and I generally find them boring UNLESS you have a good reason for doing so in round. I typically won’t vote for a generic theory argument unless the team arguing it can be made clear why it is relevant to that particular round and that particular set of arguments.

Argument Types

I am more accustomed to judging traditional affirmatives, but am willing to consider kritikal affirmatives IF they are well presented.

I have zero experience judging performance affirmatives, so run them at your own risk and make sure to read my comments below before you make the choice to do so.

I love all debate, but I love debate in particular because students have the opportunity each and every round to persuade the judge about how they should vote, and even by what rules the judge should vote. If you want me to vote for your K aff or your performance aff, make it clear what you feel my role as a judge is and what the ballot will do if I vote for you. And if the other team does this and you’d rather run traditional policy, you need to explain why a traditional policy framework is better.  I’ll always do my best to vote based off of the structures and ballot roles presented in round.

In sum, don’t pander to me, persuade me that you are right and that you deserve my vote. If you do a good job, you have a fair shot at getting my vote, regardless of what arguments you choose to run. 

Try your best to have fun . Speed at your own risk

Email: mcalister.clabaugh@wudl.org

I was a pretty successful high school debater and a pretty unsuccessful college debater in the 1990s, then judged probably 10-12 tournaments on the national high school circuit. Stepped away from debate for about 20 years, then started judging again in 2016 as a volunteer for the Washington UDL, judging around 5 tournaments/year since then.

I'm a big fan of debate, as an activity through which students express themselves and acquire knowledge and skills, and as a competition, and coming back as a volunteer and now UDL staff member has been rewarding for me, and hopefully helpful for the students I've judged and worked with outside of rounds.

I flow on paper, and organization and structure in speeches are important for me. I really appreciate it when teams identify their arguments when giving them. For example, a 1NC that labels their off-case arguments as "Off" before reading them makes it harder for me to flow the round than a 1NC that announces "Capitalism kritik," or "Politics disad," etc. 1NCs that don't label off-case arguments will get lower speaker points. Same for case arguments - please let me know where on case - solvency, advantage one, advantage two, framing, etc.

I have some experience judging kritik affs, and while I've followed their evolution in debate over the last several years, I'm not particularly current or knowledgeable on some of the theory issues around them. I'd like to change that, but if you run kritik affs, there are probably some issues that will be new to me. I do think there is, and should be, room in debate for issues that affect the broader frameworks and circumstances within which policy is created, and ones that have an educational purpose, but I'm not absolute about it and will listen to arguments on both sides.

I have and will vote on neg kritiks, and am more likely to do so if the neg demonstrates in speeches and CX that they have a thorough understanding of their position and its grounding - more than repeating taglines in the neg block & 2NR. I want to hear your understanding of the argument, and a demonstration of why it matters. I've been impressed by the evolution of kritiks in terms of how they're organized and how teams execute them, both on the aff and neg. I'm also somewhat surprised by how frequently teams seem unprepared to debate kritiks that are run against them.

I'm more current on policy and current events than I am on theory, and the IP topic touches on a lot of issues that I've worked on professionally, debated before, or have personal interests and curiosity about.

On issues like solvency and advantages/disads, I'm a big fan of specificity and mechanisms through which A leads to B leads to C, and how/why that happens. Internal links matter. A good analytical highlighting a missing internal link is a good argument.

I think topicality is a useful tool for negatives. That said, on T, theory, framework debates, my experience has been teams that read their generic blocks and don't adapt in-round to the specific warrants of the K do not do particularly well. Especially on these kinds of debates, clash is essential.

I prefer clash over a race for offense with tons of dropped arguments on both sides. Good impact calc - on any kind of argument - that compares aff vs neg impacts is a quick way to win the ballot. Reiterating your impacts without comparisons is not particularly effective.

2NR/2AR summaries are probably the quickest way to get my ballot, telling me how you see the round, and identifying the key few issues and assessments I should be making and how they should be made.

Good luck.

Danielle Dupree - danielle.dupree@wudl.org- she/her

23 y/o DMV Debater & WUDL Program Coordinator/ Tournament Director

The things you're probably looking for...

Speed:

I've got auditory processing issues so - a comfortable speed is fine if you slow down on tags & analytics. If you speed through analytics,please include any analytics in whatever you send me, otherwise don't hate me if you're unclear and it doesn't get flowed. I think not sending analytics is a cheap and annoying tactic that doesn't throw off your opponent as much as it throws off your judge. Fair warning!

Kritiks:

Preference for K debate. I mostly have experience in antiblackness and femme noire literature, so any other theses should take more care to explain in round vs real-world impacts & implementations. If you have not been able to explain the thesis in your own words with no jargon by the end of the round, I'm probably not voting on it.

If claiming something is a reason to reject the team, it's essential to go beyond explaining their wrongdoing and clarify why rejection is justified and beneficial otherwise to me, it's just a reason to reject the arg.

Performance:

I love an unconventional debate when it's done well, meaning make it abundantly clear why your form of debate is necessary. If you're doing a half-baked performance it is a lot harder for me to give you solvency/framing and 90% of my RFD will probably be about how I wished you had sung me a song or stood on a desk and did a little dance, etc.

Theory:

I prefer teams go for substance rather than spraying each flow with theory arguments and hoping one of them gets dropped. My general stance on the most common theory args can be swayed, I have voted against my preference when convinced. However, it's harder to sway me on Condo - I think 3 conditional positions are where I'm comfortable voting on Condo. Also, on performative contradictions - neg gets multiple worlds & contradictory advocacies are fine as long as it's resolved by the block.

My Strategy Reminders...

Tech VS Truth: If your strategy for every round is winning based on tech over truth or vice versa, I'm probably not the best judge for you.

Shadow Extending: I don't flow authors and I don't re-read evidence post-round unless instructed. So don't just extend your 'John 22' card without reminding me of the warrant. (I do flow authors for novices, but I still expect the warrants)

Usage of Artificial Intelligence: This needs a lot of exploring in the world generally but also in Policy Debate so I'm open to opposition with warrants. For now, I'll say I'm fine with pre-written overviews done by AI so long as it's disclosed that it was AI. However, the use of AI mid-round is cheating in my opinion.

Stolen from McAlister C: " 2NR/2AR summaries are probably the quickest way to get my ballot, telling me how you see the round, and what assessments I should be making. I love overviews that crystallize 2-3 key points and compare aff/neg positions before going to individual args/line-by-line."

Timing: PLEASE I'm not great with keeping your prep so be sure you're also keeping it yourself. - Also I stop flowing as soon as the time goes off, pls don't try to shove your last arg in after the alarm

Cross: Cross is binding. The only time I will insist on closed cross is if someone's going mav. I do like it when you stand but again it's not mandatory.

Topicality: Violation & definition are never enough, no limits & grounds, no case. I appreciate creative violations and T's that are brought into the real world. ALSO pls tell me where you want me to flow things if you're a cross-apply warrior.

FW & ROB/J: I default the actor of the policymaker unless directed otherwise. If you are going to direct me otherwise, I'd suggest the sooner the better.

Troll: I need to hear BOTH teams enthusiastically consenting to a troll round, otherwise at the end of the round you will lose.

All of that is to say, do whatever you want, just make sure you work hard on it, be respectful and make it fun for all of us :)

I mostly judge Lincoln Douglas, but I have coached all events offered by the NSDA and the OSSAA. I was the coach at Cascia Hall from 2007-2021 and have worked at the Tulsa Debate League since 2023.

I am more comfortable with a more traditional style of debate, but will make my best effort to judge the round in front of me, even if it isn't stylistically what I am most comfortable with. That being said, no matter what style you prefer, debate is pretty much the same. Tell me how to make an evaluation and then tell me why you win under that evaluation.

If you have more specific questions, I'm happy to answer them before the round begins if all competitors are present. My email address is david.galoob@tulsadebate.org for the purposes of file sharing.

Email: Nalasking@gmail.com

experience: Debated CX in high school for 4 years, current DCI coach

Basics: Do not spread your analytics!

Theory and Topicality

I don’t care about disclosure theory unless it’s insanely abusive. It will not take much to sway me from the opposing team. Everything else is quite funny or entertaining, but unless you specify otherwise I’m going to understand your arguments as reject the arg.

Key points:

• Must demonstrate specific in-round abuse with evidence
• Show how the violation impedes access to core ground
• Explain why your interpretation is key to competitive equity
• Connect your theory arguments to your broader strategy
• T is a voting issue - but prove why it matters in THIS round

• Layer your theory arguments - tell me how to evaluate them

Kritiks

I enjoy critical arguments and evaluate them on equal footing:

• Can be run as a DA without alternative if links are clear and specific
• Framework debate is crucial. Do not shadow extend your framework.
• Performance arguments welcome with clear explanation. I need to know what in round impacts can be garnered and why the ballot is crucial. Debate specific scholarship is preferred. Please don’t just say the ballot is key for us to want to do this again.
• Please don't spread through a performance

Speed

Comfortable with speed (7/10) but require:

• Clear tags
• Audible author names
• Comprehensible card text
• Will say "clear" if needed

Technical Preferences

1. Rigorous line-by-line essential
2. Clear sign-posting required
3. Please Number extended arguments
4. Explicit impact calc expected
5. Strategic cross-ex highly valued

Last Points

• Happy to discuss decisions after round
• Please add me to email chains
• Feel free to ask questions before round

emmanuelmakinde18@gmail.com

I currently debate at NYU

I have fun debating and judging for the most part and enjoy when other debaters are having fun as well. Don't appreciate you being disrespectful or degrading to your opponents because I think that's bad for the community. Being mean is okay if you have the skills to back it up, but that's not the same as genuinely being a very ad hom/disrespectful debater.

I care less about what you debate and moreso how you debate it.

Defense is insufficient to win debates.

Debate is a communication game. I'm okay with speed, but of course not with incomprehensibility. I won't burden myself with yelling clear if I don't understand you, it simply won't reach my flow.

There are certain ethical challenges that I'm willing to adjudicate and others that I'll defer to tab. Not amazing for bringing outside beef into the room. Aside from things that are categorically violent (verbally abusing ur opponents, explicit race-, able-, sex-... -ism, etc), likely won't vote on reject the team, but I will reward clever implications of the substantive arguments on other parts of the flow.

Update for UDL MS Nats: Have fun

Hi my name is Garshae, I am a recent college graduate and I have debated for 4 years. I started off doing parliamentary debate in middle school then after switching over to high school debate I engaged in policy debate for 2 years. After two years of policy debate, my last year of debating I did performance debate. With that being said I am open to all forms of debating. My only request is that you keep debates clean, fun, and respectful.

They/Them/Theirs

Add me to the email chain: queeratlibertyuniversity@gmail.com

(Also, I feel like I need to add this at the top....I flow with my eyes closed a lot of the time. It helps me focus on what you are saying)

TLDR:

I'm a queer, nonbinary, disabled lawyer. Don't change your debate style too much for me - debate what you know and I'll vote what's on the flow. If you read a K alternative that doesn't involve me (specifically antiblackness Ks), that will not harm your chances of winning. I've seen young debaters stumble and try to make me feel included because they worry I won't like their K because I'm white and not included. You have all the right in the world to look at me and say "judge, this isn't for you it's ours."

At the end of the debate it will come down to impact calculus (framing) and warrants. Please have fun - debate is only worthwhile if we are having fun and learning. Don't take it too seriously, we are all still learning and growing.

Top of the 2AR/2NR should be: "this is why you vote aff/neg" and then give me a list

Long Version:

Heyo!

I was a queer disabled debater at Liberty University. I've run and won on everything from extinction from Trump civil war to rhetoric being a pre-fiat voter. I'll vote on any argument regardless of my personal beliefs BUT YOU MUST GIVE ME WARRANTS. Do not pref me if you are going to be rude or say offensive things. I will dock your speaks. I will call you out on it during the RFD. Do pref me if you read Ks and want to use performative/rhetoric links. Also pref me if you want a ballot on the flow.

Don't just tell me something was conceded - tell me why that is important to the debate.

IMPACT CALC IMPACT CALC IMPACT CALC

Aff Stuff:

Read your NTAs, your soft-left affs, and your hard-right affs. Tell me why your framing is important. Be creative.

Case - stick to your case, don't let the negative make you forget your aff

CP/K - perms and solvency deficits are good

Neg Stuff:

I do love Ks but I also like a good DA. As long as you can explain to me how it functions and interacts with case, I will consider it.

DA - you need a clear articulation of the link to the plan (and for econ, please explain using not just the fancy words and acronyms)

CP - please be competitive, you need to solve at least parts of the aff and you need a clear net benefit

K - you need to link to the plan (or else you become a non-unique DA) and be able to explain the alt in your own words.

Generic Theory Stuff:

T - I have a high threshold for T. you MUST prove abuse IN ROUND to win this argument. you must have all the parts of the T violation.

Other Theory args - just because an arg is dropped doesn't mean I will vote on it, you still must do the work and explain to me why it is a voter. I will not vote on "they dropped 50 state fiat so vote aff" you MUST have warrants.

I WILL VOTE ON REVERSE THEORY VOTERS If you feel their T argument is exclusionary, tell me and prove it. If you feel them reading 5 theory args is a time skew, tell me and prove it.

CX: remember you are convincing me, not your opponent, look at me. These make great ethos moments. Use this strategically, get links for your DA or K, show the abuse for T violations, prove they are perf-con, you get the idea

Speaker Points: give me warrants and ethos and it will be reflected here.

27: You did something really wrong - whether racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic - and we will be talking about it during the RFD

28: You are basically making my expectations, you are doing well but could be doing better.

29: You are killing it. Good ethos is granted to get you here and so will fleshed out warrants

30: Wow. Just wow. There was a moment during a speech or CX where you blew me away.

David Trigaux

Former competitor: St. Petersburg High School (4 yr), University of South Florida (4 yr)

Director, Washington Urban Debate League (WUDL)

** Fall 2024 Update **

The implications of the 2024 election most arguments are substantial. If you haven't adjusted your blocks and done some updates, expect to lose in front of me to someone who has.

Accessibility:

I run an Urban Debate League; it is my professional responsibility to make debate more accessible. I work with 800+ students per season, ranging from brand new ES and MS students refining their literacy skills and speaking in front of someone else for the first time to national circuit teams looking to innovate and reach the TOC. Beginners and ToC debaters are equally valuable members of the community and things that make debate less accessible for either party are a big issue for me. I see the primary role of a judge as giving you thoughtful and actionable feedback on whatever scholarship / political strategies as presented, but folks gotta be able to access the space first.

If you erect a barrier to accessing this activity for someone else, I will vote you down, give you the lowest possible speaker points, report you to TAB, complain to your coach, and anything else I can think of to make your time at this tournament less enjoyable and successful. This includes not having an effective way to share evidence with a team debating on paper (such as a 3rd, "viewing" laptop, or being willing to share one of your own). This is a big accessibility question for the activity that gets overlooked a lot especially post pandemic, many of our debaters still use paper files and don't have their own computers / only have relatively iffy Chromebooks.

5 Min Before Round Notes:

I judge 30 rounds at national circuit tournaments each year, cut A LOT of cards on each topic, and am somewhere in the middle of the argumentation spectrum. I often judge clash debates, though I enjoy policy v policy rounds too. I like Politics DAs and I also like performance Affs. I have some slight preferences (see below), but I amexcited to hear whatever style/substance of argumentation you'd like to make.

• Creativity + Scholarship: *Moving up for emphasis* Go do some research! I've judged a lot over the years and have seen basically everything.Be clever, do something I haven't heard before, or have a unique twist on an old favorite. I will give very high speaker points to folks who can demonstrate these criteria, even in defeat. (Read: Don't barf Open Ev Downloads)
• Speed: I can handle whatever you throw at me but it doesn't mean that full speed is always best. 75% Speed + emotive gets more speaks than adding a crappy 7th off you'll never touch again.
• Policy v Kritik: I was a flex debater and generally coach the same way, though I have run/coached 1 off K and 1 off policy strategies. Teams that adapt and have a specific strategy against the other team almost always do better than those that try to just do one thing and hope it matches up well against everyone.
• Theory: I often find these debates shallow and trade-off with more educational, common-sense arguments. Use when needed and prove to me why you don't have other options.
• Performance: “Back in my day….” Performance Affs had a lot more actual “performance” to them (music, costume, choreography, etc.). Spreading 3 lines of poetry and never talking about it again doesn't disrupt any existing epistemologies and is performative at best. I have coached a few performative teams and find myself more and more excited about them....when the performance is substantive and has a point.
• Shadow Extending: I intentionally don’t flow author’s names in Varsity rounds, so if you are trying to extend your "Smith" evidence, talk to me about the warrants or I won’t know what you are talking about and won't do the work for you. Novices get a lot of latitude here; I am always down to help folks develop the fundamentals. Trying to extend things is appreciated even if it isn't perfect.
• Email Chains: This is a persuasive activity. If I don’t hear it/flow it, you didn't do enough to win the point and I’m not going to read along and do work for you. Pull the warrants out in the debate. I’ll look through the cards generally as the round goes on if something interests me, if the substance of a card will impact my decision, or if I want to appropriate your evidence.
• About "the State": I was born and current live in Washington D.C., have a graduate degree in Political Science, and have worked in electoral politics and on public policy issues outside debate. This has shaped a pre-disposition that "governance" is inevitable, and power isn't automatically evil. The US government has a poor track-record on many issues, but I findgeneric "state always bad" links unpersuasive, historically untrue, and/or insufficiently nuanced. I think you are better than that, and I challenge you to make nuanced, well researched claims instead. Teams that do usually win and get exceedingly high speaker points, while those that don't usually lose badly. This background also makes me more interested in implementation and methodology of change (government, social movement, or otherwise) than the average judge, so specific and beyond-the-buzzword contextualization on plan/alt, etc. solvency are great.
• Artificial Intelligence: I will continue to listen to the great, thoughtful peers in the community, but as far as I'm concerned thus far, getting AI assistance to write rebuttals mid-round is cheating and actively anti-educational. Be better than that. If you suspect the other team is, raise it as an ethics issue. I'll be very open to hearing it.

Ways to Lose Rounds / Speaker Points:

1. Being Mean -- I am very flexible with speaker points, heavily rewarding good research, wit, and humor, and am very willing to nuke your speaker points or stop the round if you are demeaning, racist/sexist, etc.
2. Leave D.C. Out: Don't leave D.C. out of your States CP Text or other relevant advocacy statements. Its bad policy writing and continues a racialized history of erasure of the 750,000 + majority black residents who live here and experience taxation and other abuses without representation. Don't perpetuate it.
3. Rude Post-Rounding (especially if it is by someone who didn't watch the round): I will contact tab and vigorously reduce speaker points for your team after submission.
4. Multi-Minute Overviews: Don't.
5. Extinction Good: Don't be a troll, get a better strategy that isn't laced with nasty racial undertones.
6. Trolly High Theory Technobabble Arguments: If you just want to demonstrate how smart you are by winning a debate by running nonsense, strike me. What you say should contribute to our understanding of the world / human relations, otherwise don't waste my time.
7. Highly Inaccurate Email Chains: Unfortunately, some folks put a giant pile of cards they couldn’t possibly get through in the email chain, and skip around to the point of confusion, making refutation (and flowing) difficult. It’s lazy at best and a cheap move at worst and will impact your speaks if I feel like it is intentional.
8. **New Pet Peeve** Plan / Counterplan Flaws: The plan text / advocacy statement is the focus of the debate -- you should put some effort into writing it. I've found myself very persuadable by plan flaw arguments if a substantive normal means argument can be made.

In the Weeds

Disadvantages:

· I I like DAs. Too many debates lack a DA of some kind in the 1NC.

o Do:

§ I am a huge sucker for evidence quality / recency debates, and will make it rain speaker points. Have some creative/Topic/Aff specific DAs.

o Don’t:

§Read an Elections DA after the election / be wrong about what the bill you are talking about does on Agenda Politics DAs. I wouldn't have to put it here if it didn't keep happening folks....

o Politics DA: Given my background in professional politics, I am a big fan of a well-run/researched politics DA. I read Politico and The Hill daily and many of my close friends work for Congress -- I nerd out for this stuff. I also know that there just isn't a logical scenario some weekends. Do your research, I’ll know if you haven’t.

Counterplans:

I like a substantive counterplan debate.

o Do:

§ Write a detailed, well written CP Text and/or have some topic specific nuance for generics (like Courts).

§ Use questionably competitive CPs (consult, PIC, condition, etc.) supported by strong, real world solvency advocates.

§ Substantive, non-theoretical responses (even if uncarded) to CPs.

o Don’t:

§Default to theory in the 2AC without at least trying to make substantive responses.

Procedurals/Topicality:

· Can be a strong strategy if used appropriately/creatively.

o Do:

§ Prove harm

§ Slow down. Less jargon, more examples

§ Creative Violations based in literature or debate-ability.

o Don’t:

§Use procedurals just to out-tech your opponents, especially outside of Varsity. If you hope to win on Condo, strike me.

Case Debate:

· More folks should debate the case, cards or not. Do your homework pre-tournament!

o Do:

§ Have specific attacks on the mechanism or advantage scenarios of the Aff, even if just smart analytics.

o Don’t:

§ Spend a lot of time reading arguments you can’t go for later or reading new cards that have the same warrants already in the 1AC

Kritiks:

· I started my debate career as a 1 off K Debater and grew to see it as part of a balanced strategy, a good strategy against some affs and not others.

o Do:

§ Read Aff specific links. Identifying evidence, actions, rhetoric, representations, etc. in the 1AC that are links.

§ Have coherent Alt solvency with real world examples that a non-debater can understand without having read your solvency author.

§ Tell a non-jargony story in your overview and tags

o Don’t:

§ Read hybrid Ks whose authors wouldn't agree with one another and don't have a consistent theory of power.

§ I see more and more teams giving pre-prepared 2NCs on the K that aren't responsive to the 2AC. Be better than that.

§ Read a K you can’t explain in your own words, one that you can’t articulate it's role in a competitive forum, or what my role listening to your words is.

§ I find Psychoanalysis arguments frustratingly unfalsifiable and hard to believe or follow. I'd love to be proven wrong, but run at your own risk.

o Literature: I have read a lot of K literature (Anti-Blackness, Cap, Fem, Security, etc.) but nobody is well versed in all literature bases. Explain your theory as if I haven't read the book, I will not do work for you and assume to understand your buzzwords.

o Role of the Ballot: I default to serving as a policymaker but will embrace alternative roles if you are clear what I should do instead in your first speech. Doing so later seems pretty cheap, and just isn't good persuasion.

Non-Policy Formats of Debate:

I did a fair amount of Congress and old school LD and enjoyed it. Congress and Exempt offer unique opportunities for participants and can contribute to the accessibility of the activity for beginners. Once you get comfortable arguing, the peer reviewed research about the comparative benefits of policy debate is unassailable. Before you mention it, modern LD is just policy for people who can't work together with a partner. Get over it, develop some life skills.

On Public Forum and other similar anti-intellectual formats

I find the growing popularity many formats like PF that are proud their lack of rigor and anti-intellectualism detestable. Notable research shows that formats of debate that value style > substance are discriminatory against women and minorities, and preferring them anyway is a searing indict of those who participate.

If I'm somehow judging one of these formats anyway, something went wrong in tournament admin, and they made me feel guilty enough that I haven't found a way to get out of judging this round. My apologies in advance. I'llbe grumpy and use your pre-round time to tell you how PF was created as a result of white flight far more than you want to hear (but less than you need, if you are still doing PF).

If you do not have evidence with proper citations, you paraphrase, and/or you don't have full text evidence ready to share with the other team pre-round, I will immediately vote for your opponents. If both of you ignore academic integrity, I will put my feet up, not flow, see if the Tabroom will allow me to give a double loss, and if not, vote based on.....whatever vibes come to me, or who I personally agree with more.

Hi! I’m Amanda, I did varsity policy debate in HS, and have judged for 3 years. I look forward to your round!

The debate in general:

I am going to judge the debate based solely on whatever arguments are presented in the round; open to any off case. You can tell me exactly how I should vote and on what grounds.

Clear well organized arguments are always more persuasive. (read: Don't contradict your own arguments). Always explain your argument (avoid jargon). You'll convince me with your impacts and when you explain why your arguments hold more weight than the other team.

Speaker points:

You can spread, just enunciate. I’m good with speed, not mumbling. If I miss something on the flow, it didn’t happen. I am focused on what is said in the round, and prefer not to be on the chain.Always give a roadmap and be sure to slow down on tags.

I do subtract speaker points for rude behavior from any competitor in round towards opponents or partners.

If there are any unanswered questions you have after reading please feel free to ask before the round, and if there are any questions about feedback, please ask after the round.