She/her

Ridge '24

Michigan '28

I debated for 3 years in LD, reading mostly policy arguments, and qualified to the TOC my senior year. I currently do policy debate at Michigan (2A/1N), reading a variety of arguments. Feel free to call me Rebecca, not judge.

Please add me to the email chain: rebeccarosedavidov@gmail.com

TLDR: I'll vote on anything, but arguments need warrants and impacts. Tech > truth. Everyone puts in a lot of time and effort into this activity and since this is your debate, do what you do best and don't over adapt to me. I'm impressed by technical debaters who warrant their arguments, make strategic choices, and are kind, regardless of the argument you choose to read.

*I won't vote on ad-homs/call outs*

Quick prefs:

Policy/Policy Style Topicality- 1

Stock Ks - 2

Theory/Kant - 3

Phil/Tricks/K affs/More obscure Ks - 4

These are based with my overall familiarity with the argument. Good debating can overcome my familiarity (or lack thereof).

General:

--Be kind to your opponents and others (especially against younger, traditional or less experienced debaters). Don't be racist, misogynistic, homophobic, problematic, etc - I'll drop you with the lowest speaks I can give.

--I flow on the computer in a spreadsheet and flow by ear, not off the doc. Card docs are good, but you should point out why your evidence is better/more contextual/recent/etc and why that matters compared to the other teams' evidence, and not just tell me to read evidence without doing any explanation during the debate. I listen to CX, but do not flow it, except for the status of advocacies (CX is binding). If you're going to ask what cards were read/not/marked, you need to do it during cross or prep.

--If I cannot explain your argument back to y'all in the RFD, I will not vote on it. Please warrant and explain your arguments.

--I don't appreciate when debaters are extremely rude or assertive, it's also very awkward to watch.

--Minimize dead time. Send out the 1AC at/before start time. Don't steal prep or clip cards. Don't take forever to send docs.

--Speed is fine, but clarity > speed. I'll clear/slow you 3x before I stop flowing. I appreciate when people change their tone when reading the tag/the words of a card, or if you slow down on the tag to make it clear that you're going to an analytic or next card.

--If possible, answer arguments in the order of the previous speech--it makes it a lot easier to flow.

--I don't care what you are wearing, you can sit or stand, etc

--Sometimes I will close my eyes when I am flowing. I'm not asleep, I am just concentrating!

--I would prefer for evidence ethics challenges to be debated out through a theory debate.

--Flex prep is fine, but CX is never prep.

--If something is conceded, the bar for a warrant goes down significantly, but not to zero; there still needs to be some explanation for me to vote on it (for example, if you say no US-China war--interdependence, and the other team drops that, that means functionally nothing to me.)

--Online Debate---Slow down from your top speed because it's harder to catch arguments over computer audio compared to in-person debate. Recording a local copy of your speeches is probably good in case anyone in the Zoom cuts out.

--I am fine with however many off you want to read but offs need warrants. This applies to LD especially. If you read a disad without uniqueness, the 2NR is too late to read new uniqueness. It is better practice to read less, fully completed positions in the 1NC compared to spamming 10 off and expecting me to fill in the blanks. Examples of this include reading K framework in the 1NC, putting competition cards in the 1NC, reading all parts of the DA, etc. The 2NR is not a 2NC!

Circuit LD/Policy:

If you are debating novices or traditional teams/debaters in prelims: slow down, read non-tricky arguments and be kind when you explain arguments.

I default to presumption negates.

Policy---

--Please do comparative and meta-weighing and collapse in the 2NR/2AR. Turns case arguments and evidence comparison wins rounds.

--I am most familiar with the framework and extinction outweighs 2AR vs the K.

--Not a huge fan of 1AR add-ons in LD...it causes really late breaking debates. In policy, 2AC add-ons are fine.

Case:

--Case debate is super underrated. I am a huge fan of topic specific case debate and solvency presses, and speaks will reflect this. Smart analytics can beat bad cards, especially in LD.

--Impact turns are great. Instead of simply reading more cards in rebuttal speeches, do more line-by-line and weigh!

--You can insert rehighlightings, it creates an incentive to cut good cards, but you must explain the implication of the rehighlighting either in the tag or elsewhere in order for the explanation for make it on my flow.

Counterplans:

--Slow down on theory arguments and counterplan competition. I am unfamiliar with high-level competition debates/textual topicality/the like, so please slow down when explaining the interactions between different arguments. Send or insert perm texts for anything other than PDB and PDCP.

--I don't default judge kick, but of course, like functionally everything else, it's up for debate. No predispositions on 2NC counterplans, what counterplans or permutations are "cheaty" or "arbitrary", if process counterplans are legitimate or not, if you should read theory or competition arguments, etc. However, I do like the other issues perm against process counterplans with no germane net benefit.

--There's this trend of 2ACs or 1ARs going to a counterplan and spamming like 4 perms extremely fast. Slow down on these--I will probably miss perms if I am not able to switch the flow tab on my computer in time.

Disad:

--I might need some overexplanation in politics debates.

Topicality:

--I really enjoy policy T debates. I appreciate when both teams have comparatively good definitions. I'm not great for arguments like Nebel T (T-subsets/Plans bad is fine, just not grammar-based argumentation like the upward entailment test). Caselists are great. You should weigh between standards and voters. I am not very familiar with PTIV. Predictability, in my opinion, is best explained as an internal link to another standard or impact. Reasonability should be framed offensively, not just "good is good enough", and should have reasons why competing interps are a worse model of debate.

--T-USFG: See K Aff section.

Theory:

--Slow down and weigh--I find most theory debates to be way too fast with not enough judge instruction, and I won't fill in the gaps for either team. I'm fine with most shells. Would prefer debates that do not boil down to "being aff/neg is harder so vote aff/neg".

--RVIs are underrated. Read paradigm issues---I won’t default for you. Please send interps/CIs.

--Read warranted 2AC (policy) or 1AR (LD) shells (5 sec of "pics are a voter they steal the aff" is insufficient for you to give a 2AR on the shell). I find that when I am judging 1AR theory, the 1AR is simply too light for the 2AR extrapolation, which means it's better for you to read a full shell instead of a one or two liner of paragraph theory. That said warranted theory is fine, but I will not hack for it and I’ll try to protect the block/2NR to some extent; many 2AR's are blatantly new on 1AR shells.

--I'd prefer not to judge super frivolous theory debates like must disclose judge names, full cites, shoe theory, etc.

--Policy specific: a lot of times the 2AC will read theory on positions the block won't go for and the block simply says "reject the argument not the team". I think this gives the aff a lot of leeway to go for said theory argument in the 1AR, so the block should quickly answer the theory argument substantively to close the door of the aff going for this argument.

Kritik (on the neg):

--My favorite K debates are one off K vs a policy aff. I'm most familiar with policy vs K debates and K vs cap K debates. I am less familiar with most other K v K debates. Phil v K debates most interesting, though I have less experience judging these.

--Please read shorter overviews and do more line by line. I will err heavily affirmative if the 2NR is you reading blocks without any engagement with the 1AR. K tricks are cool---please explicitly flag them. I'd prefer specific links to the plan. For LD, framework should probably be in the 1NC.

--I'm most comfortable with generic Ks like cap, setcol, IR and security. I am pretty unfamiliar with other K lit (especially high theory), and will be confused unless you give a lot of explanation in the 2NR. Good, technical K debating will get you very high speaks.

--Case debate should always be part of the 2NR (or at least alt solves case, link turns case, root cause, etc). Neg teams should read more impact defense in the 1NC or block; it makes it a lot harder for the aff to go for extinction outweighs.

--I'm not voting on non-black pess.

Planless/K Affs:

I am least confident in my ability to adjudicate framework debates against non-T or semi-topical affs. I do not think much about these debates and have less experience with framework debates in general.

--For the aff: It is in your best interest to slow down when reading answers to framework in order for me to get down every argument.

--For the neg: I am most familiar with the fairness 2NR. You should weigh neg offense against 2AC or 1AR arguments and explain the interaction of arguments. SSD and TVAs are helpful.

--I find the fairness paradox quite persuasive. Aff teams should probably answer this, and it would make voting aff a lot easier.

--I'm ok for soft left and topic-specific critical affs that solve some impact in the 1AC. I'm not the best judge for straight up non-T or semi-topical affs, simply because I have zero experience researching or going for these arguments. However, I'll try my best to evaluate these arguments if you read them in front of me.

--I like case presses or the cap K against K affs, and wish I could see more of these debates.

Phil:

--I read both util and Kant. I have become more comfortable with Kant debates, and more interested in philosophy in college. Kant vs util and Kant vs K debates are great. I am pretty unfamiliar with other philosophical positions, and the more esoteric it is though, I will need more explanation, but I find these arguments interesting and fun to judge when executed correctly. However, you should err on the side of over-explanation in straight ref debates or hijacks or other philosophical arguments.

--In general, I find that judge instruction is most necessary in phil and/or tricks rounds. A lot of times debaters don't implicate what an argument means or why it would negate/affirm or what burden I should assign the aff vs the neg, so explaining implications is necessary; for example, if you go for the grain paradox and say that that means the world is paradoxical, why does that mean I negate?

Tricks:

--I don't really want to judge nailbomb affs with 100 paradoxes or aprioris, and will be sympathetic to the 1NC answering these. Most spikes are missing warrants, so the bar for answering them is low.

--I'm better than I have been for substantive tricks, but still not great. You should slow down on truth testing/comparative worlds debates, and explain how offense functions under either role of the ballot. I don't understand indexicals or most permissibility arguments. Most spikes are missing warrants. If you doc bot tricks, I'll be pretty lost--would prefer you to over-explain.

--I will always evaluate the debate after the 2AR because eval after X speech creates a paradox which I am not sure how to resolve.

Speaks:

--Things that will boost your speaks: make the round easy to resolve, good evidence, good cx, weighing, giving speeches off your flow, being nice, and putting a picture of your pet or other cute animal at the top of the doc!

--Things that will lower your speaks: being rude, stealing prep, making poor strategic decisions, being shady, being very unclear and reading unresponsive blocks simply for the sake of reading off of your computer.

IPR/Policy:

I know basically nothing about the IP topic---please explain acronyms/important court cases. I know a little about IP protections and medicines/healthcare.

If you read Kant or an RVI or LD theory or any other LD argument that has made it into policy, I am a good judge for you!

See above for specifics on arguments. A lot of this paradigm is written in the context of LD, so if you have questions, feel free to ask before round.

Novice/JV:

Novice debate is a place for you to learn the fundamentals of debate, so don't worry about other things in this paradigm!

You should do weighing, and tell me why your impact outweighs your opponents (use magnitude, probability, and timeframe). Extend your case in the 1AR or 2NR. Keep your own time, don't steal prep, don't lie about evidence, and don't yell at your opponent. I flow on the computer, which is why I'm typing during speeches.

LD: don't read circuit arguments in novice.

Traditional:

I'm fine with traditional debate--attended and broke at NCFL. If you are a trad debater who comes into contact with circuit arguments and you are unsure of how to answer them, please let me know---there are a lot of great resources to help learn circuit debate.

If I'm on a panel with lay or trad judges, adapt to them before me.

PF:

I'll evaluate the debate as technically as possible; no need to use lay rhetoric. Paraphrasing is probably bad and you should probably send docs. In my opinion, you should send card docs during the speech to minimize dead time during the debate by finding, compiling and then sending cards: I will boost speaks because I know this is not really a norm in PF. I will probably ask for a card doc at the end of the debate, so be prepared to send one please. Defense is not sticky.

My likes and dislikes:

Likes: Being kind (general life rule), plans, great evidence, the cap K, setcol, policy affs vs 1 off K, efficient case pushes, impact turn 2NRs that weigh, pretty docs, RVIs, short overviews, line by line, good T debates with good definitions, explicit clash, Kant when you understand the literature, innovative positions that you explain well, judge instruction, and STRATEGY!

Dislikes: Being mean, "Zenos paradox", "7-6 time skew", calling everything an "ivi", affs/das missing internal links, reading incomplete positions, answering incomplete positions, being unclear, 4 second theory "shells", bad evidence, not reading paradigm issues, skirting clash, extremely messy competition debates with no judge instruction, being mean, 3 min overviews and then on the lbl saying "that was in the overview", implicit clash, and reading super old evidence (what happened to cutting uniqueness?)

I am a parent judge.

My email address is psharm9@gmail.com. Add me to your chain.

Do not spread! If I cannot understand you, I cannot score you.

Please be clear, concise and respectful of your opponent.

Your debate will be judged based on how well your framework is constructed, how it links back to your value criterion, and how well supported it is by evidence.

Do not bring up new arguments in a round where the other debater does not have an opportunity to respond.

When bringing up a new piece of evidence, just the author and date are fine (do not need more details).

Pref List:
1-Trad

5/Strike-K, Phil, Trix, Theory, all circuit arguments, etc