About me:

• I am a Harker Parent Judge. My child participates in some form of policy, ld, public forum, congress, and/or IE so while I may know some basic concepts I will unlikely know any specific terminology. Below is what every harker parent judge has been taught.
• Non-Internventionist: I try really hard to be fair and objective to both sides of an argument. I do not let my biases or background knowledge taint who or how I vote each round. I vote for which team did the better debating, not which team is closer to truth.
• Style: Please speak slowly, clearly, and number your points. Flow your opponents, and answer their main arguments sequentially. I prefer the debate to have an organizational clash that makes reasoned judgement possible.
• Quality: I care about argument quality, not argument quantity. I vote for the team that did the better debating. Source quality matters to me - if you read qualified soures, tell me their qualifications and read exact quotes (not debater biased paraphrasing) and it is more likely I believe it.
• Note Taking: I will take notes during each speech, to keep a record to better organize the debate to help evaluate which side wins.
• Rebuttals matter: In your last speeches - be sure to summarize the main points you want me to vote on and offer impact calculs why that outweighs your opponents main points. I wll limit my decision to soley arguments extended in the last two speeches. Competely new arguments cannot be first brought up in the rebuttals, because both sides need a chance to develop the argument in earlier speeches first. If new arguments are brought up, I will ignore them.
• No Double Wins: I will vote for, at most, only one team.
• Fair Speaker Points: My speaker points range from 24 to 29.5 in public forum and 26 to 29 in ld/policy. Both are with tenths of a point, no ties, unless otherwise noted by the tournament. The average mean is a 28 across all events. 
• Have fun. Be courteous. Treat eachother with respect. 

About me:

• I am a Harker Parent Judge. My child participates in some form of policy, ld, public forum, congress, and/or IE so while I may know some basic concepts I will unlikely know any specific terminology. Below is what every harker parent judge has been taught.
• Non-Internventionist: I try really hard to be fair and objective to both sides of an argument. I do not let my biases or background knowledge taint who or how I vote each round. I vote for which team did the better debating, not which team is closer to truth.
• Style: Please speak slowly, clearly, and number your points. Flow your opponents, and answer their main arguments sequentially. I prefer the debate to have an organizational clash that makes reasoned judgement possible.
• Quality: I care about argument quality, not argument quantity. I vote for the team that did the better debating. Source quality matters to me - if you read qualified soures, tell me their qualifications and read exact quotes (not debater biased paraphrasing) and it is more likely I believe it.
• Note Taking: I will take notes during each speech, to keep a record to better organize the debate to help evaluate which side wins.
• Rebuttals matter: In your last speeches - be sure to summarize the main points you want me to vote on and offer impact calculs why that outweighs your opponents main points. I wll limit my decision to soley arguments extended in the last two speeches. Competely new arguments cannot be first brought up in the rebuttals, because both sides need a chance to develop the argument in earlier speeches first. If new arguments are brought up, I will ignore them.
• No Double Wins: I will vote for, at most, only one team.
• Fair Speaker Points: My speaker points range from 24 to 29.5 in public forum and 26 to 29 in ld/policy. Both are with tenths of a point, no ties, unless otherwise noted by the tournament. The average mean is a 28 across all events. 
• Have fun. Be courteous. Treat eachother with respect. 

i graduated from the harker school in 2020, where i primarily competed in policy debate. second semester senior year, i qualled to the toc in ld/made late elims at a few tournaments. i'm now a second-year at uchicago and coach/judge for harker.

please put me on the email chain – madisonh@staff.harker.org

tl;dr

i like technical, smart debating, particularly of policy arguments. i like even more when these debates are a robustly developed 1-2 off rather than a proliferation of unexplained arguments.

i have come to the conclusion that i do not enjoy watching, nor do i know how to evaluate, ld phil debates, as well as high theory arguments. i'm also not the best judge for a very technical 2ar on theory, especially if the 1ar is fast and/or blippy.

you will almost surely lose if you read tricks, silly theory arguments, spikes, or weird ld arguments using acronyms (including but not limited to rvi, nib, afc, or any spec argument). i will listen to these, but the sillier/less intuitive the argument, the lower my threshold for responses (and your speaks) will be.

online debate notes

please be extra clear & go about 70% speed! after online camp + judging practice rounds, i would probably prefer if you sent analytics, especially theory, t standards, and permutation texts.

if you do not locally record speeches in the event that you drop off a call, i will flow only what i caught. will not let you regive any part of a speech.

more specific thoughts

from miles gray: i think the purpose of any one debate round is to determine whether the benefits of an example of the resolution outweigh its harms and/or opportunity costs. i will, by default and by preference, adopt this position when considering arguments in a debate, and am very skeptical of reasons to evaluate a debate in any other way.

some things that i like seeing in debates

• big picture framing and judge instruction
• nuanced, fully developed arguments rather than "run and gun" strategies
• well-researched strategies that display content mastery
• good disclosure (this does not mean i am a fan of disclosure theory)

some arguments i am likely to be persuaded by

• appeals to reasonability, especially on theory
• plans good/pragmatics arguments vs. nebel t
• judge kick
• framework versus planless affs
• util good & extinction outweighs

some arguments i am unlikely to be persuaded by

• personal callouts
• framing contentions without substantive answers
• process counterplans (but vastly prefer the aff to make competition arguments rather than theory presses)
• conditionality bad, or that any non-condo theory is a reason to reject the team
• anything in the realm of spark or wipeout or warming impact turns
• asking me to ignore large parts of the debate (evaluate after x speech, must concede fw or contention, indexicals, etc.)
• frivolous theory and tricks (the bar for answering these is on the floor)

random notes

• inserting rehighlighting is fine
• evidence quality is very important to me. if you have very good cards, tell me, and i will read them! conversely, point out that your opponents' cards are bad (i think the state of evidence in LD is abysmal)
• i feel comfortable voting on clipping/egregiously miscut evidence/other ethics problems even if the other team does not point them out (if it is a novice debate, i will likely not vote on clipping to maximize the educational experience for both debaters)
• please be kind and respectful! there is a distinction between being sassy/sarcastic and being rude – if you cross that line, i will be very unhappy

if i am judging you in public forum

...you can probably ignore most of this paradigm. in high school, i did not compete in pf, but i am familiar with the differences between pf and ld/policy and will try to adapt my judging accordingly. regardless, here a few things that might differentiate me from other pf judges:

• i prefer flow/circuit style debate, and i will make my decision based off of technical drops and extensions. how "pretty" your speeches are will not affect how i evaluate your arguments.
• i firmly believe your evidence should be in the form of direct quotations (ideally cards *with full citations available*). in my mind, paraphrasing has the same weight as analytical arguments, and arguments from the opposing team to discount paraphrased evidence will be very persuasive to me.
• arguments need to be extended in every speech for me to evaluate them at the end of the debate. if something is not extended in summary, you will not be allowed to bring it up in ff. consequently, using summary to choose *a few* important offensive and defensive arguments is in your best interest.
• i care little about pf formalities (who asks the first question, sitting/standing during grand crossfire, etc.)
• speed is fine, but please maintain clarity.

About me

Harker ’19

Debated for Harker for 4 years as a 2N, primarily went for policy arguments

Georgetown ’23 (no longer debating)

Coaching for Harker

Add me to the email chain – anusha.kuppahally@gmail.com

Please add info about the round in the subject of the email chain!

TL;DR
You do you, clear judge instruction makes me happy, don’t be rude, tech>truth, and have fun!

I flow on paper, and if you want me to catch more of your arguments, don’t sacrifice clarity for speed and slow down a little.

I fail to see the strategic utility of proliferating bad, generic offcase instead of having a clear, specific strategy. If you would never go for an argument, don’t put it in your 1NC. Quality>quantity.

I will yell clear once but after that, if I can’t understand you, I will stop flowing.

Planless Affs

Strongly neg leaning on T against these types of affs. If you read a planless aff, it will be an uphill battle for me to vote on it. That being said, the aff needs to win that engaging the resolution or being forced to do so is intrinsically bad, and the neg has to win that aff offense isn’t intrinsic to the resolution, and neg offense is. I believe fairness can be an impact, and I find impacts based on the value of clash/engagement with the resolution more compelling than standards based on arbitrary decision making/topic education impacts.

Ks

I’m familiar with generic K’s like security or cap, but less familiar with high theory/identity debates. If I can’t explain it, I can’t vote for it, so make sure to clearly explain your arguments. Links should be based on the action of the plan, have a clear impact, and have a reason why the alt resolves the link. Line by line > long overviews. Death is bad, don’t try to say otherwise.

DAs

Absolutely love specific DAs that interact directly with the aff, and politics is fine too. Make sure to do impact calc and explain how the impact implicates the case debate. Turns case is underutilized so please do it! Framing pages aren’t my favorite, and are often generic/waste of time.

CPs

I default to judge kick. I’m also neg leaning on theory, especially conditionality. I haven’t found a clear and identifiable impact based on conditionality and I find numerical limitations to be arbitrary. Conditionality is a reason to reject the team, anything else is a reason to reject the argument. I love smart PICs and using aff evidence as solvency advocates for counterplans. If you have to read a bunch of definitions to prove that your counterplan is competitive, it will be an uphill battle to convince me to vote for it. However, if you want to read these counterplans or go for theory against these types of counterplans, standards on theory should be effectively compared and impacted out. Please slow down on standards, I flow on paper and will miss what you say if you speed through them.

T

I don’t have much topic knowledge, so be sure to explain acronyms and affs that they would justify. Whoever has the best vision of what the topic should look like will win the debate. Be sure to impact out standards and why your interpretation of the resolution is better for debate. Evidence matters, and if you read more cards about why the aff doesn’t meet your interpretation and why that’s bad, you’re more likely to win.

Misc.

I default to tournament rules for clipping. Please don’t do this, it makes me sad.

If you make the debate unsafe by being racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. you automatically lose and get a 0. No exceptions.

LD

My debate experience is mostly in policy, so while I understand the differences in LD, most of what I said above still applies.

Conditionality bad is more winnable in LD to me, and my other opinions on theory still apply.

If your strategy relies on tricks, phil, or frivolous theory, please don’t pref me. I don’t enjoy these debates, don’t know what these things are, and don’t know how to adjudicate them, so both of us will be very unhappy at the end of the debate.

Harker '21 - debated for 7 years in LD and Policy

email chain - 21akshaym@students.harker.org

Policy args > Ks >> Phil / Tricks

Policy args:

Vast majority of args I read in my career - i feel very comfortable evaluating these debates, go for it. love to see creative and well-researched strategies, which will be reflected in speaks

impact turns are some of my favorite debates - co2 ag, dedev, etc are all on the table, and good execution will be rewarded with high points.

politics probably a thing, but also probably can lose to smart analytics especially if your cards are bad. that said i'm a sucker for a good politics disad

i lean very heavily towards judge kick -- probably a really hard uphill battle for the aff to persuade me against that.

i'd be very hard pressed to vote on zero risk.

Theory

good for more stock theory args (mostly CP theory) than frivolous theory -- i am more receptive to reasonability and arbitrariness args against spec, new affs bad, etc. good for regular disclosure but not niche args like "round reports", etc

i prefer paragraph theory on the offending page (eg condo on a CP) then as a "new off"

i lean neg on most counterplan theory except for international fiat.

i find competition arguments against cheating counterplans more persuasive than theory arguments

default drop the arg (unless it's condo), competing interps, no rvis

i'll flow by ear for these debates so slow down

have warrants for your arguments beyond "vote aff for deterrence" or similar stuff

Ks:

better for these debates than you might think based on the arguments I read as a debater. I read through most literature bases during my time as a debater, and I feel comfortable evaluating these debates. 2nr link contextualization (e.g., drawing lines from 1ac/1ar evidence) factors heavily into my decision calculus.

Negs will do best by saliently dealing with the case -- either with robust link turns the case, alt solves the case, and unsustainability arguments, or with a *heavy* push on framework. the case page should make the 2nr. I find critiques of extinction impacts more persuasive than "structural violence outweighs". that said, i think most critiques have more compelling extinction impacts than a good deal of policy affs. i find aff ballots most persuasive when the negative underexplains the reasons behind their structural claims (especially regarding ontology arguments). equally debated, i think the aff generally gets access to the case, but specific framework evidence goes a long way for the negative (especially regarding epistemology claims). ROJ/ROB are silly/contrived mechanisms.

For the aff, I find 2ars on case outweighs or impact turns most compelling. impact turns are often underutilized. please explain perms -- "perm do both perm do the alt perm double bind" in one breath can be answered by a thumbs down from the neg. weighing is most important for me when judging this genre of debates.

between debaters of equal caliber, i think soft left affs would consistently lose to the critique. hard left/topical K affs (that assert a theory of power) seem extremely strategic to me *if* well-researched and germane to the topic.

line by line >>>> big overview

floating piks should be identified in the 1nc.

K affs:

Prefer affs that are within the parameters of the resolution. better for k affs that have a spin on the topic rather than impact turning every element of limits/debate. if you're negating, i mostly prefer arguments about skills or clash over fairness on framework. K affs probably get perms. the 2nr should cover the case. I think K v K debates can be incredibly interesting (and what I normally went for in these debates), but specific link and alt work by the negative is crucial.

Topicality

update: *not a good judge for nebel t - i very often vote affirmative in this debates*

probably lean towards competing interps. i'd prefer a substance debate to topicality but good T debates are enjoyable to watch and get good speaks.

i prefer topicality to be well developed in the 1nc, and I find many 2nrs to be almost completely new in explaining their standards. i dislike how prescripted these debates tend to be, especially with regards to nebel T -- I’ll lean against pre scripted nebel 2nrs and underdeveloped 1nc t arguments when pointed out by the aff.

Phil

i appreciate philosophical literature but find these debates to usually be exceedingly blippy or underwarranted -- not the judge for you if that's your style. i prefer ACs & NCs with evidence justifying the framework. slow down on dense or niche framework explanations. I did not read these arguments in high school but debated them a number of times.

Tricks

just read a disad please

"underview" of more than a minute caps your speaks at a 27. please debate the topic.

presumption always flips neg, unless the 2nr includes an advocacy.

Other things --

fine with inserting rehighlightings

i will definitely read your evidence. i'll reward good ev with good speaks, and punish bad ev with bad speaks. evidence quality caps your truth claims, even if they're dropped -- please reference ev quality in your speeches in general (this shouldn't substitute for explanation though). good topic knowledge is also good for speaks

smart analytics can beat bad cards

"independent voters" are usually not independent voters -- i am unlikely to vote for args flagged as such without a theoretical justification for doing so

dropped arguments are still influenced by how true they are -- e.g., dropping no neg arguments is not an issue. i won't be too interventionist/this is more aimed at tricks but dont prioritize lots of terrible blippy offcase or arguments in favor of a smaller more substantive strategy

good humor/sarcasm is very good for speaks

Deven Shah Harker '22, Stanford '26 deven@devenshah.com

Hi, I'm Deven! I debated LD and formerly policy in high school. I've won several octas bids, NDCA, and twice broken at the TOC. I read everything from cybernetics to agenda politics.

I appreciate debates that involve substantive clash, where both teams forward good, clear, rejoining arguments from the start. This means I am bad for most theory, "tricks," arguments designed to confuse, strategies that rely on proliferating arguments instead of advancing a few good ones, etc.

Least favorite phrases: "LARP," "evaluate the debate after x speech," "Colt Peacemaker," "Nebel T," "disclosure is racist," "theory double-bind," "give me a 30."

Harker 2013-2017 (debated policy all 4 years, 2A for the last 3 years). Currently a senior at Rice University (not debating).

Updated before ASU 2021 to gear my paradigm more towards LD now that I rarely judge policy.

please put me on the email chain - molly dot wancewicz at gmail dot com

Online Debate:

I'll say clear once if I can't hear you but not beyond that because I don't want to miss even more of what you're saying. Record all of your speeches locally - if there's some kind of error/issue I will listen to the recording but will not allow you to re-give or re-do your speech. It would be excellent if you could have your camera on during the entire debate (at least CX and prep!) but I know everyone has different situations so if you can't/don't, I won't hold it against you. Please no prep stealing or other shenanigans that take advantage of online debate.

Arguments:

I think LD = short policy.

Theory - I have a higher threshold than most judges for voting on theory. I am not interested in hearing you throw out a bunch of random theory shells and see what sticks. There needs to be significant in-round abuse for me to vote on theory. Not wanting to engage with the aff is not the same thing as abuse. My threshold for abuse is probably slightly lower for cheating counterplans like consult, add-a-condition, object fiat, etc. I will literally never vote on an RVI.

Phil - I am not a good judge for a phil debate. I evaluate debates using the offense-defense paradigm, so I will be a much more effective judge if you read your argument as a kritik with an alt, or even as a DA, rather than as a traditionally-structured NC. At bare minimum you need to explain how your NC means that I should evaluate the debate and its offensive implications but I will be unhappy.

Framework - I default to util unless told otherwise.

Negative Strategy - Splitting the 2NR is almost never a good idea. Will definitely affect speaker points.

DAs and Case - I will be really really happy if this is the debate I'm judging :) Everything is fair game - politics and spinoffs, elections, topic-specific DAs, etc. Technical case vs. DA debates are great and proficiency here will have a significant positive impact on speaker points. I have a higher threshold on voting for neg arguments that aren't contextualized to the aff.

Nontopical affs - I will admit that I'm neg-leaning in the nontopical aff (k aff) vs. topicality (framework) debates. I find topical version of the aff arguments very persuasive. Fairness is a less compelling topicality/framework argument to me, but I would still vote on it as a net benefit to the TVA. I think k affs need to have an advocacy of some sort and be related to the topic.

Kritiks - I am reasonably familiar with the basics (security, cap, colonialism, etc) and a lot of identity arguments. I am much less familiar with high theory/postmodern stuff. Regardless of the author, though, contextualization to the aff is extremely important to me in the kritik debate - at the very least, the 1NC should include one specific link card. I find generic kritiks that aren't contextualized very unpersuasive. I think most k alts are implausible/prohibitively vague and/or don't solve the link - I find CX pressing the plausibility and details of the alt really effective. In addition, I am often very willing to vote on case outweighs and/or case solves the K given that these arguments are well-explained in the 2AR.

Counterplans - Need to have a solvency advocate. I like specific counterplans and I think DA+CP is a great 2nr, but I'm not a fan of cheating CPs (see theory) and I'm pretty aff-leaning on the theory question for these.

Topicality (vs policy affs) - I’m willing to vote on T. Even if your violation is bad, I’ll vote on tech in the T debate (within reason obviously)

Don't be rude - If you're mean to your opponent or partner (if applicable) your speaker points will reflect that.

If I happen to be judging PF:

Impact comparison is really important at the end of the debate - please don't make me do it for you.

About me:

• I am a Harker Parent Judge. My child participates in some form of policy, ld, public forum, congress, and/or IE so while I may know some basic concepts I will unlikely know any specific terminology. Below is what every harker parent judge has been taught.
• Non-Internventionist: I try really hard to be fair and objective to both sides of an argument. I do not let my biases or background knowledge taint who or how I vote each round. I vote for which team did the better debating, not which team is closer to truth.
• Style: Please speak slowly, clearly, and number your points. Flow your opponents, and answer their main arguments sequentially. I prefer the debate to have an organizational clash that makes reasoned judgement possible.
• Quality: I care about argument quality, not argument quantity. I vote for the team that did the better debating. Source quality matters to me - if you read qualified soures, tell me their qualifications and read exact quotes (not debater biased paraphrasing) and it is more likely I believe it.
• Note Taking: I will take notes during each speech, to keep a record to better organize the debate to help evaluate which side wins.
• Rebuttals matter: In your last speeches - be sure to summarize the main points you want me to vote on and offer impact calculs why that outweighs your opponents main points. I wll limit my decision to soley arguments extended in the last two speeches. Competely new arguments cannot be first brought up in the rebuttals, because both sides need a chance to develop the argument in earlier speeches first. If new arguments are brought up, I will ignore them.
• No Double Wins: I will vote for, at most, only one team.
• Fair Speaker Points: My speaker points range from 24 to 29.5 in public forum and 26 to 29 in ld/policy. Both are with tenths of a point, no ties, unless otherwise noted by the tournament. The average mean is a 28 across all events. 
• Have fun. Be courteous. Treat eachother with respect.