Zach Adam, Chattahoochee High School, University of Georgia, 2023 B.S. Biochemistry & Molecular Biology

zach24adam@gmail.com

Can't believe I have to say this, but considering the amount of speeches I have heard about Trump and even CP texts about Trump I have to:

Biden is our president now, let's update our blocks. Trump cannot "make escalate uniquely likely" when he is not in office. Thank you

General:

1 - I like detailed & nuanced debates that center around specific strategies.

2 - I'm probably not voting on theory

3 - I'd probably vote on framework more times than planless AFFs

4 - The politics DA is great & back in business but unfortunately, so many debaters still can't even define 'political capital'. If you are one of those, maybe the politics DA isn't the move...

5 - Evidence quality is important in adjudicating close debates, but I won't dig out warrants for you.

6 - Each argument needs a warrant please, especially in the rebuttals.

7 - Most frustrating is adjudicating a debate in which neither team provides judge instruction, implications of their arguments, or generalized framing claims about what each argument you are going for means for the debate. This often leads to judge bias & interpretation or bailed out by evidence quality.

Counterplans

1 - judge kick is my default until debated otherwise from the 1AR

2 - it's the first thing I evaluate in a debate

Kritiks

1 - Pre-written extensions that you think applies to every topical AFF isn't going to get it done. Tailor your kritik to the 1AC with detail and specificity for me to vote for it

Topicality

1 - Do comparisons. Evidence comparison & impact comparison. Too often, debates are 50/50 which is the fault of not having enough judge instruction and comparisons in the rebuttals

2 - Plan text in a vacuum makes sense depending on the plan text

Be chill, debate is great, don't hate on your peers, & please don't be toxic

I'm a first-year at Georgia Tech, and I did policy debate all 4 years at Wheeler HS.

Email: ajantachoudhury74@gmail.com

Presentation:

The presentation behind your speeches is very important to me. Be passionate, signpost clearly, keep your speech organized, and know when to spread versus when to speak more clearly. I'm fine with spreading for the most part, but framework, analytics, tags, and theory arguments are places where I want to hear you slow down at least a little bit so that I can flow you.

Cross-X:

I see cross-x as being relevant to a round. I don't flow it, per se, but when used correctly, I believe cross-x is a valuable way of enhancing your speech and your credibility, and I certainly am not against using cross-x as a way to help me determine who's won a round if I feel it's necessary. When you're the one asking questions, I want to see you clarifying arguments that don't make sense and setting the ground-work for arguments in your team's upcoming speech. When you're answering questions, I want to see that you're familiar with your evidence and knowledgeable of the content in your arguments.

Case:

I love case debates, and I truly believe they're underappreciated and underutilized. Personally, I think it's acceptable to have a case neg consisting of impact defense and analytics as long as you can prove to me that they're quality arguments. Cards are ideal, but I understand that it's not always possible to have cards prepped against a specific aff. I also think quality analytic arguments > poor evidence.

DAs:

I need to see a coherent explanation of each component of the DA. Generally, the link/internal link debate ends up being the most valuable part of a DA flow for me. I also think overview-related arguments are very important in helping me judge; I like clear identifications of how the DA turns the case (or vice versa) and how, in general, the DA and the aff interact with one another.

CPs:

I'm fine with voting for or against pretty much all CPs. If you're neg, you need to be able to defend your solvency mechanism and your net benefit. If you're aff, you need to prove the perm's viability and prove that the CP alone is inadequate. I'm fine with multiple perms as long as they're read clearly enough for me to flow them. If done correctly, I also think CP theory debates are perfectly valid.

Ks:

I like K debates when they're done well. If you're going to debate a K, you need to be able to explain your arguments very clearly and in a way that allows it to be understood by someone who's not super familiar with the literature. Don't neglect the link debate; I need more than just generic links. You also need to explain your alt and what exactly it accomplishes. I'd also prefer you not go for the K as a kritikal DA.

T:

I'll be honest, I'm not the biggest fan of T debates just because I think they're hard to do well. If you're going to go for T, you need to provide specific standards, explain how the aff's violations are specifically troubling, and explain how debate is better off under your interpretation. I'll vote for competing interpretations, but I generally default to reasonability.

Theory:

I prefer not to vote on theory just because I think reading generic theory blocks makes for inadequate build-up to a final rebuttal centered around theory. If you're going to go for theory, you need to clearly explain your impacts and why the other team's theoretical violations are harmful. You also generally need to go above and beyond a generic theory block; provide specific clash.

FW:

Please make framework arguments. I want to be told how I should evaluate a debate or a flow. Also, just a heads-up: I prefer not to flow framework as its own, separate thing.

Other:

Other preferences I have in-round:

I like it when debaters make eye contact with me at least once during a speech.

Be polite and respect one another. I understand that debate is a competitive activity, but that's no excuse to be a jerk.

I love puns and pop culture references. Incorporating them into your speeches is a great way to get higher speaks.

Don't power-tag. I understand that evidence won't always say explicitly what your tag does, but blatantly misrepresenting the contents of your card is a great way to irritate me and discredit your argument.

Also, just a heads-up: I don't know that much about this year's topic.

I HAVE NO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE.

2A for 4 years at Alpharetta High School

Current student at UGA

put me on the email chain: shlokadanave@gmail.com

tl;dr

We are all here to have fun so make sure to be respectful and enjoy yourself. Death is bad. Racism is bad. Sexism is bad. Anything that seems slightly unethical is Bad. Tech over Truth

Long Version

Case - I love a good case debate. Aff make sure to explain your impacts and if it's a complicated screwed up internal link chain, you are going to have to spend a lot of time on that for me to vote on that. Make sure to have good impact comparison. Neg please don't undercover case just so that you can read like 8 off instead of 6, I end up leaning aff in these types of debates because they have to take the burden to explain their aff and answer all of your off case when you don't even take the time to address their internal links

DA - I have no issues with these. Again make sure to impact things out, i notice that a lot of novices don't do this and it's really important for you to win the link level and the impact level of the debate. This topic doesn't have a lot of good DA's but aff specific Disads are cool. Aff, straight turn it that's fun.

T - I love t debates. Treat this like a DA ans don't just ramble on with a bunch of t buzzwords, make sure to actually explain your impacts. Make sure to be specific on the limits question of the debate because a lot of teams don't end up explaining that well. I default aff on reasonability if not answered.

CP - Aff when they read cheating CP's go for theory, if you do it right I'll vote on it, I really hate voting for cheaty cp's. On another note, treat a CP like they would treat your aff. read DA's read impact turns and extend solvency. conditionally is usually bad but i can be convinced otherwise. Neg, you need to make sure you do comparison on the sufficiency level and also properly answer solvency deficits and DO NOT GROUP PERMS. Do some actual explanation on your answers to each perm and make sure to differentiate them. You can't group PDB with an intrinsic perm.

K - I am not well versed in K literature. I will not vote on anything I don't understand so make sure you explain well. Links need to be contextualized to the aff and not just to their impacts. I'm fine with generics like Cap, Security, and Fem, everything else will need more explanation. I won't vote on anything unethical.

Impact Turns - I actually love impact turns I have no issues with these but no unethical impact turns and make sure you do this right. A lot of novices have confusion on this type of argument but make sure you have learned how to read impact turns before you do it.

Overall - just be nice and make sure you are respectful to everyone, including me and everything will go smoothly.

2N for 3 years at Alpharetta High School

TLDR

We're here to have fun so be assertive but not overly aggressive. Please don't say anything offensive or unethical. Tech over truth and please use email chain if you can -- my email is ishadeshmukh01@gmail.com

Case

Case defense is so important. Aff make sure you explain all your impacts and the internal link chain especially if it's very complicated. I don't think the neg should just undercover case and should still go on case if they go for a counterplan. A debate where the neg gets the aff down to very low probability and weighs their off case against this is very interesting.

Impact Turns

I love these debates especially on this topic with all these bad DAs. Make sure you have quite a bit of evidence if you decide to go for these and know how to explain them very well.

DA

Don't have any issues with these but make sure you focus on the impact level of the debate. Read a lot of evidence, especially in the block so you can pressure the 1AR. I understand the 1AR is a time pressured speech but make sure you answer the turns case arguments. I LOVE PTX but the internal link chains for these disads can be a bit confusing sometimes so make sure you thoroughly explain this in the block. PTX theory isn't a thing -- please don't go for it.

T

I don't think this is great on this topic but I do love T debates in general. Spend a lot of time on the limits question of the debate and don't just spit out a bunch of buzzwords -- explain everything. I default on reasonability if dropped.

CP

CP debates are great but not a fan of process or other abusive CPs and am likely to vote on theory in such cases. Neg - don't group perms and make sure you have a clear net benefit. Aff - make sure you have good solvency deficits, should be well explained but I will read evidence if I have to.

Condo -- I will vote on condo if dropped even if the interp is no conditional advocacies. 2-3 conditional advocacies is fine but I will vote aff if they are able to explain why it's absuive -- make sure your arguments on condo are round specific.

K

fine with these but not the biggest fan so please explain them well. I'm well accustomed with fem, cap, security, but will need more explanation on other Ks.

Director of Debate at Alpharetta High School where I also teach AP US Government & Politics (2013- present)

Former grad assistant at Vanderbilt (2012-2013)

Debated (badly) at Emory (2007-2011).

Please add me to the email chain: laurenivey318@gmail.com

Top-level, I really love debate and am honored to be judging your debate. I promise to try my best to judge the round fairly, and I hope the notes below help you. Most of the below notes are just some general predispositions/ thoughts. I firmly believe that debaters should control the debate space and will do my best to evaluate the round in front of me, regardless of if you adapt to these preferences or not.

I flow on paper and definitely need pen time; I've tried to flow on the computer and it just doesn't work for me.

Counterplans- I like a good counterplan debate. I generally think conditionality is good, and is more justified against new affirmatives. PICs, Process CPs, Uniqueness CPs, Multiplank CPs, Advantage CPs etc. are all fine. On consult counterplans, and other counterplans that are not textually and functionally competitive, I tend to lean aff on CP theory. All CPs are better with a solvency advocate. If the negative reads a CP, presumption shifts affirmative, and the negative needs to be winning a decent risk of the net benefit for me to vote negative. I am probably not the greatest person for counterplan competition debates.

Disads- The more specific, the better. Yes, you can read your generic DAs but I love when teams have specific politix scenarios or other specific DAs that show careful research and tournament prep. If there are a lot of links being read on a DA, I tend to default to the team that is controlling uniqueness.

Topicality- I find T debates sometimes difficult to evaluate because they sometimes seem to require a substantial amount of judge intervention. A tool that I think is really under utilized in T debates is the caselist/ discussion of what affs are/ are not allowed under your interpretation. Try hard to close the loop for me at the end of the 2nr/ 2ar about why your vision of the topic is preferable. Be sure to really discuss the impacts of your standards in a T debate.

Framework- Framework is a complicated question for me. On a truth level, I think people should read a plan text, and I exclusively read plan texts when I was a debater. However, I'll vote for whoever wins the debate, whether you read a topical plan text or not, and frequently vote for teams that don't read a plan text; in fact, my voting record is better for teams reading planless affirmatives than it is for teams going for FW. However, I also think this is because teams that don't defend a plan are typically much better at defending their advocacy than neg teams are at going for FW. I tend to think affs should at least be in the direction of the topic; I'm fairly sympathetic to the "you explode limits 2nr" if your aff is about something else. Put another way, if your aff is not at least somewhat related to the topic area it's going to be harder to get my ballot. I do think fairness is a terminal impact because I don't know what an alternative way to evaluate the debate would be but I can be persuaded otherwise.

Kritiks- I am more familiar with more common Ks such as security or cap than I am with high theory arguments like Baudrillard. You can still read less common or high theory Ks in front of me, but you should probably explain them more. I tend to think the alternative is one of the weakest parts of the Kritik and that most negative teams do not do enough work explaining how the Kritik functions.

Misc-If both teams agree that topicality will not be read in the debate, and that is communicated to me prior to the start of the round, any mutually agreed previous year's topic is on the table. I will also bump speaks +0.5 for choosing this option as long as an effort is made by both teams. I am strongly in the camp of tech over truth.

I am unlikely to vote on disclose your prefs, wipeout, spark, or anything else I would consider morally repugnant. I also don't think debate should be a question of who is a good person. While I think you should make good decisions out of round, I am not in the camp of "I will vote against you for bad decisions you made out of round" or allegations made in round about out of round behavior. But, I have voted against teams or substantially lowered speaks for making the round a hostile learning environment and think it is my job as a judge and educator to make the round a safe space.

Good luck! Feel free to email me with any questions.

Debated for Hamilton High School. 2A for 3 years, 1A for 1 year

Housekeeping things

-Include me on the email chain: fanafu@gmail.com

-I won’t disclose until the room is put back in order.

TL;DR

Please explain your acronyms as I haven't judged many rounds on this topic.
Quality > Quantity. It's your debate, debate what you want (also means read args that you're comfortable on).

Love K's of any kind.

T/FW is alright, just make sure to impact everything.

DA/CPs are chill if they're specific.

Be understandable, do clash for me, do the work for me, esp. in last two speeches.

I listen to CX (even if it looks like I don't) and it is binding.

Flashing isn't prep, but excessive amounts of flashing might come off as stealing prep so be wary.

Debate well, don't be mean, don't be offensive, respect each other.

Speaker Points

20: you did something extremely offensive/disrespectful/hostile

27.5-28.4: mediocre; prob not breaking
28.5-28.9: good; maybe breaking 4-2
29-29.4: very good; prob breaking
29.5-30: excellent; top speaker quality

CX Specific Paradigm
Affirmatives--Any style or way you want to present your affirmative is fine with me, just be sure you can justify it. Admittedly, I am not well versed with performance-based aff, so please explain to me what your performance means in and out of the round. Affirmatives should at least talk about the topic and anti-topical affs are definitely not legit.

*new thing. I find myself increasingly less enjoying big-stick policy affs, mainly because the debates tend to be just overly fast and blippy. If you ARE planning on running those kinds of affs, then i would highly suggest making good extrapolations of internal link chains and impact probability analysis.

Case-- I usually go by the offense/defense paradigm here even though it's probably not realistic. I just find it easier to evaluate debates this way sans a very robust analysis of impact defense in the 2nr. Try not to contradict here; however, if you can contextualize your arguments well to the affirmative a case debate is very impressive to see. Try to avoid making this debate "not my [insert some author]" and actually have a contextualized debate here. Line by line analysis as opposed to long generic overviews are preferred.

Counterplans--You must have a good analysis of how you resolve the net benefit of the CP if you're going for it. Neg must explain how they are competitive and should be preferred over the affirmative. Evidence should be good and actually say what you want it to say if you want me to vote for you. Theory is often insufficient unless entirely dropped. Also I default to reject the arg on CP theory, unless specifically spun to be reject the team.

Disads-- Most DA’s are chill. They probably all have very tenuous link chains that can be exploited. So exploit them. Impact comparison is also very important. Tell me why I should care. For ptx specifically, don’t speed through it. Intrinsicness is probably true, but you still have to argue the theoretical implications for me to evaluate it.

Kritik--This is where I spent most my debate career. I think K's are good as long as you can explain them well. If you are personally passionate about an argument, and it shows, your speaker points will likely be higher (this goes for affirmatives as well). I tend to think arguments about identity in debate are important, and play an important part in effecting the community. That being said most of my experience is with the "high theory" side of K's. Regardless of what kind of critical argument you read, I will NOT do the work for you. Tell me what your K is, why it matters, and why I should vote for you. If your only link in the 2NR is a state bad link, then you're prob not on the winning side. K's should not be a sketchy attempt to dodge clash, find a way to clash with your opponent and make the debate productive for everyone. I won't kick the alt for you. Most other K tricks, while cheap shots, are acceptable.

Also the question of perms is always an issue in a K vs. K debate. Someone please tell me what the perm means in the round or tell me why a method vs. method debate doesn't get a permutation.

T/FW--I treat framework debates like I would any topicality debate. Be sure to impact out anything you go for otherwise I'll probably prefer their impacts. Reverse voting issues are dumb, but I'll still vote for them if done well. If against a non-traditional affirmative try to provide an interpretation where they could still raise there issue, and not out right exclude them. It will be an uphill battle if you come in with the "non-traditional affirmative are wrong" mindset. Otherwise treat T/FW like a DA, I want to see how they link, what that does, why that's bad, and why I should care.

Theory--Theory is often not enough for me to vote for you unless there is a serious violation or the other team just dropped it. Give me examples of how they violate and how that is effecting you. I have a high threshold for these arguments; however, am more often convinced by the "drop the argument, not the team" plea for theory.
Also for Condo specifically, I will probably not vote on it unless there's some serious abuse and it's well extrapolated in the 2AR.

Other stuff

• Flashing is not prep
• please clash
• jokes are cool
• caring about your arguments is cool
• don't be mean
• don't exclude people
• don't discriminate against people
• have fun
• be chill
• If you can make a joke about your existential dread, Malhar Patel, Tanzil Chowdhury, Nikpreet Singh, or Quinn Zapata, then you’ll get an extra .5 speaker point.

LD Paradigm

Defend your ethics and position with good references to evidence and impact comparisons, and I'll be pretty satisfied. If you have any specific questions, just ask me before round.

If, for some reason, you're treating this as a one-man policy debate, then read my CX paradigm above.

(Updated 12/22/16)

Emory University

School Strikes

Mount Vernon Presbyterian School

PV Peninsula High School

General Information

There was a time when I was really invested in the activity (I did policy) and this paradigm was longer and more nuanced, but those days are pretty far gone. I think the best debates happen when people are both passionate and informed about the arguments they read. The worst debates I’ve ever judged happen when neither side really wants to be there, and I honestly consider those a waste of my time.

I’m a chemistry major and read a LOT of science-related material in my spare time. If you like making arguments that depend on science or data, I expect you to have done the proper background research. If you’re debating against said arguments, disqualifying a source is everything (i.e. “this study doesn’t take into account X”, “that’s not how global warming models are made”, “that’s not how drugs work”, “here’s an article that takes into account Y and concluded the other way”, etc.)

Quality research is as valuable as quality debating

There is such a thing as absolute defense, and “any risk” logic is nonsense. Additionally, I’m skeptical of “shifting qualitative risk,” as I call it. “War is likely” doesn’t magically become “war is inevitable” just because it was dropped.

I lean slightly left-of-center on the economy, slightly right-of-center on trade, and fairly liberal on everything else.

I flow on paper.

While I do love coffee, if you see me with a cup of it in the round, please start slow.

I think affirmatives should actually do things. This is not the same as reading a plan text, though I used to read mostly "traditional" or "soft-left" affs, and I still really like those.

My favorite anime is Bungou Stray Dogs. I highly recommend it. Watch season 2, episodes 1-4 before season 1. Quality references are appreciated.

Case and topic-specific DA debates are cool.

I’m always down for a good theory or T debate. I hate frivolous T/theory arguments (and so should you).

I will not vote for the "ctrl+F language K." I will vote on the “what the fuck, you should never say that again” language K.

LD Specific

"If your strategy involves skep, permissibility, or some logical syllogism that relies upon analytic philosophy showing that the other side can't be proven, you probably don't want me as your judge" –Scott Wheeler

RVIs are an uphill battle. RVIs on T are like mountain climbing. If you don’t know how hard mountain climbing is, I can tell you a cool story about my biochem professor.

Someone told me I should have a line here about flashing, which makes me sad. I will dock 2 points if you intentionally don't provide a copy of your evidence to the other team prior to your speech.

Kant = :(

My name is Josh Jeong but I go by JJ.

I did policy debate for four years at Hooch in Johns Creek, GA.

I'm now a freshman at Wake Forest.

You do you and add me to the email chain. joshuajeong1018@gmail.com

Debated four years at Riverwood International Charter School (GA). Not involved in the collegiate scene but do keep up with high school circuit.

General:

• Open to any argument, given that there an adquate work and warrant on top. I certainly lean towards great technical debate wtih solid evidence comparison and anaylsis.
• Speed is fine, and I will note to tell you to slow/clear if you're being unclear. That said, I will not evaluate or flow arguments I cannot understand. So do enuciate on what you want me to evaluate.
• Be nice. If not, at least be funny.
• You'll know if I like the argument or if I hate it. Use that to your advantage.

• I'd like to believe that I'm Tab, but may be a little biased. Shouldn't be an issue.

Theory/T:

• If you want to win on these, you heavily need to invest your time on these.
• Don't like RVIs. 
• Default naturally to Reasonability if uncontested. 
• Good interp/violations and counterinterp are what I like to see. Slow down on these parts.
• Have high threshold
• Blocks are there to guide you, not do everything for you

K:

• Do like these, but are not familiar with some.
• Have specific impact back to a framework.
• Really want to understand alt and have a clear idea of K's that you run. Have a good link. 

CP:

• Biased to protect aff from abusive CP, ie consult, condition, threaten, Plan-plus. Don't really think that these CPs really allow for the discussion of the literature.
• Please have solvency advocate and links.

DA:

•  Don't like generic DA. You can definitely run it, but do have good links. If not, your whole DA wouldn't really matter, would it?
• Believe that aff can usually create a good defense more often than not.

Speaker points:

• Don't ask beforehand what you need to get for perfect speaks. Just do your best.
• Don't let me do your work for you. You'll probably have better speaks if you make me think less.
• I will more often than not look at CX heavily in addition to your speeches. 
• You earn your points. I will start at 27.5 and add or subtract from that point.

After all, remember to enjoy and have fun. Debate is an educational activity, and I will try my best to accommodate you. 

I do not like Kritiks. 

i am a 2N – 4th year at Chattahoochee High School. I promise to evaluate the debate to the best of my ability every round.

i'd rather you be slow than unclear. tech > truth. impact calc wins debates.

time your own speeches and prep. don't clip, or be rude.

i think it's important for judges to put their biases aside, so do what you do well and have fun.

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

Also I think I need to add, they conceded "X" means nothing to me, if you say "they conceded X and that matters" "or that implicates X" than that is a viable argument.

I’m a former HS Debate coach who judged tournaments throughout college, and competed in NDT, CEDA, and the Cross Examination/Policy format. 

Key Info: I am a policy debate judge who can flow and follow most policy arguments and positions.  I am open to most styles, formats and paradigms. If you want me to embrace another paradigm or decision making framework for making decisions, I will listen and hear your arguments.  Closed CX (during prelim rounds). 

Preferences:
The current debate topic is important and should not be ignored by either time in favor of an all generic approach.  Do your best to make a quality effort to articulate how and why DA's, CP's, T, K, etc. are being argued starting in the 1NC, and be sure to focus attention on the affirmative case as much as possible.  Again, I don’t require an all case debate, I just enjoy it and feel like the debate experience is of a higher quality and is more educational when the topic and case are not just read during the 1AC and then ignored for the rest of the round.  Applicability to the real world is important. 

The quality of your analysis and explanation of things matters so don’t just read cards and ask me to make the analysis for you. 

For T (and stock issues), I prefer direct clash, contextual evidence, and relevant substance over a quick spew of text written up and fast read skeletons.  For example: I would rather see clash about a slightly out of bounds case than a debate about effects T, extra T, or a use this definition of a word in the resolution not that one argument.  It is always better to show how the literature places the affirmative plan in or out than to nitpick about which definition is better.  But if your strategy is different, feel free to go with it and I will listen. 

The more original or substantive the position, the better. I will consider a squirrel case or a camp hatched case, but I would much rather hear an original case that you are actively researching and can support with solid and ideally recent evidence than something that hasn't been updated in ages or that was downloaded and worked on by someone other than yourself.  
 
Be considerate and do your best to find common with your opponent. I have encountered teams who compete in different flavors of policy debate, often shaped by their region of the country or state. The TOC style is one example that comes to mind. As a former educator and long time judge I find it deeply troubling when an experienced team enters a room with a style of debate that is foreign to a less experienced or differently experienced team or panel of judges and does not make any attempt to reconcile the differences or close the gap. Alienation does not make for a good experience for the other team or the judges. Please make an effort. You do not have to change who you are to do so, but know that the best competitors perform effectively for many different types of judges with all sorts of different paradigms and backgrounds so adaptation is not an optional skillset.  

If you have a choice, don't run your performative case with me. I will consider performative cases, but I would prefer a traditional policy debate.  


In closing, I have been exposed to many different argumentative and regional styles of debate and will always do my best to keep an open mind when it comes to different approaches. I do not judge on appearance, school, etc. You can dress up or down, wear a t-shirt and flip flops (although ideally that should wait until elims out of consideration for the volunteer judges and novices who are still learning). How you dress isn't as important as the quality and impact of your arguments, evidence and delivery.

Woodward '17

UGA '21

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain: rishika.pandey21@gmail.com

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round or email me afterwards, I'm here to help!

When reading through these comments, just remember that they reflect my background and thoughts based on debates that I've had, watched, or judged so far - don't let them determine your neg strat or 2AR decisions. You do you. I can keep up.

General comments:

1. Be nice. There's a difference between confidence and rudeness, and I will dock speaker points if you are rude/offensive to anyone (yes, including me and your own partner) in the room at any point.

2. If I have to remind you to be clear, then you shouldn't expect above a 28. Use your words.

3. Prep-time: I'll stop the timer when you tell me the speech doc is done; however, if it takes you too long to email/flash the speech to everyone, I'll probably be suspicious and dock prep time.

4. I read evidence apposite to the nexus question of the debate.

5. Yes, absolute defense is possible.

6. Smart analytics over trash evidence.

7. Evidence - don't underhighlight, clip, or do any of that cheat-y stuff. You're not as cool or sneaky as you think you are.

Specific arguments:

T - Nuanced T debates are great. T over theory unless explained otherwise. Reasonability is fair if the neg interp is meta and non-specific to the aff. You need to explain what the topic would look like under your interp and provide clear case lists and DAs to the other team's interpretation.

DAs - GOOD aff-specific researched DAs are pretty much my favorite arguments. On the other hand, I'm fine listening to politics and other general topic DAs (although you'll have a harder time convincing me to vote for your generic budget or trade-off DA).

CPs - I get excited judging innovative CPs. Defend your CP against CP theory, especially if you think you have a great solvency advocate (though not all CPs need one). No, I won't "judge-kick" a CP for you - you need to make a decision and stick to it.

Theory - 1-2 conditional advocacies is fine; any more is probably excessive and/or abusive. Politics theory is fine as a time-skew, but I'm not likely to vote on it. Floating PIKs/PICs and process CPs are generally bad.

Ks - I'm good with most general/topic/identity/reps critiques, but not necessarily all of the high-theory Name Ks. The best Ks in front of me are contextualized to the aff (using aff evidence as links). Clear explanations and in-depth analysis will most likely help you win a K debate in front of me, not just evidence.

Affs/case - Affs should generally have a plan text/advocacy statement, but I'll listen to affs that don't. Also, case debates are AWESOME and way too undervalued - I love impact turns, alt causes, link turns, etc. Be innovative.

For extra clarity, if necessary, my debate ideology has been strongly influenced by Maggie Berthiaume - see her paradigm.

Vanderbilt University ‘21

Email chain- rohanpethkar21@gmail.com

rohan.v.pethkar@vanderbilt.edu

K- I am more familiar with traditional kritiks, but if you are able to persuasively define and defend your terminology and the assumptions of the AFF, I will vote for it. This is similar for K affs, though I am more susceptible to framework/topicality arguments from the opponent. For the benifit of the debate, I think the aff should use the USFG.

DA- Without good/specific links I probably won’t vote on the disad especially if the link seems generic. A DA that turns the case is better than one that outweighs the case, though any well-argued DA can win the round.

CP- I will give the aff the benefit of the doubt on counterplans and vote for the perm if argued well enough. The neg must explain why ther perm does not work, in other words, I probably won’t vote for a generic counterplan. I accept conditionality.

T- The neg must prove that there is real abuse done by the aff and the impacts of the violation. The neg, though, must have clearly defined limits. If the neg can prove the aff is far too broad to foster good debate, I will most likely vote for them.

RAP Paradigm:

Clash. Most importantly, I value clash rather than distracters or debate "theory." For all forms of debate, clash is essential; beyond initial presentation of cases, "canned" or pre-prepared speeches are unhelpful.

Evidence. I prioritize proof. Therefore, I value evidence over unsubstantiated opinion or theory, and I especially value evidence from quality sources. Be sure that (i) your evidence is from a quality source, (ii) your evidence actually says what you claim it does, and (iii) you are not omitting conditions, limitations, or contrary conclusions within your evidence.

Delivery. I debated back in the day when delivery mattered. Persuasion is still key, so if you are monotone, turn your back, or never bother with eye contact, your speaker points will likely suffer accordingly. You may speak quickly, but you must be clear, particularly with contentions. Eye contact and a well-organized, well-documented case are much appreciated. Always bear in mind that you’re trying to persuade the judge(s), not your opponent(s) or your computer, and focus accordingly.

Weighing arguments. I don’t weigh all arguments equally. You can spread if you want, but the decision will go to the team that carries the majority of the most-substantive issues with greater impacts. I appreciate policy arguments (vs. theory), especially if they relate to law (e.g., the Constitution), economics, international trade (e.g., the WTO), international relations (e.g., the UN or international law), or government policy.

Organization. This is essential. Off-time roadmaps are okay. I try to flow carefully. Please structure your case with numbered/lettered points and sub-points. When refuting arguments, please cross-refer to your opponent(s) case structure (preferably by number/letter) and be very organized for me to keep track.

Resolutions. Please debate the resolutions. Thought has gone into these and their specific wording. Regardless of the form of debate, I prefer that students debate the resolution, and I am not a fan of “Kritiks,” “Alts,” or the like. Whatever the rubric or euphemism, if they relate specifically to the topic, okay, but if they are generic or primarily distractive, I may disregard them. In any event, they are no excuse for failing to deal with the current resolution, for failing to clash with the other side’s specific arguments, or for failing to organize your own points with a clear structure.

Ridiculous rulemaking. Please spare me any “observation” or “framework” that attempts to narrow the resolution or to impose all of the burden on your opponent(s) (e.g., “Unless the other side carries every issue, I win the debate”).

Other pet peeves. These include: not standing during speeches, answering for your partner, claiming that you proved something without reading evidence, claiming evidence says something it doesn’t, rudeness, speaking faster than you can organize thoughts, failing to clash, forgetting that debate is ultimately about persuasion, debating during prep time, etc. Avoid hyperbole: not every issue leads to “global thermonuclear war”.

Feedback. Some students find my feedback very helpful. Even if you don’t, it’s not a time for arguing against the decision or for being disrespectful, which is counterproductive with me.

My background. I was a Policy debater who also competed in Congress, Extemp, and OO. I’ve coached PF. I am an international business attorney and former law school professor, with a background in Economics and experience working on Capitol Hill. I also teach and tutor ELA, History, and SAT (Reading/Writing); words matter.

The above thoughts apply to all forms of debate. I judge a fair amount, primarily PF and L-D. Below are some thoughts specific to those types of debate:

PF—

--I prefer line-by-line refutation. I am not a fan of dropping or conceding arguments. I do not appreciate attempts to reduce the debate to “voters,” ignoring other arguments. This is particularly inappropriate when done during your side’s first two-minute speech.

--No “scripted” speeches after the initial presentations of cases. Clash is key.

--Framework is optional, not essential. It may not be used to narrow the resolution.

--Even though you are not required to present a plan, that can’t be used as a knee-jerk response to all arguments or questions concerning Solvency or Topicality.

--Remember that “There is no presumption or burden of proof in Public Forum Debate”.

L-D—

--I am not a fan of abstract philosophy. Any philosophical presentation must be tied specifically to the resolution and not presented in a generic vacuum.

--I don’t necessarily weigh framework over contentions.

--Your value and criterion should work with your contentions. Ideally, in discussing the relative merits of each side’s framework, explain specifically why your choice is more relevant rather than relying on a circular “chicken and egg” analysis (e.g., “My value comes before her value”).

2N for 3 years at Alpharetta HS 

 put me on the email chain: shreyamsachdeva@gmail.com

TLDR: We're all here to have fun so be respectful towards the other team and me. I won't vote on anything unethical (death is bad, racism is bad, and sexism is bad). I'm pretty policy and not well versed in K lit, but I'll vote on anything as long as it is explained well. 

Case: I love a good case debate. Aff explain your impacts and the internal link chain especially if it's complicated. The neg should not undercover case and read a bunch of offcase. The neg should still go on case even if they go for a CP in the 2NR. 

DAs: I love DAs, especially PTX. Neg, be sure to impact things out (especially in novice) and make turns case arguments. Also, explain the link story in the block especially on DAs like PTX. 

T: I don't really like T debates especially on this topic but if you are gonna go for it you have to explain it really well. Neg, don't just spit out a bunch of buzzwords but actually explain your arguments. The limits portion of the debate is really important so spend a lot of time on it. 

K: I love K debates, but I am only familiar with generics like fem, cap, neolib, and security. In order to win the debate, the neg must contextualize the K to the aff. I will not vote on anything unethical.  

CP: CPs are great especially specific ones. The aff can win on CP theory if they impact it out well. If the aff goes for a perm they have to explain how it functions. Neg, answer each perm individually and do some actual analysis on them. 

K affs: I am not very familiar with K literature but am willing to vote on anything that is not unethical. 

Marist, Atlanta, GA (2015-2019, 2020-Present)
Pace Academy, Atlanta GA (2019-2020)
Stratford Academy, Macon GA (2008-2015)
Michigan State University (2004-2008)

Pronouns- She/Her

Please use email chains. Please add me- abby.schirmer@gmail.com.

Short version- You need to read and defend a plan in front of me. I value clarity (in both a strategic and vocal sense) and strategy. A good strategic aff or neg strat will always win out over something haphazardly put together. Impact your arguments, impact them against your opponents arguments (This is just as true with a critical strategy as it is with a DA, CP, Case Strategy). I like to read evidence during the debate. I usually make decisions pretty quickly. Typically I can see the nexus question of the debate clearly by the 2nr/2ar and when (if) its resolved, its resolved. Don't take it personally.

Long Version:
Case Debate- I like specific case debate. Shows you put in the hard work it takes to research and defeat the aff. I will reward hard work if there is solid Internal link debating. I think case specific disads are also pretty good if well thought out and executed. I like impact turn debates. Cleanly executed ones will usually result in a neg ballot -- messy debates, however, will not.

Disads- Defense and offense should be present, especially in a link turn/impact turn debate. You will only win an impact turn debate if you first have defense against their original disad impacts. I'm willing to vote on defense (at least assign a relatively low probability to a DA in the presence of compelling aff defense). Defense wins championships. Impact calc is important. I think this is a debate that should start early (2ac) and shouldn't end until the debate is over. I don't think the U necessarily controls the direction of the link, but can be persuaded it does if told and explained why that true.

K's- Im better for the K now than i have been in years past. That being said, Im better for security/international relations/neolib based ks than i am for race, gender, psycho, baudrillard etc . I tend to find specific Ks (ie specific to the aff's mechanism/advantages etc) the most appealing. If you're going for a K-- 1) please don't expect me to know weird or specific ultra critical jargon... b/c i probably wont. 2) Cheat- I vote on K tricks all the time (aff don't make me do this). 3) Make the link debate as specific as possible and pull examples straight from the aff's evidence and the debate in general 4) I totally geek out for well explained historical examples that prove your link/impact args. I think getting to weigh the aff is a god given right. Role of the ballot should be a question that gets debated out. What does the ballot mean with in your framework. These debates should NOT be happening in the 2NR/2AR-- they should start as early as possible. I think debates about competing methods are fine. I think floating pics are also fine (unless told otherwise). I think epistemology debates are interesting. K debates need some discussion of an impact-- i do not know what it means to say..."the ZERO POINT OF THE Holocaust." I think having an external impact is also good - turning the case alone, or making their impacts inevitable isn't enough. There also needs to be some articulation of what the alternative does... voting neg doesn't mean that your links go away. I will vote on the perm if its articulated well and if its a reason why plan plus alt would overcome any of the link questions. Link defense needs to accompany these debates.

K affs are fine- you have to have a plan. You should defend that plan. Affs who don't will prob lose to framework. A alot.... and with that we come to:

NonTraditional Teams-
If not defending a plan is your thing, I'm not your judge. I think topical plans are good. I think the aff needs to read a topical plan and defend the action of that topical plan. I don't think using the USFG is an endorsement of its racist, sexist, homophobic or ableist ways. I think affs who debate this way tend to leave zero ground for the negative to engage which defeats the entire point of the activity. I am persuaded by T/Framework in these scenarios. I also think if you've made the good faith effort to engage, then you should be rewarded. These arguments make a little more sense on the negative but I am not compelled by arguments that claim: "you didn't talk about it, so you should lose."

CPs- Defending the SQ is a bold strat. Multiple conditional (or dispo/uncondish) CPs are also fine. Condo is probably good, but i can be persuaded otherwise. Consult away- its arbitrary to hate them in light of the fact that everything else is fine. I lean neg on CP theory. Aff's make sure you perm the CP (and all its planks). Im willing to judge kick the CP for you. If i determine that the CP is not competitive, or that its a worse option - the CP will go away and you'll be left with whatever is left (NBs or Solvency turns etc). This is only true if the AFF says nothing to the contrary. (ie. The aff has to tell me NOT to kick the CP - and win that issue in the debate). I WILL NOT VOTE ON NO NEG FIAT. That argument makes me mad. Of course the neg gets fiat. Don't be absurd.

T- I default to offense/defense type framework, but can be persuaded otherwise. Impact your reasons why I should vote neg. You need to have unique offense on T. K's of T are stupid. I think the aff has to run a topical aff, and K-ing that logic is ridiculous. T isn't racist. RVIs are never ever compelling.... ever.

Theory- I tend to lean neg on theory. Condo- Good. More than two then the aff might have a case to make as to why its bad - i've voted aff on Condo, I've voted neg on condo. Its a debate to be had. Any other theory argument I think is categorically a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I can't figure out a reason why if the aff wins international fiat is bad that means the neg loses - i just think that means the CP goes away.

Remember!!! All of this is just a guide for how you chose your args in round. I will vote on most args if they are argued well and have some sort of an impact. Evidence comparison is also good in my book-- its not done enough and i think its one of the most valuable ways to create an ethos of control with in the debate. Perception is everything, especially if you control the spin of the debate. I will read evidence if i need to-- don't volunteer it and don't give me more than i ask for. I love fun debates, i like people who are nice, i like people who are funny... i will reward you with good points if you are both. Be nice to your partner and your opponents. No need to be a jerk for no reason

Spent 4 years debating policy at Wheeler High School. Add me to the email chain: keshavsy@gmail.com

Basics:

I'll evaluate tech over truth.

Read whatever you want.

Clarity is much more important than speed. I'll say clear twice before I stop flowing you.

Don't cheat; don't steal prep; disclose if you aren't breaking new; don't unnecessarily paper; don't be rude.

Good line-by-line will win the debate for you. Please no giant overviews or embedded clash.

I'm looking at the speech doc too, so send your pre-written blocks, name your contentions, and don't make it intentionally confusing. It only makes the debate worse and I will dock speaks.

K Stuff:

I'll vote for Ks or K Affs, but only if I understand them. I was a policy-focused debater, so you need to really explain things well throughout the debate. Don't assume I know the terms or buzzwords.

Good K links are the most important thing for me.

Theory:

I'll vote on literally anything if the violation/interp/standards are well debated, but especially when there is clear in-round abuse pointed out and explained. Don't just list out names of cases or DAs; I don't know the topic.

Again, line-by-line decides the winner, even if the theory arg is something silly.

CPs:

Make sure to explain how the CP works to me.

No solvency advocate needed, but it helps.

Evidence:

The evidence is only as good as it is warranted out in round. I'll only read the evidence if there's contention over what it says in round.

Debate Experience:

4 years in high school (Lakeside High School, Augusta GA, mostly local/Atlanta circuit)

1 year at Emory

Coaching Experience:

3 years assistant coach at the Westminster Schools (2006-2009)

1 year assistant coach at Johns Creek High School

5 years director of debate at Mount Vernon Presbyterian School (Atlanta, GA)

As a debater, I liked to write/run critical affs (defended a plan text and fiated plan action, but often made discourse & deontology impact framing args); on the neg side, I went for Agent CPs/Disads and T most of the time.

I'm happy to listen to any argument and am also happy to use any paradigm or decision calculus you want to defend, but things you might want to know about me in a vacuum:

• I don't have any special threshold on theory arguments, and am perhaps more likely to vote on well-explained theory voters than the average judge (especially against process CPs); however, I hate listening to a shotgun blast of theory args without analysis.  Approach theory like any other flow - clash needs to be developed, a combination of offense and defense is probably necessary.
• I'm not likely to call for a card unless it's clearly extended in the 2NR/2AR; if you want me to read your evidence, you need to let me know its important.
• I think that switch-side debate provide a unique educational experience for high schoolers, both in the sense that it teaches a variety of strategic decision-making skills and increases the depth of content education on each topic; I also think that it probably ensures a fair division of arguments between both teams in a debate
• I love a well developed post-fiat K debate; if you want to talk about serial policy failure, blowback, etc., that's my jam; but to do it well, you need to develop specific analysis in the context of the Aff
• I don't believe in the judge-kick on the CP

any other specific questions, please feel free to ask.

zstrother@mountvernonschool.org

zachstrother@gmail.com

I have been involved with policy debate for 10 years and debated at the college level. I have heard and seen it all. 

I want the debaters to understand that I participate as a volunteer because I enjoy the activity. As such, I want the debaters to make their best and favorite arguments. Let's have a good time and learn something together. 

Please be aware that I am not intimately familiar with the topic this year. 

2A for 4 years at Alpharetta High School

University of Georgia 2023

put me on the email chain: pooja.udeshi1126@gmail.com

**I haven't debated in awhile so if you read very specific things please explain them in depth.

Short Version:

-I won't vote on anything unethical: death is bad, racism is bad, and sexism is bad.

-I'm mostly a policy debater so I'm not that familiar with K lit but I'm will vote on it if its explained well.

Case:

-the neg needs to spend time on case

-case turns are good

DA:

-I love a good disad debate, but if you're going for the disad you have to explain the link level.

-Subpointing is important and makes it easier to flow.

-If you're going for the DA you have to have compare the impacts to the Aff's.

T:

-I'm not a big fan of T debates, but if you're gonna go for it you have to explain it really well.

-In order to win a T debate the Neg has to explain compare the interps and explain why your's is better.

-You have to impact T out really well to win.

K:

-The neg has to contextualize the K to the Aff in order to win.

-I haven't read a lot of K literature, so you have to explain the K and the impacts to win.

-I won't vote on anything unethical.

CP:

-I love specific CP's

-The Aff can win on CP theory only if they can impact it out.

-If the Aff goes for the perm they have to explain how it would function.

K Affs:

-I'm not very familiar with K literature, but I'm willing to vote on anything that isn't unethical.

westminster 2020 (2a) – kavyadebate@gmail.com

do what you do best as long as you're respectful to everyone in the room!

case

1. explain your solvency mechanism

2. use the other team's ev against them

3. k affs -- defend something

t

1. impact analysis

2. explain why your interpretation is better than theirs

3. framework makes the game work

k

1. specific links to the plan are good

2. explain how the perm solves/doesn't solve

3. explain what a world of the alt looks like

cp

1. go hard on solvency (specific solvency advocates = good; specific solvency deficits = good)

2. why does the perm (not) solve?

3. offense is always good on this flow

da

1. turns case analysis is my favorite part of debate -- explain it well

2. specific links to the aff are good

3. politics disads >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

theory

1. condo - will vote on condo but a warranted analysis of the distinction between both sides' interpretations is necessary

2. neg fiat - neg leaning on this

3. everything else - probably not a reason to reject the team

cx

1. set up arguments

2. know your arguments and evidence

3. don't take over your partner's cx unless they ask

speaks

i usually range from mid 28s to low 29s for novices

how to get extra speaks

1. solid evidence comparison -- +0.1

2. make a joke about any current westminster debater or any of my friends -- +0.1

3. add me to the email chain without me asking -- +0.1

*max 0.3 raise*

tl;dr: don't say something rude and i'll probably give you decent speaks :)

endnote

1. if i look confused, please explain your argument better

2. feel free to email me with questions if you have any (see email at the top)

3. happy debating!

I competed in AZ policy (2A/1N)

I'm a pretty open judge, willing to listen to any kind of argument. I like K's, but I also like policy arguments, so go for whatever you are most comfortable with. Please make sure, however, to clearly impact out whatever you are going for.

I am familiar with a small to fair amount of k lit; however, assume that I have no prior knowledge of your critical argument when you explain it to me. I will not vote on an unclear k.

General

- I like crossex, so I will listen to it.

- I don't count flashing as prep, but don't take too long.

- I understand not flashing analytics over, but do not expect me to be able to accurately flow minutes of analytical arguments spread like cards

- spreading is fine, but don't be unclear. Also, I would like to have speech docs flashed to me as well.

- speaker points:

<27: not too good
27-27.9: mediocre
28-28.9: good
29-29.4: very good
29.5-30: excellent

I'm a former high school varsity policy debater.  It's been several years since I've been actively involved with in the debate community, therefore I do not have in depth knowledge of the current topic. 

While my knowledge of the current topic is limited, I am still fairly knowledgeable about the structure and argumentation of policy debate. 

Wheeler '18 (a small team w/o many resources/staff, so I am sympathetic to case flows consisting of Impact D and analytics)

email chain: whittingtongrace@gmail.com  

General Things

Treat me as if I have no prior knowledge on the context of your plan. Specifically, don't assume that I know what all of your acronyms/bills/supreme court cases mean. If it's a k, don't assume that I'm familiar with your author (b/c most likely I am not) or k vocabulary. I will listen to and weigh any argument as long as you explain to me how the arguments interact w/in the same flow and across multiple flows. 

Passion in your arguments is important. Monotone spreading is a quick way for me to miss args and not flow. Spreading is fine as long as you aren't speeding through an analytic/theory/framework arg. PLEASE GIVE ME TIME TO FLIP MY FLOW PAPER! (this means signposting needs to be done CLEARLY).

Be nice. Policy debate is extremely competitive, but treating opponents, partners, and judges with respect is critical to the value of a debate experience. I pick up on in-round sexism, racism, ableism, and queerphobia really quickly and do not tolerate it. 

Specific Strategy

CX-- the best part of a debate round and where I determine a large part of speaks. Good CX questions w/ followup questions equal good speaks. 

Topicality-- I love a good Topicality debate, but I rarely get to see them (in jv/varsity most of the plan texts I have seen this season have been pretty far from the resolution, but neg teams always drop T in the block). Good T strat means choosing the best violation(s), standards, and articulating at least one example of a topical version of the aff. Unless the aff is blatantly untopical/extratopical/FX topical, I can't vote on T unless I see topical versions of the aff. 

CPs-- Anything is fair game (even consult CPs). I hold the negative to a pretty high standard on solvency, so the affirmative team should question the CP's ability to solve. Cool w/ multiple perms, as long as they are stated clearly and not spread too quickly. 

Theory--Condo is usually good. I'm not a fan of a cheap-shot theory argument (perf con) but if there's a clearly articulated and RELEVANT impact and the other team drops it, they might be a viable option. Anything else I tend to err on Reject the arg.

DAs-- love them, but only if the argument is whole and complete. I need to see uq, link, i/l, and an impact very clearly. The link is the most important part. 

the K-- JV/Novice debaters usually can't do the K justice, so I don't like to hear these debates. I believe kritikal debate is valid, but only when done so clearly and whole-heartedly. K must link HARD and not just be a strategic option for the team to employ (like I said: passion really matters to me). Framework always needs to happen, but it is not the burden of the team reading the K to bring it up. THE ALT MUST BE EXPLAINED. I don't like mindset change alternatives. They aren't helpful in real life, and they aren't helpful in debate b/c they make you very vulnerable to the perm. 

Other things

I come from a very small team at a public school where debate is not a class, and we only meet as a team 1-2 times a week. I try my best to stay unbiased in a round, but my tolerance for reading blocks/args made by your coach and/or higher level debaters is pretty low. I can tell when you are just spreading arguments that have been written for you by someone else (i.e. bad answers in CX, spreading of analytics, no use of prep time until the 2NR/2AR), and when this becomes apparent, I am deeply sympathetic to the team on the other side. I believe there is a difference between current private school debate programs and public school debate programs, but by no means do I vote solely for public schools. I vote for the best argumentation and that is all; however, it would be disingenuous to pretend that I do not have certain predispositions. 

2N, Senior, Johns Creek High School

I like K debates; identity args are my favorite. Don't be racist/sexist/ableist.

add me to the chain: stephanie.zhang6308@gmail.com