Hello,

I am a parent judge who has limited debate experience. Consequently, I will require debates to speak clearly and concisely. Please be sure to explain complex arguments at a reasonable pace so that I do not miss any important information.

No circuit debate or spreading. Mostly judged LD for the last 7 years. I look at LD as a value-based debate, if participants are debating on totally different value/VC, I would expect debtors to clarify why their VC is better than the opponents. Also expect to weigh in how your contentions are reflecting on VC. In the final speech, please clarify, why should I vote for you. Please be polite and genuine. If you are making a statement of dropping arguments, please make sure you believe in it. Speaker points are based on how effectively you are articulating your arguments with out repeating/waisting any time/statements.

I am parent/lay judge with a couple of years of experience. I believe in the values aspect of LD and will look to your V + VC and how you tie back your contentions to the values.

I pay special attention to cross ex as that provides a good insight into your knowledge and understanding of the topic. It also provides a way for you to expose or set traps for the opponent or emphasize your position.

LD is a debate between you and your opponent. If your opponent states a fallacy or is illogical in their approach, I expect you to attack them and point them out for me. I will not make the connection or use my own bias for determining the winner of the round. Please make sure that you have the evidence to back up your claims - this is important for me.

Speaking: Please do not rush through your speech - a fast conversational pace is OK. Spreading is not OK with me - I cannot offer my opinion if I do not understand you.I don't like when debaters are rude to one another and will take speaker points off so please keep the rounds civil and courteous.

Note taking: I write down key contentions and notes during the round - usually on my laptop or tablet.

Voting issues: Not entirely necessary but helpful where you can provide.

I have limited experience with the LD format but speaking is an integral part of my job. I am great listener so make your point concise and clear. Professionalism in debating a topic is critical. Respect your opponents thoughts but counter them intelligently with facts. Delivering your stance with conviction and confidence will go a long way with me. Good luck!

I am old school. I believe LD should be communicative, so spreading is out. I also don't like using terminology that is not easily accessible to the general public. Do not try to overwhelm an opponent with evidence, volume of words, or the such. Overwhelm your opponent with logic.

Ultimately, the decision is made in this order:

1. Who won the value clash? (if neither debater, then...)

2. Whose criterion best supports their value?

3. Whose arguments were more reasonable through evidence and logic?

You must have a value. Do not use any progressive techniques, substitute a role of the ballot for a framework structure, and don't just read your progressive CX cases slower and think I will vote for them. I WANT A PHILOSOPHICAL VALUE DEBATE THAT MY GRANDMA WOULD ENJOY WATCHING.

Occupation: Software Engineer

School Affiliations: DVHS

Years of Judging/Event Types: 2nd year; Ld/Policy

How will you award speaker points to the debaters? I would award points not based off of content as much as based off of confidence and presentation of ideas. I will be looking for confidence in speaking and logical idea flow.

What sorts of things help you to make a decision at the end of the debate? Presentation of ideas, speaking clearly and confidently, showing understanding of the topic and use of evidence plus a logical and clear construction of ideas.

Do you take a lot of notes or flow the debate? More so flowing the debate but I utilize notes as well.

Ranking: 1 - not at all 5-somewhat 10- weighed heavily:

Use of Evidence: 7

Real World Impacts: 7

Cross Examination: 8

Debate skill over truthful arguments: 8

--- K affs/Performance
I am not used to Kritikal arguments but I will do my best to evaluate any argument presented. However, please WEIGH and explain the significance of your Aff and please affirm something topic related. If there is no framework and roll of the ballot, I will not weigh your offense. That said, I would rather prefer a regular Aff and advantages with impact calc.

--- Ks on the neg

Please weigh and have specific links. As said above I am not familiar with Ks and so please go the extra step to explain the critique or else I will have no way to flow and weigh

--Theory/T

In round offense and impacts please.

--- DA CP and Case debate

This would be the best in my opinion. Please weigh and explain your arguments.

Speed is ok in moderation. I do not like debates where one side is abusive of spreading and is doing it to skirt clash.

Add me to the email chain: m_channa@hotmail.com

Put me on the chain email: mrkainecherry@gmail.com

Also, my sister is a film student at UCSF and is in the process of fundraising for the production of her short film Through the Woods to complete her senior thesis if you are able to donate you can do so here and if you are not able to do so if you could at least share the indiegogo link I would deeply appreciate it. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/through-the-woods-post-production-fundraiser#/ If you donate will raise you speaker points to the max of .3

Updates as of 11/28/23

Things to know off the top:

1)Please don’t call me judge but if you need to use a title feel free to use "Honored One" and if that is too much/odd you can call me by my name.”

2) I am not persuaded by new affs bad theory arguments, and while I appreciate open source and disclosure those things are norms that are practiced by the community, not rights guaranteed by the activity.

3) I've been in the activity since 2006 and competed both in High School(UDL and nationally for Baltimore City College HS) and College (2-time NDT Octofinalist/10th Place Speaker, 2015 CEDA Semifinalist) So I'm generally comfortable judging all styles of debate.

4) While old the information below is still mostly relevant. If you need me to clarify anything either shoot an email or ask before the round.

5) Presumption > Ballot "PIC/K" no seriously if you have to choose one presumption is generally more persuasive to me.

6) Highschool Stuff- the Longhorn will be my first tournament on this years resolution, however I did coach LD when they had their UBI rotation a few years back so I do have some familiarity with the content of topic. Regardless of debate styles I evaluate what happens between the students, I have start to judge more policy v policy debates since coming back to college policy debate even if its not what I debated when I competed. Please keep track of your time, it's a resource in the game of debate and youth should start to learn time management skills. If you are a novice I will gladly time with you to help you get into groove of things. Open/Varsity you are on your own. I'm not a particularly formal person so please don't call me judge(see #1) and I won't dock speaker points for using particular words etc. The more relaxed everyone is the better the round will go for everyone :3

Online Debate Stuff: While I will try to do my best to listen and follow along with the round, if you insist on spreading, I would like it if you include analytics in the speech doc(I watch everything with subtitles. I've noticed slight audio processing/latency issues listening to people talk fast in the few online debates I have either watched or judged. If you choose not to do so, I will in no way hold it against you. But "YMMV" in terms of what I get on my flow ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Feel free to debate, just make it interesting although I specialize in critical arguments I am familiar with the fundamentals of debate across styles. Don’t call me judge.( see #1 above for suggestions)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking: General Clarity over speed paradigm that most people have, It is a good determinate of speaker points and important for effective communication. When you make an argument clearly I'm more likely to follow its development and depending on how the round goes works well for you. Versus If I miss and important argument and it costs you the round and then you ask "What about x argument" then people are sad.

Style: Is also very important and I think that can become lost in debate rounds, although some people shoot arguments as if they are a machine they still have personalities that I believe should be shown in a debate round. If you are funny, show it, if you can make being "assertive" work more power to you, if you are a geek I'll probably get your references, and so on. Style is not mandatory and should come naturally, but if shown will definitely improve your speaker's points.

Cross-X: Can be a very useful tool and can be both a fun and entertaining experience for me as a judge and a place for people to express some aspects of "style". Cross-X belongs to the person asking questions, so if it seems like someone isn't asking a question let them ramble it really isn't your concern. Of course, there is a threshold that will become really clear, in that I'll probably stop paying attention and start finding something else interesting to pay attention to.


Evidence: Pieces of evidence are like a bullets to a gun. They can be devastating only when aimed properly, I think evidence is a tool to support your arguments and the way you articulate them. So if you extend evidence with little to no explanation to how it functions you are shooting blanks that can probably be easily refuted, evidence comparison is also really important in this regard as it allows you to control the framing of the debate which leads us into. . .

Macro-level issues and Framing: I think these are very important in both debate as they ultimately determine how i look at the flow(s) and situate who is controlling the direction of the debate. So if someone has an overview that contains an impact calculus,framework, "politics" or frontloads an argument on the flow and it doesn't get answered either directly or somewhere else on the flow then it becomes damming to the other team. This is even more essential in the last two speeches that ultimately determine how i should look at the round. Good framing also should happen on the line-by line as well and will also help me write the ballot.

Theory: As someone who's into competitive games I've grown to like theory a lot. It's probably something that should be argued in a CLEAR and COHERENT manner, which means you probably shouldn't speed through your condo bad and agent cp blocks as if you are reading cards, I'll vote on dropped theory arguments as long as there is a clear impact to it when extended. Otherwise, it should be developed throughout the debate. General question that should be resolved in theory debate for me is "What does it mean?" i.e If you say best policy option, what does that mean in terms of what a policy option is and how does it work in terms of debate?

Specific Stuff

Topicality: Its very situational depending on the violation and how the definitions play out. I think a lot of T interpretations can be contrived especially if they are not grounded in codified law or precedent. Interpretations that come from legal academics serve to help lawyers in the event in which they feel they must argue a certain interpretation in front of a particular judge and may not necessarily good for debate(although a certain level of spin and framing could convince me otherwise). Topicality comes down to clash and ground, and is normally resolved by several questions for me; "Is there clash in round?" "What ground does BOTH sides have?" and "How does ground function to create educational debates?" I tend to have a very high threshold for fairness. Just because a K Aff makes a no link argument to you politics disad doesn't mean that it's unfair, negative ground isn't something that is so clearly drawn out. I think there are better arguments that can be made in those situations. That being said I am very sympathetic to aft weighing their case against topicality and see k's of topicality as substantial arguments on the flow.

Just saying you are reasonability topical isn't an argument and makes their competing interpretation claims all the more legitimate. Like all things you have to make a warrant to why you are reasonably topical, may it be that you are germane to the resolution or that you still allow for alternative ways for the neg to engage the aft.

Counter Plans, PICs, and DA's: Not really a generic counterplan person, I think counter plans when researched properly and specific to the aff with a good net-benifit can become a good interesting debate that I would love to see. I don't really like silly "PIC/Ks" and think people can make very convincing, smart arguments about how stupid they are, but I'll still vote for them. It's a question of how the counterplan competes with the aff and makes better room for theory arguments on the aff. I really don't like the politics DA and generally think the link arguments are contrived, strong attacks on the link story of the DA are very convincing and will probably help you on the CP debate.

"Performance": **http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_n1FHX3mBw** Just do your thing- by this I mean I'm in no way hostile to performance debate, but that does not mean negatives can't make arguments as to why that performance is potentially bad or problematic.

K's: I would love seeing a good critique debate more than seeing a bad one that does surface-level work. A good K debate includes specific links to the aff that go beyond " you do state action dats bad judge" or "you sed observation= ablest discourse" as it allows affs to use simple questions to make your links seem stupid and their framing arguments stronger. A strong defense of the alternative, and realistic impacts that are explained and benefit the neg. I really like K's that deal with politics and how we formulate political action and agency in relation to institutions or the State, a good framing of the alternative politics and how that politics can function through the debate round and the ballot is very. Smart questions and simplification of the alt/ K will probably allow it to be more persuasive and stop the k from becoming the blob it normally becomes.

Have fun!

~Kaine

 I am familiar with all forms of debate and have a particular interest in LD, Public Forum and Parli. I debated on the national circuit in college and have been coaching for almost 10 years. I am fine with speed, as long as I can understand what you are saying. However, I am not a fan of extreme spreading and do not think it is a skill set that benefits competitive debate, nor is it a skill set that I believe will help students in their future lives. I am familiar with all forms of arguments, theory, etc. I am open to all of them as long as they are well articulated. To be honest I am not a fan of kritiks based on semantics.

I most greatly appreciate debate that uses logic and sound reasoning supported by relevant and credible sources. In LD make sure you are supporting your value and criterion with the rest of your case. I find it disappointing when a debater presents their value/criterion and then almost never references them again throughout the debate; novice mistake!

I believe I evaluate every round with fairness and expectations deserving of the division you are entered (novice/JV/open). Do not make up facts and/or evidence. If I feel like you present false evidence intentionally I will inform Tabroom and urge them to punish you accordingly. I definitely will increase speaker points for those who speak with respectful conviction and enthusiasm. If you sound bored, I will be twice as bored. I do not award wins to those who speak "pretty" just because they speak "pretty". I will increase your speaker points but I award wins based overwhelmingly on the logic and comparative analysis you offer.

About me/TL;DR:
I'm a third year Econ/Stats major with a minor in Human Rights, which means I think analytically and care about the world. It also means I have a lot of things to do, so don't waste my time; make the debate interesting and conclusive.

I competed in circuit LD for two years with Presentation High School in San Jose, CA. I was almost exclusively a util debater, but I can follow other philosophies if they are commonly known or explained clearly. Make the round resolvable if you want to be happy with the decision. That means weighing, clear extensions, and a conclusive framework/theory debate. The more you weigh, the more likely I agree with your view of the round.

Don't be rude. Debate is a forum for intellectual argumentation, not a place for you to expel your anger. I've seen a lot of sexist rounds in my time, and I'm not here for it. Have a good time, learn stuff while you debate, and we'll all be happy with the outcome of the round.

+0.5 speaks if you show up to the round early. -1 speaks if you're late.

Sharing cases:
Using e-mail chains to share cases is faster and has fewer technical issues than flashing. If you e-mail evidence in round prior to speeches I'll give you +0.5 speaks.
Flashing is part of prep time. I don't like prep stealing. Your prep doesn't end until you hand your opponent the flash drive.

Speaker points:
i) I heavily weight to incentivize clash and punish unethical actions in round (at my discretion)
ii) I’ll tank your speaks if you read things you didn't share with your opponent pre-speech and will probably not evaluate the arguments.

Theory:
I have a high threshold for the links between interp, violation, and standards. If you read standards cut from an old block I’m probably not voting on them. Theory is always competing interps unless you either explain how I evaluate reasonability and/or win intervention good. 1AC theory pre-empts need to be re-contextualized in the 1AR based on the exact nature of the violation in the 1N. These are my starting points and thresholds on some interps. I’m free to add interps to the list at any time. I'll only vote on an RVI if you're also winning the theory debate or justify why you shouldn't have to be IN THIS ROUND.
I have a VERY high threshold on these interps:
- Neg must read competing ethic
- Affirmative Ethic Choice (AEC)
- Neg interps must be checked in CX
- Aff may not defend implementation
- Neg must defend squo
I have a fairly low threshold on these interps:
- Aff must defend a topical action
- Neg must clash with the aff in some way (rejoinder)

Speed:

I have seldom come across JV debaters who spread too fast for me to understand; however, I have been off the circuit for a few years, so things might have changed and y'all might be incredible now. I highly doubt it. If you do choose to spread, do it clearly and send me your case so I can follow along (that does not mean that I will flow everything in your doc; if I don't hear it being said, I won't flow it). I will say clear a maximum of 2 times per speech, but if I've already said clear and you go back to being incoherent, I'm tanking your speaks. It's in your interest to make sure I catch all your arguments, so chose quality over quantity (you should do this anyway, but it rarely happens).

If I say clear, I've probably already missed an argument and I'm not going to struggle to find it. Even if I have your case, I need to distinctly hear at least a few keywords/taglines from each card to flow it.

I believe content should dictate speed. You can probably read util at top speed in front of me, continental philosophy at 75%, and analytic philosophy only slightly faster than conversational pace. If your position is based on many short links you need to slow down so I don't miss or misunderstand any of them.

Extensions:
My threshold for extensions is fairly high; clearly say "extend x" or talk about x for a really significant portion of your speech (I prefer the former). You don't need to extend dropped arguments in front of me. You only need to weigh the impact of the dropped argument against other impacts in the round. If you don't bring the impact up to weigh it in your final speech, I won't evaluate it for my ballot.

Evidence:
The only time I typically call for evidence is if there is a dispute about the evidence itself (what it says). This means one debater challenges the content of a piece of evidence and it is defended. As above, if I miss something from your evidence I will not help you by looking for it.

Paradigm

I don’t vote on arguments I don’t understand or that aren't warranted. That said, I prefer util or K debates (with specific links and impacts) as I both understand them better and find them more resolvable. I start the round evaluating comparative worlds as a policy-maker post-fiat and an educator pre-fiat. There is some wiggle room on how I evaluate impacts here, but you shouldn't be reading truth testing in front of me. It will be very hard to win both because I'm not compelled by the paradigm and I don't think LD is the right forum for analytic philosophy.

Presumption:
I presume a lot. A LOT. This is not because I like presumption arguments, but because I so seldom watch rounds that I feel are resolvable. Here is a guide to how I evaluate arguments, which typically terminates in presumption:
- if there are qualitatively different impacts under the same FW that are not weighed I won't evaluate any of them
- if there is an impact that is only quantitatively different between the two sides, I will evaluate the bigger/smaller one based on what the impact is
- I don't do qualitative weighing because it's intervention, but I feel the ability to count is a reasonable task for a judge.
- if each debater is winning one impact calc metrics and they are not compared I won't evaluate either
- if there is a warrant and counter-warrant to the same argument without comparative weighing I won't evaluate the argument
- Same rules for FW, if each person is winning some arguments and they are not compared, I probably presume
- I start off presuming neg for positively worded "ought" resolutions. If the negative reads an unconditional CP or alt then presumption flips aff.

Please don't do these:
- calling defense turns
- claiming your opponent dropped something he/she didn't
- asking me my preferences and then choosing to not adapt
- Claiming a single issue is sufficient to vote when it isn't (I won't vote just because you won the value debate)
- claiming there are rules in LD, and that your opponent is breaking them (this is what theory is for)
- abuse claims (theory) without warrants (standards) and impacts (voters)
- being shifty in CX to avoid clash

Occupation: I am a IT strategy professional working with one of the Big 4 consulting firms.

School Affiliations: Dougherty Valley High School

Years of Judging/Event Types: This is my first year judging but I have a child in Debate right now.

Truth>Tech, Please don't try to spread and out-tech someone in front of me, make true arguments.

How will you award speaker points to the debaters? Speaks will be given based on clarity, performance and speaking ability. I appreciate a good, clear concise speech that makes logical arguments backed with recent evidence and smart analytics.

What sorts of things help you to make a decision at the end of the debate? I look primarily toward HOW arguments are made(Are they clear? Logical? Do you seem like you know what you are doing?). I do place heavy emphasis on cards but I very much appreciate a well said logical argument. I enjoy and reward quality, i would rather have one very good thought out response then 5 bad, non explained arguments.

Do you take a lot of notes or flow the debate? I flow the debate the best that I can. Please don't spread or go too fast, I wont understand and will probably tank your speaks.

Rank each using the following rubric: 1 - not at all 5-somewhat 10- weighed heavily. Use of Evidence: 8 Real World Impacts: 8 Cross Examination: 6. I think cross x is a fantastic opportunity and should not be wasted on simple clarification, use it to set up arguments for speeches.

Other stuff, Util is probably the best framework to go for in front of me, go slower on theory and explain the violation and why its bad, tell me why it breaks the rules, and why that matters but to be honest please try to stay away from theory,especially friv theory. Don't run any sketchy Ks in front of me, (Cap is probably fine, but to be honest, cap good is a persuasive argument in front of me)

Occupation: Computer Engineer

School Affiliation: Dougherty Valley High

Years of Judging: 1 Extemp Round

I will award speaker points to the debaters using the way they present themselves through speech, and how clearly they relay their speech to me.

Effectiveness of Argument, and how well their evidence is structured, will help me make a decision at the end of the debate.

I do take notes

Clothing/Appearance:3

Use of evidence: 8

Real World Impacts: 7

Cross examination: 7

Debate Skill Over Truthful Arguments: 7

My name is Sandeep Gopisetty and I am a parent of a former LD contestant and now currently a parent of an IE contestant.

Although I prefer a traditional Lincoln Douglas debate, I am open to flow as long as the arguments are at a speed that I can understand the points being made. My evaluations are always based on the debate and not on the loudest or even the best speaker. Historically, I have provided feedback to the candidates right after the debate based on arguments, its evidences and cross-examinations with suggestions to improve.

I have a higher threshold for T and independent voters, if you go for it, you can win it, I won't pull the trigger as easy as I would on a solvency card. It is more interventionist than not for me.

I debated one year at Stanford, and have debated policy and LD since high school on both the national circuit and local level. I’m Black and if that makes you reluctant to pref me, check yourself. Run whatever you want, however you want to run it. My job is to fairly facilitate the round that will allow both debaters to do their best. My ear might be a little untrained for unclear or incredibly fast spreading (i.e. varsity college spread level), but otherwise I should be good. I will let you know if it’s too fast. Just noticeably slow down on tags. Slow down on authors. Emphasize key warrants. If you speed through key analytical args, all of them aren't likely to make the flow.

I love K’s, BUT do not run them because I like them. Run your own game in your own lane. Avoid being problematic about theorizing what is best for marginalized communities if you are not from them. Your speaks can get docked for explicitly discriminatory and offensive positions. I'm not as much of a fan of T, but I do enjoy it if it is creative and well flushed out. I'm down for a good theory debate too. Again, if it is flushed out. Nothing is beyond me voting on if it is well warranted and impacted out. I will not vote on a floating PIC, UNLESS you spend time on it. A one line argument at the end of your speech will not give you the ballot. Don't berate me about it in the RFD. YOU GOTTA PUT WERK IN FOR THE BALLOT. I will note it though and give some weight.
Weigh everything, tell me how I should evaluate the round. I don’t have a default framework. However, if you give me none, I will simply evaluate both sides equally on each contesting level. I know I’ve said I love a lot of stuff, but I REALLY love performance args. That being said, if it is terrible, it is terrible and I will pull the trigger on T if they won it. I also like PETTINESS and HUMOR. I’m human. I like to see people put in work. If you don’t make it a boring round, you’ll see some speaker points. (*DJ Khaled voice*) I promise you. Keep me awake and entertained with substantive arguments and I will keep you happy with them awards.

All this being said, I am here to help you have the debate you want to have. Do you.

EXPERIENCE

I competed in Policy (among other events) from 2006 to 2010 and in British Parliamentary at the college level from 2010 to 2014. I've been judging since then, and have been running the debate programs at a number of schools since 2016. Please read the applicable paradigm categorized by format below:

POLICY

I'm a Stock Issues judge! My belief is that we're here to debate a policy option, not discuss external advocacy.

Generally not in favor of the K. If a team chooses to run one with me, provide a clear weighing mechanism as to why I should prefer the K over the policy issue we're actually here to debate.

I do not look upon Performance cases favorably. If you want to pull that stunt and expect to win, go do Oratory.

I'm able to understand speed just fine, but prefer clear articulation. Pitching your voice up while continuing to read at the same speed is not spreading.

I highly value clash and a weighing mechanism in the round, and strongly encourage analysis on arguments made. I work to avoid judge intervention if at all possible, unless there is clear abuse of the debate format or both teams have failed to provide effective weighing mechanisms. Don't just give me arguments and expect me to do the math; prove to me that you've won the argument, and then demonstrate how that means you've won the round.

I have a deep hatred of disclosure theory. I expect teams that I judge to be able to respond and adapt to new arguments in-round instead of whining about how they didn't know the 1AC or 1NC ahead of time. If you want to run this, I have an exceedingly high threshold for proving abuse.

Please do not assume that I'm reading along in the doc with you. Debate's meant to be about oral communication, and only stuff that's actually said in round makes it into my flow. If I request the doc, it's purely for verification needs in case there's a challenge.

Finally, I have low tolerance for tech issues. I've been doing this since laptops first came onto the debate scene, and I've never seen computers crash or "crash" more consistently than at debate tournaments in the middle of a round. If there are persistent issues relating to files being ready or shareable, I may offer you a flash drive if I have one for a manual transfer, but I also reserve the right to factor that into my decision if it's a severe issue and extending the round beyond a reasonable point.


LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

I am a firm believer in traditional LD debate. LD was designed around Value-Criterion debate of the philosophical implications of a resolution, and I'm very happy to see debates of this nature. If you want to run a Plan, CP, or any variation of that, I would like to suggest 3 options for you: Go do Policy, have your coach strike me, or hope for a different judge.

I am not a fan of Kritiks, but haven't been shy about voting for them in the past when they're well-impacted and developed with a competitive alt. You're going to have to do some serious work if you want to try and get me to prefer the K, but it's certainly possible. A K without an alternative is just whining.

No speed. A conversational speaking rate is more than adequate if you've done your homework and refined your case.

Performance/meme cases will result in swift and appalling reprisals in your speaker points, even in the unlikely event that you win the round. A low-point win is virtually inevitable in that case, and indicates that your opponent has somehow become incapacitated during the round and was unable to gurgle a response.

Adaptation to your audience is one of the most basic and essential factors in debate, and public speaking in general. Please keep that in mind when formulating your strategy for the round.

PUBLIC FORUM

I strongly prefer traditional public forum debate. Do not treat this like Policy Lite. PF was intended to be accessible to the layperson, and I take that seriously. Go do Policy if you want to use jargon, run plans or kritiks, or spread. If I hear a plan text, it's likely that I'll be signing my ballot right there and then.

In order to earn the ballot from me, focus on making clear, well-articulated arguments that have appropriate supporting evidence. Remember to tell me why I should prefer your evidence/points over your opponent's. Make sure your advocacy is continually supported through the round, and give me a good summary at the end to show why you've won.

WORLDS DEBATE

Traditional Worlds adjudication; please remember which format you're competing in. Do not spread. I voted down a team in Triple Octafinals at 2018 Nationals for it.

I am a traditional judge who will not flow any ADVs, Ks, DisADVs, Observations or any other progressive arguments. Keep to clean, clear arguments and clash. Show links and impacts. Give me voters.

TL;DR for Stanford ['20]

I'm fine w/ speed and running prep/flex prep. I'm good w/ policy arguments and I enjoy a good K. T/Theory is not my favorite thing but I'll evaluate it, especially if there's proven abuse.

I'm down for the email chain: Victoria.Iveyyy@gmail.com

For anything more specific, just ask me before the round. I'll evaluate whatever though, so you do you.

Traditional flow judge. No spreading. Keep it slow please. I like substantive debates.

Flay judge

I am not flowing the debate but keeping careful notes.

The substance of the argument and the authenticity of the sources is important to me.

Also- as far as possible I want a response and a counter-response to all the points that are raised.

Please do not digress and fudge- negative points for that.

I accept some arguments as the common sense which may not need a source

A proper conceptual understanding of an issue is important. It shows the rebuttals are significant and just reading off from the prepared points with the necessary adjustments to make them pointed and relevant.

Hi,

I am a flow judge and I judge purely based on participants arguments.

Here are few things that will get you winning points

- Clearly state the framework.

- I encourage creative cases. However, if someone is presenting an overreaching argument (or absurd), I expect the other side to call it out.

- Do not email your cases. This is a debate and we are not here to read documents.

- Do not spread. You need to articulate your case in a clear manner.

- Be courteous to your opponents. Argue the case and not the person. Any personal aggression will lead to loss of points.

- Present your arguments confidently and clearly. You need to believe in your arguments.

- Present multiple pieces of evidence to back up your arguments. If it is not provided, the opponent should call it out and I will drop your argument.

- Stick to the allotted time and do not run over time. However, you may finish your sentence that you started already without me dropping that argument. Arguments made after the clock will be ignored and will lower your score.

I will not disclose and all feedback will be provided in the ballot.

Occupation: Works at home.

School Affilations: Parent volunteer

Years of Judging/Event types: I have been judging Lincoln-Douglas debate for 1 year and have experience with Policy debate and Public-Forum debate.

Q:How will you award speaker points to the debaters?

A: Clarity of speaking and the manner in which arguments are presented.

Q: What sort of things help youth make a decision at the end of a debate?

A: Giving me voters at the end of the debate and tell me why you believe you won, Quality of arguments, and weigh the impacts of the round.

Q: Do you take a lot of notes or flow the debate?

A: I will be taking notes on the arguments presented in the debate.

Rank the following on a scale from 1-10:

Clothing Appearance: 7

Use of Evidence: 8

Real World Impacts: 9

Cross examination: 7

Debate Skill over truthful arguments: 7

Email - honeykhawani@gmail.com

I am a traditional judge and am lightly experienced with LD. Speaker points will be based on your speed, clarity, and overall presentation of your arguments. Don't spread; I'll give you two warnings but on the third I will stop flowing. Please give off time road maps and tell me exactly where on the flow you are.

Don't just read the author and year when referencing cards, briefly explain them so I can remember what you are talking about.

I make decisions based on your impacts, plausible links, and the responses provided to your opponents cases. Make sure you weigh impacts throughout the debate and extend all your arguments very clearly. I won't extend anything unless you tell me to, so save time for that. Make sure warrants are clearly explained, don't just read your cards and expect me to do the analysis for you.

In your rebuttals, you should clearly explain why you deserve to win. I will be flowing as well as taking notes throughout the debate and will do my best to make fair and reasonable decisions.

As to my expectations of certain aspects of debate:

Use of evidence - evidence is always preferred, but some arguments that are fairly obvious are ok to have analytics as support. Don’t just read out cards without any explanation or analysis though.

Real World Impacts - It is very important to have substantial and important impacts. This doesn’t mean that only war and extinction are the only important ones; just make sure you explain the importance of each impact in respect to timeframe, probability, and/or magnitude.

Cross examination - be clear, concise, and confident. However do not be rude or demeaning or I will dock your speaker points. Be strategic and bring up important points during your speech since I won’t flow cross.

Overall Notes- Do not read any theory, Ks, T, or CPs during round.

Be kind and respectful during your debate, and have fun! If you have any questions ask me before the round starts!

I will vote for arguments that are explained thoroughly.

Presentation skills will be a major part of speaks.

Make sure to speak clearly and not too fast, as I will not vote for an argument if I understand or hear it.

I like stock arguments and case defense.

I'm an administrator at Northland Christian that has been traveling with our debate team for over 10 years. Over the years, I have judged a variety of events like PF, Congress, and IEs. Each year, I judge at a couple of tournaments for our school like Berkeley and Glenbrooks. When making a decision, I will look mainly at content and style. Students should not speak too fast and should make logical arguments throughout the debate; they should be considerate to their opponents and the judge throughout the round. I will not keep a rigorous flow throughout the round, but I will take notes to help me make a decision. For Isidore Newman, I will be judging Worlds. I have seen a couple of practice rounds and understand the style and expectation of students in this format, but this will be the first time I judge this event.

Traditional judge - Ask me in round.

Lay Judge:
Kind of Sketchy on Jargon so make sure you explain what you're saying. 

Also don't spread.

I don't like theory and i'm probably ok substance Kritiks but don't run reps/rhetoric Ks on me. 

Thanks. 

I’ve been in the debate community, but judging as a lay judge.

Please no speeding and be nice to each other

I will disclose

Debated LD - 1997 - 2001

Coached High School LD / Policy / PF / World Schools - 2001 - 2010, 2015 - present

Assistant Policy & British Parliamentary debate coach at the University of Miami - 2010 - 2017

I am open to all debating styles and can handle speed. I appreciate all the skills that go into being competitive in the debate space; updated research, comparative analysis in rebuttals, making strategic decisions with time allocation, and creativity in argumentation to name a few. Tailor-made Kritiks are probably my favorite type of argument, but conversely, generic link of omission K's are on the opposite side of my preference spectrum. Love the politics DA, make sure your cards are updated! Will vote on theory if we all wasted our time and education was lost in the round. If you're having a non-traditional debate, a discussion of the role of the ballot is important. Save your breath on RVI's and put your tricks away for me. Prefer Speechdrop over email chains.

Any specific questions, feel free to ask before the round.

Congress: I'm looking for a deep understanding of the topic, regardless of the event and its understanding "requirement." I appreciate well-structured arguments which tie into the debate and topic well. Uniqueness of claim(s) is important, rehash is looked down upon. Being able to articulate/defend the claim is just as important as the evidence itself. There should be a strong willingness to refute/provide substantial arguments in opposition of the other side.

PF: I’m a parent judge so if you could speak slow, I’d appreciate it. Really break down the topic for me, don’t depend on debate jargon to win my ballot. I need to be able to understand your arguments

This is my third year as parent judge mainly in LD and Policy debates

I am open to all arguments.

Remember It is your responsibility to present your case in the most thorough and understanding way possible. I prefer a slower pace, which I think allow for a more involved and persuasive debating. No offensive language or argument please. I also give attention to your organization of the thoughts, points and evidences.

I have about 6 years of speech and debate judging experience as a parent judge.

I look at good presentation and persuasion skills. Speed is fine to a certain extent but should not be too fast.

In addition I decide based on how well you formulate policy and present the plan with advantages and disadvantages of your plan or counter plan.

Otherwise, I am open to all types of styles and arguments and fairly easy going.

I competed for six years in debate between high school and college. My history has included being nationally ranked in Public Forum as well as in NPTE/NPDA [college parli]. I placed 10th in the 2016 NPTE competition while debating for the University of Oregon. I have also coached for 6+ years including my time directing Oregon Global Debate Institute at University of Oregon.

I am a critical debater who appreciates critical arguments and performances. I am a non-interventionist, and will not debate for you. Debate should be a free [while safe] creative space where you ought to be able to run whatever arguments that YOU feel are most compelling. I can flow theory, kritiks on both sides of the debate, etc.

I am fine with speed as long as clarity remains present (I prefer speed while reading cards). Solvency is a must, and I do weigh Aff/Neg world comparisons if done correctly. Internal summaries, signposting, and conclusions are suggested.

I will not vote for an argument that does not have a link present.

The most important element in debate for me is impact calculus.

I take rhetorical violence very seriously and will reduce speaker points significantly if it is performed inside of the round.

I will strive to be tabula rasa. For me, speed is not a good strategy as I would like to hear the debaters being evenly and moderately paced. This means I do not want to hear any spreading. Over uses of debate jargon is best to avoid, however, I will do my best to follow.

I will strive to be tabula rasa. For me, speed is not a good strategy as I would like to hear the debaters being evenly and moderately paced. This means I do not want to hear any spreading. Over uses of debate jargon is best to avoid, however, I will do my best to follow.

I have been judging policy debate for 2 years.

I am familiar with this year's resolution. I understand advantages, disadvantages, counter-plans, and topicality (but explain it clearly).

I am not familiar with Kritiks, K-affs, and other theory arguments (unless you explain it well)

Please speak slowly and explain your arguments clearly

Make compelling arguments and convince me that your argument is better.

I am a lay judge with no previous debate experience. Please speak slowly and clearly; I will try my best to evaluate both sides of the argument in order to assess the round...but I cannot judge what I cannot understand.

I prefer traditional debates that emphasize quality over quantity of argumentation. Persuasion and communication skills are important in debate, so please present your cases at a conversational pace. I have an **extremely high** threshold for explanation on the K, so sticking with the counter plan/disad debate is a better strategy in front of me. Define any debate jargon clearly if you want to use it.

For Email Chains: Valenabreu21@gmail.com

TLDR: UF senior: debated in both LD and Policy throughout high school. I don't really care what you read as long as you do it well. Speed is filtered through clarity, so be clear. Assume my topic knowledge is virtually nonexistent (it probably is) so make sure you clarify any ambiguities (ie: issues of topicality, etc).

Honestly just read something fun in front of me, it’s finals week and I’m so so bored. If you can make the round entertaining or memorable or teach us something along the way I’ll probably pick you up and love u forever or smth.

Preferences:

T/Theory- Not my fave but I'll evaluate it nonetheless. That being said, frivolous theory annoys me and will guarantee low speaks. Make sure you slow down for analytics and impact out your arguments as opposed to having a rapid succession of time-sucking blips with no actual basis or voters behind them.

CP/DA- These are fine, just make sure you're specific on how you frame certain arguments like uniqueness and how that interacts with the link debate. I'm all for impact turns, just make sure you do proper impact calc and framing here.

Ks- I'm most comfortable with critical arguments and they're generally my favorite approach in debate. I'll likely be at least reasonably familiar with your literature base; having said this, it's important for you to articulate your argument well and be intimate with the scholarship you present. Specific links to the aff are important as links of omission are rarely persuasive. Impact calc here also makes or breaks it for me.

K AFF's- As a 2A in high school, I rarely strayed from reading K Affs willingly. I love the contribution these argument make as they can be both creative and educational. Make sure you leverage your 1AC against every negative strat to garner offense as well as the permutation.

FW- Despite my critical background I tend to enjoy these debates when the position is run correctly, simultaneously with nuanced case engagement. Don't hesitate to run this, especially against aff's with weak topic links. While I prefer args like truth-testing, institutional engagement > fairness, limits, ground, I'll evaluate both sets of impacts. Affs answering FW should either go for impact turns or present a model of debate with clear aff and neg ground.

I am a parent judge from Dougherty Valley,and have judged primarily LD for one year. I will award speaker points based on your speed, clarity, and overall presentation of your arguments. I like off time road maps and a moderate-to-slow speaking speed, and I make decisions based on your impacts, links, and the offense provided on your opponents cases. Make sure you weigh impacts throughout the debate and extend all your arguments clearly. I will be flowing as well as taking notes throughout the debate and will do my best to make fair and reasonable decisions. As to my weighting of certain aspects of debate:

Clothing/Appearance-1, not important at all for the decision

Use of evidence-7, evidence is always preferred, but some arguments that are fairly obvious are ok to have analytics as support. Don’t just read out cards without any explanation or analysis though.

Real World Impacts-9, It is very important to have substantial and important impacts. This doesn’t mean that only war and extinction are the only important ones; just make sure you explain the importance of each impact in respect to timeframe, probability, or magnitude.

Cross examination-6, be clear, concise, and confident. However do not be rude or demeaning or I will dock speaks. Be strategic and bring up important points during your speech since I won’t flow cross.

Debate Skill over truthful arguments-5, you must have poise and confidence while debating, however your arguments must be well warranted. There must be a balance between the two skills.

Overall Notes- Do not read any theory, Ks, or T during round. I am still relatively new to debate and will not vote on these types of arguments. Stick to the straighforward stuff and we will be good. Be kind and respectful during your debate, this is something people do to have fun and learn and I will not vote you up if you endanger this environment with rudeness.

Experience: I did three years of LD in high school (two years varsity).

Paradigm: Please don't stand up and say that because you refuted all of your opponent's arguments and yours are still standing that you should win because that is not necessarily a reason to vote for you. Make sure to debate framework as it is integral in any good LD case and use cross-examination wisely, not just to clarify cards. Remember that a debate can easily be won/lost in cross-examination so find contradictions in your opponent's case or do anything to confuse them and/or discredit the evidence that he/she has brought up. IMPACT WEIGH at the end of your last speech and if you have time go over voter issues. Also, I am a firm believer that everyone should read their judge's paradigm before round so as a bonus for reading this...use the word "charcuterie" somewhere in your speech for an extra speaker point :)

I am a parent judge and I love LD format of debate. I do flow during the round.

Framework: Please try to reinforce throughout your debate

I am the coach for Mission San Jose. I believe that speech & debate is first and foremost an educational activity, and much of my paradigm is framed through that lens. I have a few simple rules regarding conduct and content of the debate.

Debate

1) Proper debate cannot exist without clash. If you make a contention in constructive but never mention it again I'm dropping it from my decision. I don't judge strictly on the flow (more on that in point 4), but if none of you thought the point was important enough to bring up again, it must not be important enough for me to judge on.

1a) Spreadatyourownrisk. I will be flowing the debate and will do my best to follow you, but you run the risk that I might miss something important if you do.

2) Deeply engage the topic. I'd much rather see a few well-developed points with thoughtful analysis and solid foundational evidence than a "shotgun" approach where you throw out as many loosely-articulated arguments as possible and see what sticks.

2a) I enjoy creative arguments. As a coach I hear a lot of the stock arguments over and over, so if you run something a bit more unusual you'll get my attention. I'm not going to vote for a squirrely case that redefines the motion in a really weird way, but feel free to run off-the-wall arguments in your case (just make sure you can prove they're relevant to the topic).

2b) I don't generally respond well to theory arguments and meta-gamesmanship; I'd much rather judge an actual debate on the topic at hand. This is especially true of case disclosure theory -- Aff already has a burden of presumption weighing against them (see point 4a), so if you feel like you can't prepare a decent counter argument without knowing the opponent's exact arguments ahead of time, you either need more prep or more practice. That said, I will listen to your theory case, but I probably won't vote for it unless the opponent is doing some particularly egregious.

3) I'm not going to do your work for you. My job is to judge the arguments as presented, not do my own analysis to prove you right or wrong. I will assume evidence is truthful and will not call for cards unless the opponent gives me reason to believe otherwise.

3a) If you try to make a point that is obviously factually incorrect (e.g. "Dubai is the capital of Pakistan") or wildly outlandish (e.g. "veganism will lead to nuclear war"), you will loose credibility and will cause me to view the rest of your arguments with more skepticism. And yes, those are actual statements I've heard in rounds.\

3b) I probably will not flow anything said in cross examination. I may take some notes to clarify what I've already written down, but if you want me to factor something said in cross into my decision you need to point in out in your next speech. However, I do consider how well you handle cross ex when awarding speaker points.

4) My judgement will be based on what is presented in the debate. Don't expect me to bring in other information that wasn't presented to fill in the blanks for you. While my ballot comments may mention things that weren't presented in the debate, that information is intended to help you refine your arguments and did not factor into my decision.

4a) In final focus, tell me what to weigh and why I should vote for you. By default I will judge on whether I am led to believe that the Aff case as presented accomplishes more for the greater good than the status quo. If Neg runs a counter (non-negation) case or a counter-plan (assuming it's allowed), I'm going to judge it on balance with the Aff case/plan, meaning I will decide which case I believe leads to overall better outcomes for the greater good within whatever scope/scale we spent the most time discussing during the debate. If both sides agree on a framework for deciding the winner, than that's what I'll vote on instead.

5) This is a debate, not a sound bite contest. That said, if you want maximum speaker points, vary your vocal dynamics to help emphasize your speech, employ some clever rhetoric (alliteration, allegory, etc.), and/or incorporate some classic rock or science fiction references. I'll usually award speaker points in the 27-28.9 range, with 29-30 reserved for speakers that I found particularly engaging and those who make especially good use of cross ex.

6) Respect your opponent and your fellow humans. Academic debate is no place for sexism, racism, religism, or any other prejudicial and marginalizing -isms. Use your CX time wiseley to clarify the opponent's argument and find holes to exploit later in argumentation, or to perhaps plug up a hole you didn't realized you'd missed, not show off how much you can talk over the other person. And if you feel a need to resort to ad hominem attacks, you've lost me and we're done.

My vote is guided by the ballot rules.

Maintain good decorum, always.

Don't forget to have fun!!

Lay judge, new to debate but know the basics of LD. I like off time road maps and prefer a moderate-to-slow speaking speed. I will award speaking points for logical and easily followable arguments. Also be nice to each other and do your part to make the experience enjoyable for both sides. I will take notes throughout the debate and will do my best to make fair and reasonable decisions.

I am a parent judge. I expect you to demonstrate your knowledge and depth of the content as well as the ability to make a confident argument towards your stance.

I cannot judge what I cannot understand so clear and logical communication is key.

Also, keep track of your own and other team's speech/prep times.

Basically just be nice and enjoy your passion towards debate.

I am a parent judge and I have been judging primarily LD for about one year. I like a moderate speaking pace, but if you prefer to go fast or spread, please share your case with me before your speech so I can keep up. I do not care about appearance, but I do care about your arguments. Make sure to respond to ALL of your opponent's arguments, links, and impacts. Off-time roadmaps help me a lot when judging the round and it will definitely help your speaker points as well.

Cross-examination : I will not flow cross-examination, but you can utilize it to win the round. If your opponent concedes to something in cross-examination, emphasize it in your speeches.

Speaker points : I care about clear and concise arguments. If you are not able to articulate your arguments analytically and solely read evidence off of your computer, that may have a negative effect on your speaker points. Most importantly, do not be overtly rude (explicitly racist, sexist etc.) to your opponent!

Arguments : Do not read any Kritiks, Theory or other progressive arguments during round. I am a parent judge and do not have the philosophical or necessary background to comprehend these to the extent that you may want. While your arguments may be inherently true in the real world, if you do not back them up with sufficient analysis or evidence and your opponent uses their skill to refute your arguments, I will vote them up.

Remember, you are here to have fun, so enjoy your round! If you have any more specific questions, feel free to ask me before round.

HI.

I did LD, Impromptu, and Policy in high school.

Add me to the email chain pls: alina.wang@berkeley.edu

I don't mind if you sit during CX

off-time road maps don't offend me - I prefer you tell me the order of your arguments.

LD/Policy

Framework debate(MOSTLY FOR LD) - one that answers the question: which framework is more superior in the round?

Tabula Rasa for me.

Explain it well.

Clash and links.

Make sure links are clear and that your argument is easily traceable.

WEIGH your arguments/impacts.

If you are going to spread, slow down at the taglines for your own sake.

Theory

I don't like theory. Do not run theory unless there is an obvious reason for you to run theory. I won't vote on it unless it's necessary or credible.

I hate Disclosure theory. If generations of debaters can win without it, I don't see the point in you wasting my time.

K's

Always love hearing a good K.

Plan/CP

Internal Links should exist.

PLEASE DONT SHAKE MY HAND. Give me a fist bump instead.

If you have any questions about my paradigms, please ask me before the round starts.

LD Paradigm

LD Coach 10 years.

If I am your judge, please put me on your email chain. My email is, lwpco480193@outlook.com, prefer Aff to be topical. I prefer a traditional Value/Criterion debate. I like clear signposting, that opponents refer to when refuting each other. I also require evidence to uphold your warrants and link to your personal analysis. All affirmatives should have some kind of standard that they try to win, value/criterion. The negative is not necessarily tied to the same obligation. The affirmative generally has the obligation to state a case construction that generally affirms the truth of the resolution, and the negative can take whatever route they want to show how the affirmative is not doing that sufficiently.

When I see a traditional debate that clashes on fundamental issues involving framework, impacts, and what either side thinks, really matters in my weighing of the round, it makes deciding on who was the better debater during the round an easier process. I like debate that gets to the substantive heart of whatever the issue is. There are very few arguments I would actually consider apriori. My favorite debates are the kind where one side clearly wins the framework, whichever one they decide to go for. Voters are crucial in rebuttals, and a clear topicality link with warrents and weighted impacts, which are the best route for my ballot.

I will listen to a Kritik but you must link it to the debate in the room, related to the resolution in some way, for me to more likely to vote for it. I am biased toward topicality.

I hold theory to higher bar. I will most likely vote reasonability instead of competing interpretations. However, if I am given a clearly phrased justification for why I should accept a competing interpretation and it is insufficiently contested, there is a better chance that I will vote for a competing interpretation. You will need to emphasize this by slowing down, if you are spreading, slow down, speak a little louder, or tell me “this is paramount, flow this”.

Reasonability. I believe that theory is intervention and my threshold for voting on theory is high. I prefer engagement and clash with your opponent. If I feel like negative has spoken too quickly for an Affirmative to adequately respond during the round, or a Neg runs 2+ independent disadvantages that are likely impossible for a "think tank" to answer in a 4 minute 1AR, and the Affirmative runs abuse theory, and gives direct examples from Neg, I'll probably vote Affirmative. Common sense counts. You do not need a card to tell me that the Enola Gay was the plane that dropped the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima.

Progressive Debates: I default Affirmative framework for establishing ground, I default Kritiks if there are clear pre-fiat/post-fiat justifications for a K debate instead of on-case debate.

Cross Examination

I do not flow cross examination. If there are any concessions in CX, you need to point them out in your next speech, for me to weigh them.

I'm fine with flex prep. I think debaters should be respectful and polite, and not look at each other. Cross examination concessions are binding, if your opponent calls them out in their next speech.

Speaker Points

If I do not understand what you are saying, don’t expect to receive anything higher than a 28. You will lose speaker points if your actions are disrespectful to either myself or to your opponent. I believe in decorum and will vote you down if you are rude or condescending toward your opponent. I do not flow “super spreading”. I need to understand what you are saying, so that I can flow it. I will say “slow” and “clear” once. If there is no discernable change, I will not bother to repeat myself. If you respond, slow down, then speed up again, I will say “slow” and/or “clear” again. For my ballot, clarity over quantity. Word economy over quantity. I reward debaters who try to focus on persuasive styles of speaking over debaters who speak at the same tone, pitch, cadence, the entire debate.

If something is factually untrue, and your opponent points it out, do not expect to win it as an argument.

Please give me articulate voters at the end of the NR and 2AR.

I disclose if it is the tournament norm.

If you are unclear about my paradigm, please ask before the round begins.

Public Forum Paradigm

RESPECT and DECORUM

1. Show respect to your opponent. No shouting down. Just a "thank you" to stop their answer. When finished with answer, ask your opponent "Do you have a question?" Please ask direct questions. Also, advocate for yourself, do not let your opponent "walk all over you in Crossfire".

2. Do not be sexist/racist/transphobic/homophobic/etc.... in round. Respect all humans.

I expect PF to be a contention level debate. There may be a weighing mechanism like "cost-benefit analysis" that will help show why your side has won the debate on magnitude. (Some call this a framework)

I like signposting of all of your contentions. Please use short taglines for your contentions. If you have long contentions, I really like them broken down into segments, A, B, C, etc. I appreciate you signposting your direct refutations of your opponents contentions.

I like direct clash.

All evidence used in your constructed cases should be readily available to your opponent, upon request. If you slow down the debate looking for evidence that is in your constructed case, that will weigh against you when I am deciding my ballot.

I do not give automatic losses for dropped contentions or not extending every argument. I let the debaters decide the important contentions by what they decide to debate.

In your summary speech, please let me know specifically why your opponents are loosing the debate.

In your final focus speech, please let me know specifically why you are winning the debate.

FOR GGI 2021

I haven't heard or flowed speed in a while, and also haven't been super involved in debate lately, so I will probably have trouble flowing top-speed. Content preferences are generally unchanged, with the exception that I now know even less about both current events and critical literature. My general inclination as a judge is to take whatever is said in-round at face value (e.g. I won't fact check warrants or scrutinize textually flawed interps unless told to do so).

Most of the below paradigm was written when I was still a competitor. Looking back, I've found that the actual process I use when judging rounds is frankly very intuition-based and not always the most technical, especially when it comes to warrants and POIs. At the end of the day, I think debate is just competitive storytelling. And personally, I prefer Ancient Aliens to C-SPAN.

OLD PARADIGM (mostly still applies)

TL;DR: Go nuts (but please don't be rude/horrible to your opponents).

The round is yours. I prefer a well-executed strategy more than anything else. For some background, I competed in NPDA at Berkeley for three years (graduated in 2020). As a competitor, the arguments I most commonly collapsed to were Theory, Buddhism, Anthro, Politics, and Dedev.

Here are some general thoughts/preferences:

Case/Disads: I love to see good case debate. I'm not particularly well versed in what's going on in the world, so if the case debate is getting messy then some top-level overviews and explanation are probably helpful. I don't care if you read generics. I like good politics debates.

Counterplans: I have no preferences on issues like conditionality, PICs, delay, consult, negative fiat, etc.. I'll vote for it if I think you're winning it, and I'll vote for them if I think they're winning a theoretical objection. By default, I assume negative advocacies are conditional.

Kritiks: If you're reading something complicated, overviews/explanation are super appreciated. Words like ontology, epistemology, etc. don't mean that much to me in a vacuum, so it's good to read implications to arguments when extending them. K affs are fine, I don't have much attachment to the topic (although I'm happy to vote on framework-T too if won).

Theory: I think it can be a strategic tool in addition to a check on abuse. I default to competing interpretations and drop the team. Will evaluate an RVI if you read a justification. Proven abuse is unnecessary, but you can make arguments why it should be necessary and I'll listen to them. If reasonability doesn't have a brightline or some explanation of what it means to be reasonable, then I'll just disregard it.

Presumption/tricks: I believe in terminal defense. By default, I think presumption goes neg. In general, I don't mind voting on tricksy arguments as long as they're sufficiently explained when gone for.

Point of orders: Feel free to call them. I'll try and protect, but I think they're still good to call just in case I'm missing something. I will also try to protect from shadow-extensions.

Out-of-round stuff: I'm pretty sympathetic towards arguments calling for content/trigger warnings before the round.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round starts.

Hi, I’m a lay parent judge.

Please explain yourself clearly and I won’t consider anything that I cannot understand.

Please be nice to each other for higher speaks and don’t speak too quickly (refer to above).