Hi! My name's Baraa Alkhani, I debated in LD for 3 years at Stagg High School and was the 2018 IHSA state champion. I debated traditionally and never went to the NatCircuit. Though, by Illinois standards, I guess you can say I was a bit progressive in that I valued cards and was a bit faster as a debater. Currently I'm a law student at the Illinois College of Law, so I'll be judging much less frequently than when I was an undergrad at UIC.

If you ever need anything, my email is balkhani50@gmail.com

Important Points

- Weigh impacts, don't just extend them. Also if you extend a card/argument without explaining it, then it isn’t a real extension and it won’t count.

- Please don't arbitrarily debate FW. If they're similar, then collapse them or agree on a standard. I don’t like long winded FW debates. Addressing both should take you a MAX of a minute of the beginning of your speech, and not even. Save your time for what really matters. I don't flow FW warrants or definitions, though I will mentally note it.

- I don’t intervene when it comes to the decision, but if your argument is completely baseless, inaccurate, or clearly pulled out of your butt, then don’t be mad when I give you the L. You are an intelligent debater. Don’t misconstrue evidence or run oily logic. Complex philosophy that has no impact calc or relation to the resolution is a no-no too. Be straightforward, rational, and accurate.

- I’m very approachable, so don’t be shy to stop by and ask any questions you may have. Unless they’re medically related, I should be able to help :)

For PF

- Standard flow judge. Nothing really special here.

Motivation

Finally, as I've learned through my experiences, have fun. If I give you the L, it's not the end of the world. Trust me, it doesn't mean I hate you. Rather, it means that you can still learn and improve in your journey as a debater. Same with if you win. Always strive to improve your game, your speaking, and case writing. If you choose to be complacent with how you're doing, you'll never get to the next level where you want to be.

Be respectful, professional, and confident. I'm pretty outgoing so never hesitate to ask me questions or reach out to me at a tournament. If something here hasn't been addressed, then ask me prior to the round :)

OFFENSE OFFENSE OFFENSE!

I weigh turns and whatever offense you extend very heavily. Make sure you also do some work in terms of weighing impact if both you and your opponent are impacting to similar things. In LD, I'll only weigh impacts under the established VC. Also, make sure you sign post throughout and give voter's issues in your last speech. Utilize whatever AT files necessary to answer your opponent's evidence because I don't weigh unwarranted claims (unless I know it's empirically true) as heavy as warranted claims. That being said, make sure your evidence is cited and cut properly.

Regarding speaker points, make sure I can understand you and that you SIGN POST. I mentioned it twice because it's that important.

-Signpost. Without signposting it can be difficult for your judge to know where you are in the round. Signposting makes the flow organized and clear for everyone in the round.

-No spreading. I will have difficulties understanding everything if you spread and if the information does not end up on my flow because you are spreading, I can't use it to judge the round.

-Please weigh. Explain to me why your arguments outweigh (don't just tell me that they outweigh) your opponent's arguments.

-At the end of the round please provide clear voting issues.

-No kritiks.

Hello. I am a lay judge but understand most concepts as long as they are explained clearly.

My threshold for speed is pretty much nonexistent, so spread at your own risk.

Since we are online, I would prefer to set up an email chain. But even if I have your case in front of me, if you blitz through evidence, I am not going to go back during prep time to reflow what I couldn't earlier.

Please Sign Post! Please Sign Post! Please Sign Post!

If you don't sign post, I won't be a happy judge, and you won't be happy with your results.

I am a traditional judge, so please weigh your arguments under a framework or standard.

If framework is a wash, I default to util.

Speaker Points:

I am not a speaks fairy, so if you are looking for one, don't pref me!

On that note, I give an average of about 28 for the winner and 27 to the loser.

I have never given out a 30, but do your best to be the first.

Things to do that increase your speaker points:

1. Do not talk over your opponent. I understand that cross can sometimes be heated, but when your opponent cuts you off, please listen.

2. Please speak clearly and professionally. Yelling at the top of your lungs does not make your argument more convincing.

3. Cut out the uhs, ums, and likes. Just take a deep breath instead. They're unnecessary and nervous speech fillers.

4. Don't abuse prep time. When you stop the clock, please be ready to start your speech. If it's not started soon, I will dock major speaks and will continue running your prep.

5. If you can work in the phrase "Luck is the residue of design" somewhere in your speech you'll get +.5

Framework

As I am a fairly lay judge, please do not run crazy frameworks and frivolous theory. If you do, I need them explained explicitly. Do not blitz through your evidence with their explanations.

That being said, if framework is a wash, I will default to util. If you are running util, never try to justify oppression, slavery, or anything like that. I will not be a happy judge and you will not be happy with the result.

If your framework is close enough to your opponent's that it does not warrant a big discussion, i.e. you can weigh under both fairly easily, just collapse the debate. It's not worth your time to argue about or my time to evaluate.

Overall

I try to be a fairly tabula rasa. That being said, I find liberal arguments more appealing.

I don't like to intervene in rounds, as the rounds should really be dictated by the debaters. But if someone is being rude or stalling for a prolonged amount of time, I will step in.

While I'm not a big fan of spikes, when used correctly, I will grudgingly vote on them.

I prefer a more "traditional" round to a "circuit" round, but don't let that sway you too much. Whatever makes you most comfortable is what will allow you to do your best.

If you are more experienced than your opponent and try to run progressive arguments against an opponent who is clearly a novice and more traditional, I will not be happy. You may begrudgingly win the round, but your speaks will reflect poorly.

TL; DR

I am a LAY judge, but am willing to listen to any arguments as long as they are flushed out clearly.

Do not assume I understand debate jargon!

The round is yours, so do as you please.

Please be respectful, debate is an educational activity.

always throw me on the email chain- my email is ashleyellis068@gmail.com

- northwestern university 2022/shawnee mission northwest 2018

- coach at evanston township

top level:

1. be nice to each other please-- being excessively rude will to anyone in the room will probably get your speaker points docked. aggressive postrounding is ugly and will also get your speaker points docked.

2. tech (almost always) > truth

3. tech>truth, but i do think pics, conditions cps, object fiat, and other silly fiat tricks can be pretty cheaty, so you'll have to reeeeeally pull through on those to win them-- and i will grant a lot of leeway to bad 2acs on them

4. debate is a game

5. i try to avoid any argumentative extrapolation when deciding

6. time yourselves

case:

1. affirmatives should be topical. i'll weigh a k aff if you win framework. be clear and thorough with framework answers or i'll probably err neg

2. i find presumption arguments to be pretty persuasive

3. any impact scenario is fine-- if you're reading a structural advantage, have good framing cards

4. fiat is durable

topicality: jurisdiction is not a voter and potential abuse is ALMOST never a voter

disadvantages: please read them

counterplans: as i said above, there are a few types that i think can be cheating and you absolutely must win the theory debate if you want me to vote on them. if you find yourself wondering if you may be reading a cp that i am inclined to think is cheating, just ask yourself: am i cheating right now? the answer should become pretty clear at that point. be very clear and thorough on cp theory.

i'll judge kick if you tell me to. i'll probably do it even if you don't tell me to. as long as it's conditional, the status quo is always an option, especially since you'll presumably still have a disad in play. not allowing judge kicking justifies sloppy work on the net benefit which is probably... bad for debate.

** to be clear: i will not judge kick if the aff is winning a perm or any offense. apparently this is a point of contention.

kritiks: go for them if that's your thing, i'll weigh them. i'm really not sure how i feel about out-of-round occurrences, so you can most likely persuade me either way.

1. don't sacrifice argumentative clarity for trying to sound sophisticated

2. perms

3. cyclical structural violence is infuriating but you should still, idk, be a nice person in round

theory: It sounds trashy, but, as a 2a, I'm definitely willing to vote on bad theory arguments if not answered well. this is where i'm definitely the most tech>truth.

conditionality is generally good but I'll vote aff on *1 fewer* solves their offense if the work is there.

reverse voting issues??? probably don't belong in debate

speaker points: start around a 28.5 and i'll raise or lower them accordingly. you can go pretty fast in front of me, i'll probably be slightly offended if you go slow. pop tags and stay clear. i appreciate good jokes and time-relevant memes. really hot lines in cards will probably get you a boost. i really like weird/risky strategies that end well. a strong, hot cross ex is the #1 route to a 30. good organization is #2.

lincoln-douglas:

****framework =/= framing****

1. i am 100% a policy debater/judge/coach but I did a little bit of ld in high school and have judged it before without managing to royally screw up decisions-- keep this in mind when choosing which argumentative tools are at your disposal in the debate.

2. being that I'm not too big into ld, make sure you're getting your point across. i understand most of the tech, but if I look confused, you should try to help me out. i'm pretty reactive.

3. util did not justify slavery. this arg is tired and I have a very very very low* threshold for voting on it.

4. i think defensive framework pre-empts in the 1ac are generally a waste of time because they make args that have to almost fully be reiterated in the 1ar- just read more offense.

*I will never vote on it

public forum:

1. see ld- i'm definitely a policy person. i did pf a lot more in high school than I did ld and was alright at it, but i was limited to the local, nsda-type circuit.

i'm not sure if that means I'm a flex-type judge then? if you want to turn it into a policy debate---go ahead, i'll adjudicate the round like i would a policy debate. if you want to keep it soundbyte debate, then it will probably be a low point win-- i can't not let myself weigh tech, sorry.

Email chain: omgandhi03@gmail.com

Barrington '21, UPenn '25

General things (most important):

1. Speed is fine, just be clear
2. Be nice-- no ad hominum, racism, bigotry, etc.
3. be passionate, use unconventional args (just dumb it down for me if its super esoteric)

Debate-specific stuff:

Mostly did trad in high school, and I prefer it as a judge. If trad: clash is king. Also: weigh, signpost, voting issues. I always appreciate a good cross

That being said, I'll still judge circuit. Ks, phil is cool. No tricks/friv theory. Use everything else sparingly, dumb it down for me.

For Congress

- Have a clear introduction and sign post your arguments

- For speeches early in the cycle, explain the bill and how the bill will directly affect the status quo

- Include clear transitions between contentions

- For speeches after the 4th cycle, refutation is extremely important. Failure to provide any refutation after the 4th cycle will not get you higher than a 3 or 4

- Impacts and weighing are very important if you want to be ranked highly

- I flow the round and make note of the students who are able to reference the points made by previous speakers during questioning and speeches

How to get high speaker points

- Clear speaking

- Quality volume

- Fluidity when speaking

- No speed --> I can flow speed to a certain degree but I do not prefer it. If you speak too fast I will stop flowing your arguments

How to win the argument

- I will be flowing so make sure to tell me what to do... Flow through, drop, extend, turn. if you don't let me know what to do, I will not flow your arguments through.

- I like the use of logic, evidence is good but if you can answer arguments with the use of logic I do value that highly.

(LD) - I like the use of framework, make sure to link your impacts to your framework through out the whole round.

(PF)- Make sure you weigh your arguments throughout the debate not just at the beginning or the end. Please signpost your arguments and refutations to make sure that I can flow your arguments.

- Make sure to have clear voter issues.

Above all be polite to your opponents and keep decorum during the round.

Speed is fine so long as it's not obnoxious, debate jargon is fine.

I study math and philosophy so I'm more than happy to have theory argument rounds as well as heavy duty statistics and cost-benefit analysis. However, make sure your arguments are logically valid and consistent, and your communication is as clear as it can be.

In value debate you have to uphold your value explicitly and stay relevant to it. If you wish to argue that your value should be favored over your opponents, rather than only telling me "My value is more important" or "My value is a prerequisite" try to develop a more fleshed out ethical case for your value.

Finally, please be kind to your opponent and respectful.

My biggest RFD will be due to impact analysis or use of frameworks. If you have a framework and you drop it or your opp uses it better than you I will vote under the framework (the whole point of having a framework is to make it easier to weigh impacts). With that being said, if there is no framework then I vote on impact analysis, you can't just argue one way or another because then you leave the entire decision of what is more important up to my own conjecture, you need to explain why you have given an argument with more weight in order for me to truly be able to make a decision based solely on the debate.

I don't care about speed.

Be nice and respectful!

As a debate judge, my primary responsibility is to assess the arguments presented by each team and determine which team has made the most convincing case. In order to make an informed decision, I will be looking for the following qualities:

1. Clarity: I expect each speaker to present their arguments in a clear and concise manner, using language that is easy to understand. If a speaker is not clear, it will be difficult for me to follow their arguments and evaluate them effectively. I do not like spreading.

2. Logical coherence: I expect each team to present a logical argument that builds from one point to the next. The argument should be grounded in evidence and should avoid logical fallacies. If a team presents a coherent and logical argument, it will be easier for me to assess the strength of their position.

3. Evidence: I expect each team to support their arguments with evidence. This evidence should be relevant, accurate, and persuasive. If a team presents strong evidence, it will be easier for me to evaluate the strength of their argument.

4. Rebuttal: I expect each team to engage with their opponents' arguments and present effective rebuttals. This means addressing the key points made by their opponents and demonstrating why their own argument is stronger. If a team presents strong rebuttals, it will be easier for me to evaluate the strength of their position.

5. Delivery: I expect each speaker to deliver their arguments in a confident and engaging manner. This means using vocal variety, gestures, and eye contact to capture the attention of the audience. If a speaker is engaging, it will be easier for me to assess the strength of their argument.

6. Cross-examination: I expect each team to engage in cross-examination in a respectful and constructive manner. This means asking relevant and probing questions, and responding to questions in a clear and concise manner. If a team engages in cross-examination effectively, it will be easier for me to evaluate the strength of their argument.

7. Respect: I expect each team to show respect for their opponents and for the debate process. This means avoiding personal attacks and staying focused on the issues at hand. If a team shows respect, it will be easier for me to evaluate the strength of their argument.

In summary, I will be evaluating each team based on their clarity, logical coherence, evidence, rebuttal, delivery, cross-examination, and respect. I will be looking for the team that presents the strongest argument overall, based on these criteria.

khasenbeck-meyer@fenwickfriars.com

Hi! My name is Quinn and my pronouns are he/him. email - qah2104@columbia.edu

I debated for Evanston Township High School reading Ks/theory and a bit of LARP, I now coach with Flex Debate.

Read whatever you feel most comfortable with, I am most comfortable with Ks, Theory and LARP but I have been exposed to and debated against a fair bit of phil. Feel free to email to ask any clarifying questions.

I was a NSDA Qualifier in 2018, JV State Champion in 2018, & IHSA Varsity State Runner-up in 2019 in LD. I also qualified for NSDA in 2019 for PF. I debated my junior ('17-'18) and senior year ('18-'19) in LD and PF. I am an extremely traditional debater from a traditional circuit (Chicago).

My general paradigms:

*I can handle speed as long as you are clear. If you are unclear, I will drop my pen and stop flowing.

*If you have a card that discusses a hypothetical (or anything, really), but cannot explain what/why and you are called on it, I will be more inclined to believe your opponent and their evidence if they are able to elaborate on it. PLEASE know your own evidence.

*Please back up your evidence with logic. Don't just say "my card says this"; what does it mean, what does it contribute to the round, and why is it true on a logical level?

*If your opponent asks for evidence, cross examination / prep time will be paused until it is provided. If this is during prep time, all debaters must drop their pens and look forward until the evidence is provided.

*Please be kind to your opponent. This is cliche, but debate is an educational activity. Roasting intellectually (picking apart flawed logic, logically) makes a more entertaining and friendly debate.

LD Specific:

*Your framework is incredibly important in the round. Your value is what we are aiming for; your value criterion is a method to strive for your value. If your case is about freedom, yet your value is progress, winning the framework will mean you lost the round (since your case doesn't flow under it.) If you feel you've lost framework, or you and your opponent have similar frameworks, flowing under that will be your best shot at winning.

PF Specific:

*Frameworks are allowed, but not essential. However, if you do not respond to your opponent's framework, you have conceded to it and your best shot is to flow under it.

I am mostly concerned with logical reasoning and a consistent flow of your arguments. Your ideas and evidence should be reasonable and well-supported. I also appreciate clear, consistent sign posting. You will not earn any points from me for speed talking; you should be respectful but direct, communicate your ideas clearly and articulately, and respond to your opponent with strong questions and rebuttals.

Name: Brenda Moreno

School Affiliation: Palatine High School

Number of years judging: 10

Opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of delivery: I'd prefer if debaters don't speak too fast, but I am comfortable with speed. However, I'd like to emphasize that debaters should speak clearly and audibly so that the judge and opponents can easily understand what is being said. Often, debaters might find 'spreading' as a tool to get more arguments in, but keep in mind that the goal is to argue the issues at length and to do so substantially, so I'd caution against trying to fit in the most arguments since often this can lead dropping arguments or failure to respond to arguments.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?): I prefer line-by-line analysis earlier in the debate, and then a big picture analysis when it comes to rebuttals. I see rebuttals as a way to crystalize what has occurred in the round, and an opportunity for debaters to focus on the arguments they believe have won them the round.

Extension of arguments into later speeches: Extend arguments if applicable. However, be sure to explicitly tell me what arguments I should extend andwhy.You can let me know by referring to the author of the card or by signaling to me which contention or argument you need me to extend on my flow.

Flowing/note-taking: I flow the constructive speeches pretty religiously. While I listen to cross-examination/cross-fire very attentively, this time is really for the debaters to gather additional information to use in the round; it is not an opportunity for me to decide what I will be voting on. That being said, if a debater feels something that was brought up within Cross needs to be extended/addressed in later speeches, they need to tell me and explain why I need to flow through what was brought up during Cross.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally?: I value argument over style--arguments will influence my decision. Style is important, too, so maintain decorum; however, style alone will not necessarily win you the round. To me, style = speaker points, arguments = who wins the round.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches?: In my opinion, arguments need to be extended in both if that's what the debater hopes to win the round on.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech?: No. I will flow what the debater tells me to flow. In PF, I believe every speech carries a specific purpose. If you are second speaking, please provide me with an off-time roadmap and tell me what you will be addressing so that I know where to flow.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus?: Final focus. See comment above on cross-examination.

I am a traditional Lincoln-Douglas judge and have been judging / debating since the early 2000s.

Value (V) & Value Criterion (VC) Debate:

The decision-maker & breaker is based on whichever side BEST upholds their Value / Value criterion. Essentially, the winning debater will be able to showcase that in his/her world his/her value is superior and is better upheld. It is always beneficial to attack the logic of the other side's Value / Value Criterion to demonstrate this. For example, say the affirmative has a value of Justice and a value criterion of Equality. A successful attack on the logic here would be to show how Equality and Justice are in conflict such as if we set hiring quotas, affirmative action, etc. (everything will be equal but it is not always fair). Of course, bringing this up in the context of the resolution will bolster the argument (for example, if we are not debating affirmative action). Logic and reasoning hold a lot of weight and can substitute for traditional evidence (statistics, studies, quotes, etc.)

Value criterions are there as such: a weighing mechanism. This is often lost / falls on deaf ears amongst debaters. A weighing mechanism is just that -- a method to determine what is the best determinant for a specific value. Let use this crude example illustrate that. Say we are debating what makes a great UFC fighter. In an LD context, our Values are "Successful MMA Fighter." Well, what determines their success? Is it heart? Is it experience? Is it youth? Speed? Strength? Striking? Wrestling? Resilience? Whichever criterion you think best allows for a successful UFC fighter should be the "VC" in this example.

Burdens and Case Logic:

The affirmative has the Burden of Proof during the round. This means, they must prove the resolution valid beyond a reasonable doubt. Similar to a criminal case, it is the prosecution job to prove the defendant is guilty. It is not the defendant's responsibility to prove his innocent, he simply has to prove that he is not guilty. This applies to the negative as well, he does not have to prove the inverse of the resolution. Please ask me for clarification on this point if you wish.

The negative the burden of initiating clash during the round. I would prefer that AT LEAST SOMETHING is said for each of the contentions and sub-points, even if you are running out of time. It can be something minor.

That being said, just because someone misses a contention doesn't mean that it can make or break a debate. The debater must demonstrate WHY that particular contention matters. Of course, the other extreme is not appropriate either (i.e., a particular side fails to attack anything or misses major parts of the case but has a strong case of their own).

In addition, I like when the contentions relate in someway to the value and value criterion. It clarifies the logic in the case and in general makes it easier for the side to argue their Value/VC.

The Negative's case can be flawed yet still win if the attacks on the affirmative are strong enough. Conversely, the negative can have a much better case than the Affirmative but if it never initiates clash, then I will defer to the affirmative (this hasn't been a problem).

Evidence is great, but evidence is not an argument. Debaters need to explain how/why that piece of evidence matters and relates to their argument. In addition, debaters need to explain the source and why this person's opinion matters. Just throwing "cards" at me, will not sway my decision.

In some ways, I prefer philosophical and logical discussions based on axioms and syllogisms. Stat-bombing me with studies and "cards" are not a substitute for solid argumentation and logical analysis. This may be controversial to some of you. But should we dismiss the arguments of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle simply because they didn't have peer-reviewed studies which fit a certain criteria?

General

I am a traditional LD debate judge, have been doing this for 20+ years. I generally dislike when you concede frameworks it shows a lack of analysis into the values and criterions themselves and kind of comes off as lazy.

Speaking can be a little quick but if you speak too fast and I miss contentions/sub-points it will negatively affect you (i.e., spreading).

Obviously, sign-posting is a must.

Cross-ex needs to be used strategically. It only matters if you refer back to it in a subsequent speech.

Clear, specific and unique arguments for each contention that are powerful and sub-point is superior. Repeating the same argument over and over again is not a strong strategy for success. Quality over quantity.

Voting issues are best at the end and it helps when the debater provides a clear reason why I should vote for a particular side.

Name: Karla Nunez

School Affiliation: Palatine High School

Number of years judging the event you are registered in: Public Forum Since Fall of 2016 - approx. 7 years | Lincoln-Douglass since Fall 2019 - approx. 4 years

⟨⟨ Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round: ⟩⟩

Before answering these questions I'd like to express that normally when asked if i have a Paradigm I'd answer along the lines of "I trust that you know what you are doing, so give me what you've got and I'll do my best to fill you in on what you need to improve". I other words, You, your coach, and teammates are expected to work together to ensure you've got what it takes to win the round, and I ensure that i asses and provide you with tools that can help you improve and succeed in the future. If you take anything away from this is that I'd like for you to GIVE ME WHAT YOU GOT! I want you to show me what 100% of you looks like in that moment. and just trust that your 100% now will change with time and effort.

Speed of delivery- During your constructive any speed as long as you are clear and enunciate properly. If it were a range of 1-5, (1 being slow with heavy pauses and 5 being the fastest ever I could call you McQueen and exclaim "Ka-Chow!") I find students do best at about a 3-4, I would be more concerned with your opponent’s preference.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)- If your opponent said something that changes the game then address that, but i like big picture stuff.

Extension of arguments into later speeches- ?????

Flowing/note-taking- You should definitely be flowing 1000000%, and I'll flow your speeches as much as possible, I'll lend an ear to cross incase any of my questions are answered, but none of it will flow through.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? ?????

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? I believe that if you state "I win on so and so because my opponent is just wrong", you have plenty of work to do.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? makes sense to me.

Background: I'm a freshman at UIUC majoring in Information Systems and Accounting. Broke to semis in IHSA for both Lincoln Douglas and Congressional debate (Senior, Freshman year respectively).

I did Congressional and Lincoln Douglas Debate for four years at Schaumburg high school. Although I didn’t compete nationally I’m fine with whatever policy-ish arguments you run in any tournament, somehow linking court clog into a topic will make me very happy (that being said bring in any pre-read or pre-written shells and spikes into a round and I will for sure drop you, so strike me if that’s your way of debating).

LD:

Points: High Speaks aren’t going to be given to people who only “speak pretty” or to anyone who’s probably reading off every argument their varsity member wrote for them without knowing each nuance behind the argument they’re making. Knowing that, I generally give 27s-28.5s. I’m probably going to be the only one who ever says this, but I like Jargon - it shows specialization in the event. So saying “extend” or “turn”, and doing them properly will get you good speaks. I’m fine with spreading, but do it smartly (e.x. If you spread an AC and you have a minute left after then that wasn’t really necessary).

Judging Calc: To have a value that isn’t morality and justice requires lots of explanation on your part. I don’t vote off the flow (I.e. whoever extends the most things wins). If you’re winning off an argument, and you know dropping is strategic - go for it. Also links to framework literally write my ballot for me. I despise evidence debate , like arguing whether the correlation existed or even a refutation saying the card was made by professors so it’s better won’t do anything.

Congress

Points: Speaking ‘pretty’ will at most get you a 5. 6’s are for people who refute, analyze, and offer some rationale for the side. I don’t set aside 6’s for specific people, if you do what you’re supposed to, then you’ll probably get it.

Noms/Ranks: Participation in chamber is pivotal, so getting good amount of speeches and barely standing up for a question will get you a High score from me, but you’d be in the bottom of my preferential ballot or you won’t be nommed. If you aren’t the first speech (I.e. sponsorship), then have a refutation (an actual one, not some superficial refutation where you just say “representative” and not really do anything), if I don’t here any then you didn’t do any part of the debate. Just because you said x,y,z names before your claim doesn’t mean you refuted. Presence in chamber is a good indication - this doesn’t mean being aggressive and loud, rather people who motion and people who ask a lot of questions are preferred higher.

Lastly, the “perfect speech” doesn’t exist so if you make your entire two-three hours about one specific speech on one specific side and then refuse to switch or prep other legislations, then the likelihood of getting a nom/rank is very unlikely.

If you have any questions, email me: raphaelportillo01@gmail.com

I was a 3-year LD debater for Fremd HS and 2005 IHSA LD Varsity State Champion. I have been judging for over ten years now, almost exclusively LD but some PF.
Speed: Do not go faster than the rate at which you can clearly enunciate.
The framework debate is important to me. I want to know which V & VC I am looking at to weigh the round.
Give me reasons to believe your claims.
Tell me why it matters if your claims are true, usually tying directly to the framework(s) in the round.
Tell me why you won with good voting issues. If I agree, I'll just transfer those right over to the ballot.

Do Not: 1. Ask me my paradigm when it is on Tabroom.com 2. Take an inordinate amount of time between when you claim your prep time is over and when you start speaking - I don't need your 'off-time' roadmap.

Hi! I’m Elizabeth. I did LD at Evanston Township for 3 years and have coached there for five years.

- FOR STAGG ON 1/27 -

I have experience judging PF and I've found that it's fairly similar to a traditional LD round, which I've been judging for five years. I will flow everything in your speeches, I pay attention during CX, and I will judge based on the flow. Ultimately you need to do your best to weigh your arguments against theirs or I will be forced to weigh for you.

I assume I won't see much "progressive" debate but I'm certainly open to it as long as you provide justifications for your method.

To summarize:

· Performance and Ks>CPs/DAs/policy stuff AND traditional LD>>theory that isn’t tricks*>>>"phil" I guess? The kind of phil that is actually tricks.

· If you run tricks, you're better off striking me.

· I think part of being a good debater is making me care about what you're saying in addition to making me understand it.

· I did traditional LD as well as nat circuit (or "progressive") so I’d happily judge a traditional LD round if that’s what you’re here for!

Additional things you may find helpful:

I spent my junior year running various race/queer/colonialism K’s. I spent over half of my senior year running a performance aff so I’m 100% open (and excited!) to hearing anything performative. I think debates about the debate space are really cool and educational. I also think debates about the hypothetical implementation of a plan are really cool and educational. So whichever one of these wins me over is entirely dependent on the round in front of me.

I very much agree with my high school debate coach, Jeff Hannan, on this:

“I will make decisions that are good if:

you explain things to me; you establish a clear standard, role of the ballot, value, or other mechanism and explain to me how I can use that to make my decision; you compare or weigh offense linked to a standard.

I will make decisions that are bad if:

you expect me to do work for you on the flow or among your arguments; you assume I know more than I do.”

This probably means that if you want to run a bunch of blippy offs to spread your opponent out, I am not the judge for you. We will probably end up in a situation where you feel like I've missed something, and then everyone is sad. I would much prefer a deep analysis on one or two offs. But either way, the more you try to write my ballot for me the better things will go for you. Like please just give me a weighing mechanism and explain how you win under it at least pls pls pls or I will not know what to do with your impacts.

Framework things that are important to me:

To expand on my last point...please weigh your impacts back to your framework or at least back to something!!! I've noticed debaters doing this thing where they say a bunch of impacts but don't compare them (weigh them) and then I have to do all the work myself which can leave debaters disgruntled with my decision. Truly all I would like you to do is weigh the impacts in the round to your framework and it will take you a long way.

If your frameworks are basically the same I'll ultimately collapse them to make my decision. If you have impacts that only link under your framework then by all means argue the heck out of the framework debate! BUT PLEASE NOTE: "they don't link to their FW because I actually link better as shown in my contentions..." is NOT a reason to prefer your framework, it's just a solvency argument.

Stuff on Ks specifically:

I love a good K debate! Familiar with settler colonialism, afropess, and queer stuff.

If you can explain/impact the rhizome or hyperreal stuff to me and actually make it interesting then you can go ahead and try but you will have to explain VERY well and slowly.

I really enjoy any K stuff that relates specifically to education and discourse.

If you kick a K about an identity group you're not a part of (especially for frivolous theory omg) I'm going to definitelyyyy knock your speaks at least.

Stuff on theory specifically:

Generally convinced by reasonability because it often feels like theory is in fact frivolous or a waste of my time.

I don't have a negative predisposition toward RVIs but if the debate is coming down to that it’s probably already making me sad.

If there’s legit abuse then by all means call it out. On disclosure specifically: if they read something predictable or obviously within your resources to respond to just fine, I will be nonplussed. However, if they're reading something super specific or non-T that a reasonable person couldn't predict, I'm totally fine with disclosure theory.

*The more genuine and not-blippy your theory shell is the more I will like it. My favorite kind of debate that I ever did was debate about the debate space so I actually think theory is very cool ~in theory~ but in practice people use it to waste their opponent’s time and that seems antithetical to education to me.

Additional additional stuff:

Not to be a stickler but I'm not a huge fan of LDers saying "we" unless it's meaningfully symbolic for some reason. I won't knock down your speaks but I will internally sigh and wonder why you want to be in policy.

Please put me on the email chain (elizabethasperti@gmail.com). Even in my debating days, I didn’t have a great ear for speed. But I can understand spreading, please just be clear. I’ll say “clear” if I’m not understanding you. So don’t stress too much about being too fast just...try to be clear? Also if you're ever wondering if you should send your analytics, send the analytics.

If your opponent can’t understand you, I see that as a failure on your part, not theirs. If you can’t understand your opponent, please feel free to say “clear.” I have no idea why that’s not seen as “acceptable” in the debate space. That kind of just seems like a basic right a debater should have in the round.

For everyone:

Please be respectful to each other, and please try to have an illuminating debate.

For the email chain: ltoro38601@gmail.com

I started debate in high school and did four years of LD. I mainly read K stuff during those four years. I continued debating in college for two years, NFA LD, and two years of college policy.

You can read anything in front of me, but I judge critical arguments better because it is what I have the most experience with. But these last three years, I have been reading and going for a few policy arguments.

Hello I am an experienced LD debater. My paradigm is to make use of your value criterion and show how you achieve your value and why it is preferable as opposed to the opponents side. I am okay with spreading as long as the framework and main arguments are emphasized.