Hello,

My name is Sarah Bassil. I have been involved in debate for many years in various capacities as a debater, judge and coach. I have no preferences on the pace of your speaking so long as it is comprehensible. In efforts to be efficient, I have put together a simple list of my judging preferences:

-Roadmaps are greatly encouraged

-Sources should not be from newspapers or journalist. They are inherently bias and therefore weaken your argument.

-Including impacts in the structure of the contentions is most important in a proper case.

-Unless your definitions differ greatly from your opponents, please do not waste both of our time by defining them.

-Please use all of your allocated time, even if it just to read through the subpoints/impacts.

-Respect in the round, especially during cross x/grand cross x, cannot be stressed enough.

-Good public speaking skills starts with being prepared and confident with your case. I highly encourage students to have memorized a least 20% of their case in efforts to ensure they have good/decent eye contact.

Debate is an activity where we learn and grow as students together, so come with a positive attitude. Feel free to ask any questions before/after the round!

Name: Sarah Blanton

Email: essie3blanton@gmail.com. If there is a chain, I would like to be on it.

School Affiliation: George Mason University

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 2

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 1

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 3

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 6

Coaching Experience: I’ve coached Lincoln Douglas at Grafton High School for two years, but while I was competing/also a high schooler. I was the head lab leader for novice LD at Mason's camp summer 2019.

Occupation: Global Affairs major and second-year policy debater at George Mason, graduating 2021.

IN ROUND PREFERENCES:

Speed of Delivery: Whatever speed you prefer.

Format of Summary Speeches: I prefer line by line and detailed clash.

Role of the Final Focus: final speeches should conclude with impact calculus and offensive reasons to vote their way.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: Because of my policy background, I am somewhat biased towards the policy mindset. I weigh arguments that appear in the final speech(es) much more heavily, and consider a dropped argument to be reasonably true, I understand there is limitations on extending EVERY argument you need in the final speech, but you should try to extend most of the arguments you plan to win the debate on in your final speech.

Topicality: I don’t have much experience judging PF topicality debates, so I will not be familiar with PF-specific conventions. That said, I have been in and judged several topicality policy debates, and I have no problem voting for it or structural issues with the argument.

Plans: Go for it. I’ve never judged a PF team that reads a plan, so I am not especially for or against one.

Kritiks: This is probably the area I am personally most familiar with since I have spent most of my college career doing K debate. I have a broad knowledge of many Ks, and I really enjoy judging clash debates. However, I do understand reading Ks in a topic which changes monthly creates preparation difficulties for the aff. For this reason, I will weigh prep-oriented arguments with a particular weight. I will not be sympathetic to policy arguments which glamorize exclusionary models of debate instead of focusing on the real challenges of being prepared for unconventional arguments on a monthly basis. In other words, in clash debates I will be more convinced by more personal impacts about the difficulties of preparation as opposed to interpretations which exclude critical literature or identity debate in their entirety.

Flowing/note-taking: I will flow on my laptop

Argument or style? I consider style heavily over argument when awarding speaker points, but otherwise I will only rarely use style as a tiebreaker between equally matched teams. Generally, I have a strong preference for arguments.

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? YES.

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? Yes

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? I will not vote for a new argument in the final speeches, and teams should also do their best to call out their opponents for making new arguments.

Important Final Note: I WILL drop speaks for excessive rudeness towards your partner or your opponents. I am especially conscious of sexism and other forms of discrimination in debate spaces based on personal experience and what I have observed about inclusivity in the debate community. I will not tolerate bigotry between debaters, and I really appreciate kindness and courtesy in round. Don't speak over others in cross-ex, avoid demeaning language, don't ever record without other's permission, and be respectful of your partner and the other team.

Good luck and have fun!

Background:

I am a parent judge who has been judging for around 3 years and consider myself a flay judge. I'm trained as a scientist so logical argument supported by evidence is what I am looking for. I usually read up about the topic beforehand, so I have some knowledge about it.

Preferences:

I am more tech over truth but the argument needs to be believable for an easier win (I am a little more tech than you might imagine)

Please collapse and weigh your arguments against your opponents' arguments (Quality > Quantity)

I flow but I won’t flow if you’re too fast or hard to understand

I vote of the flow but good speaking always helps

I will call for cards usually if they are important for your case in the round. I take evidence very seriously and will drop you if I find it misconstrued.

Theory: I know nothing about theory or how to evaluate it. If you run it there is a high probability that I won't evaluate it.

Don’t be rude or offensive and don’t interrupt during cross or you’ll get dropped

Aaron Clarke, former varsity debater at George Mason University (aaronclarke217@gmail.com, if you want feedback after the round and want to shoot me an email)

**HIGH SCHOOL/SPACE TOPIC: I haven't done any topic research for this topic so I'm not going to know any acronyms or anything like that.

Top-Level Stuff: I don't really care what you go for, but traditional policy debate was what I spent about 95% of my debate career doing. I typically went for traditional arguments but 1) I often read non-traditional arguments on the aff and neg AND 2) I want you to do what you want to do. Debate is only fun when you're doing what you like.If you want to go for a K, aff or neg, go for it.

T:

It's usually in the 1NCs my partner reads and I'll definitely vote on it. Reasonibility should not be your A strat when debating T. It does not make sense when there are competing interpretations. I'm also down to hear framework against K affs. That's usually my strat because I don't know too much K lit to read a K against it (more below).

Condo:

Condo is good up to two counter-advocacies. Once you hit three counter-advocacies, I'll start feeling heavy sympathy for the aff. That being said, if the neg drops condo, I'll vote on it. My stance on condo does not allow you to blow over it shallowly. I tend to reject the arg, not the team.

K's:

I'm gonna keep it real with you chief: I'm not the best judge for you on this. High theory lit is going to go over my head but other K lit I at least have a basic understanding of it.

CP's:

I'm down for most CPs. I'm split on counterplan theory like process CPs and consult CPs, but hey, it's debate. If you can convince me they're not abusive, okay. If you can convince me it is abusive, okay. I'll vote either way.

DAs:

I. Love. Disads. Being a former 2N, disads were my bread and butter. I love topic DAs and I love politics DAs. Once again, although I hold DAs close to my heart, if you lose a DA, you lose a DA. There can be zero risk of a link. I love impact turn debates as well.

Case:

This is my favorite debate as most of my 2NR's were DA and case.

Details of warrant extrapolation and depth in the 2NC are key. 2AC's tend to be blippy so take advantage.

Aff’s should choose and break down more in the 1AR. Choose your impact comparison to the DA or solvency deficit connected to an advantage in the 1AR. It is difficult when the 2ar breaks down and establishes a new lens such as time frame, of which there is no record for in the previous speeches and one the 2NR would likely have responded too.

Aff:

See "Top-Level Stuff" I'm open to listening to theory and will vote on it. If you do go for a K aff, make sure it relates to the topic. I'll lean neg on Framework if your aff has no relation to the topic.

Presumption:

It flips neg when they don't go for a CP or K. Flips aff when they go for a CP or K

Tech vs. Truth:

This is circumstantial. I generally reward technical concessions and try to hold a firm line on new arg's in rebuttals. Though, I also think a silly advantage or DA can be demolished in cross ex

Cross Ex:

Cross ex can be the best moment of a debate if deployed correctly. I reward speakers that have a strategy and use their time wisely in cross ex.

Other notes:

Don't be a jerk. I find myself in too many debates where people equate being a dick to having a lot of ethos. Not only will it piss off your opponents, it'll put you in poor position speaker point wise. I don't have a problem if you rip someone's arguments apart in cross-ex, but there is a respectable way to do it.

If you show a fairly large amount of knowledge about the topic, that goes a long way in terms of speaker points.

The timer for prep stops once you stop making changes to the doc. Don't try and take advantage of this by saying you're "saving" when really you're typing up more stuff

I wouldn't consider myself a point fairy, but I think I give out pretty good speaker points.

General:

I am a lay judge. I do follow the flow, but I don't judge exclusively on that;

You may sit or stand to present but both teams will do the same. If the room is cramped, it’s better you stay in your seat;

If you are going to speak quickly, your elocution needs to be good enough for me to understand you;

I do not run a clock on time, track your own time and keep your opponents honest about theirs;

If you are relying on an electronic device to make your speeches and it goes down, I will run your prep time until it is corrected. If you run out of time, I expect you to continue without it. If you can’t, I will consider that a forfeit;

I have a thorough knowledge of statistics so making arguments that go off the deep end (speculative) or citing sources with a statistically insignificant sample size, or "cherry-picked" data or conclusions will diminish the impact of your card.

Misrepresenting cards will cost you, whether done intentionally or not;

You may use an off-time road map to state the sequence of your argument but do not use it to make your case.

About me:

I have an engineering background and work in the heavy construction industry. I am swayed by facts, data, logic, and reason and do my best to avoid emotion in decisions at it mostly leads to failure or disaster in the realm of the physical sciences where I work.

My hobbies include history, particularly military history, automobiles, woodworking, outdoor sports, and evolutionary behavior/genetics.

Background:

I currently debate policy at George Mason University. Prior to that I debated public forum for two years and had some competitive success. I want to be on email chains, my email is guzman.c.anthony@gmail.com. Also, feel free to contact me if you have any questions about the round.

General:

Argumentation- Read whatever you want, I'm not going to on face reject an argument (exceptions include things like "racism good"). An argument is a claim and a warrant. A good argument is a claim, a warrant, and an impact. I will not evaluate a claim without warrants. Lastly, I prefer depth over breadth.

Clarity is key- This is a communication activity. I would prefer slowing down for the purpose of persuasion and ethos than slurring just to throw in that last card you probably do not need. Try and make your transitions between arguments/pages clear. If I didn't vote for you on an argument you thought you made, you either weren't clear enough when you made it so it's not on my flow, or you didn't explain it enough. 

Extensions- You should be making warranted extensions of your arguments in every speech that are contextualized to your opponents arguments. I will give little to no weight to tag line extensions. I will also be unimpressed if you keep repeating the same generic overview of your arguments in every speech. 

Tech vs. Truth- This is circumstantial. I generally reward technical concessions; that being said, I also think a silly argument can be demolished with analytics. 

Lincoln-Douglas:

Value/Value Criterion- I see the V/VC debate as a lens through which I should examine the case debate. Winning this aspect of the debate doesn't mean you win the round. I vote for the team that best solves for the V/VC through their contentions. 

Contentions- Read them, extend them, and please remember to have impacts. I don't care if its nuclear war or the perpetuation of structural violence as long as I have impacts to vote on at the end of the debate. Also remember to do impact comparison (usually in the context of probability, timeframe, and/or magnitude) on why your impact outweighs the your opponents impacts. 

Counterplans- I won't reject them on face. I find that CPs in general are good for Neg ground, but I am willing to reject a CP or a team on theory arguments about why the specific CP that was read is abusive. I have a a low threshold for voting on condo is bad in LD so you are better of reading them as unconditional. 

Kritiks - I won't reject them on face. Don't assume I have read your lit base. I won't vote on a K if the alt still has not been clearly explained at the end of the debate. See CP section for my views about condo.                                                                           

Theory- Have an interpretation, articulate the link to your argument (a.k.a. the violation), and impact out how it affects fairness and education in and outside of the round. If you want it to be a reason to reject the team, you have to impact it and explain how it impacted the round (made it impossible to win) and/or establishes a bad precedent for debate. Keep theory arguments organized. Remember to slow down a bit because there's no air time for cards.

Policy:

Topicality - I default to competing interpretations so whatever is the best version of the topic wins. I care very little about what government definitions or topic framers think, especially compared to arguments about debatability (for either side). Don't think reasonability is a good argument. Lists and examples are key to a good T debate: What abusive aff's do they justify, what aff ground do they still have in their respective area, what neg arg's that are omitted, what core aff's are mooted if their interpretation is chosen, etc. Then the lists need to be impacted, so I can answer the "so what?" question of x argument being excluded or x aff being included. Do impact comparison i.e. limits vs. aff flex. Effects and extra T could just be reasons to reject the nontopical parts of the aff (I could be persuaded otherwise), but negative teams would be wise to point out the ways that the aff fails to solve/function logically without those parts. Lastly, I default to weighing topicality before any other theory in the round.

Framework - Debate is a game and evaluating consequences matters when forming an ethical stance (This can be debated and if you win it on the flow I am amendable to change but it is my default setting)   Limits impact is the most persuasive, because it has both in and out of round implications. Followed by topic education good arguments. Topical version doesn't have to solve the aff- just has to provide an inroads to talk about the aff's topic matter. Framework is a procedural- not an advocacy. You can't be stuck with it. If you're a K aff, you're best off just going for the impact turns.

Case - Impact defense is more important than anything else. Presumption can be a thing. Disads on case are fun. So are impact turns. 

Counterplans - Slowdown when reading CP texts. You need to disprove perms well or at least point out why the world of only the CP is better than the world of the perm. If nobody says anything about it, I’m willing to kick the CP for the neg because of implicit assumptions of it being conditional. But I could definitely be persuaded that presumption flips aff/the neg should get one world in the 2NR.

Disadvantages - Most familiar with this type of debate. 2NC/1NR Impact/Turns case overviews are preferable. Link typically precedes uniqueness but can be convinced that uniqueness overwhelms the link. In many instances, smart analytics are just as effective, if not more so, than cards. There can be 0 percent risk of a link. Start impact calculus as early as possible.

Kritiks - Don’t assume I am familiar with the literature for your specific K. Most Ks are explained in overly-complicated ways. Don't assume that saying words that end in “-ology” is an automatic reason to vote neg. You have to justify what that means in the context of the debate, and why it should be valued. I prefer Ks that have specific links to the topic or plan action significantly more than Ks that have state or omission links. If  I don't have a clear idea of what the Alt actually does to solve your link arguments at the end of the debate, I’m going to have an incredibly high threshold for voting on the K. Clear explanation of an alt is required for you to win these kinds of debates in front of me. Persuasive aff arguments revolve around attacking the alternative, answering root cause/link turns solvency, and winning the case. Persuasive aff arguments revolve around attacking the alternative, answering root cause/link turns solvency, and winning the case. The best neg arguments are the classic tricks – root cause, value to life, serial policy failure, etc.

Theory - Slow down on theory. If it comes down to reasons that the specific CP or K is a voter, I view it as a reason to reject the arg and not the team. Otherwise, I default to theory being a reason to reject the team.  I'm fine with giving the neg 2 conditional worlds and the squo, beyond that I have a lower threshold for voting on condo.  If a new aff is read, I have a very high threshold for voting on condo regardless of how many advocacies were read.  Again, these are inclinations. Nothing is set in stone and I can be persuaded either way.

Public Forum:

Speaks:

Stolen from Patrick McCleary

“I give speaker points based on how effectively students articulate their arguments, regardless of the type of argument. Above a 29.5 deserves to contend for top speaker, 29-29.5 is a speaker award, 28.5-29 is good/should be clearing, 28.1-28.5 is on the cusp of clearing, 28 is average, 27.5 is below average, 27 needs work. Any lower and you are probably either in the wrong division or did something offensive. Given what I've seen from people who compile the data on this stuff, this seems to be somewhat close to the community norm.”

Note: I will adjust this scale somewhat to reflect tournament/division norms.

Background

- 3 years national circuit PF at American Heritage-Plantation in Florida (2013-2016)

- 2 years policy debate at FSU (2016-2018)

- 2 years coaching PF for Capitol Debate (2017-current)

Paradigm

- Do anything you want to do in terms of argumentation. It is not my job as a judge in a debate community to exclude certain forms of argumentation. There are certain arguments I will heavily discourage: Ks read just to confuse your opponent and get an easy win, theory read to confuse your opponent, anything that is racist, classist, transphobic, xenophobic, sexist, ableist, etc. I will not immediately drop you for trying to confuse your opponent, I might for the latter half. The threshold for trying to confuse your opponents will be if you refuse to answer crossfire questions or give answers that everyone knows aren't legit.

- The most frequently asked questions I get are "can you handle speed?" and "how do you feel about defense in first summary/does the second speaking team need to cover responses in rebuttal?" To the first, if you are spreading to make this event in accessible to your opponents, I will give you no higher than a 20 in speaks. I am fine with spreading, but if either your opponents or I clear you, I expect you to slow down. If your opponents need to clear you 3 or more times, I expect you send them a speech doc (if you had not already done that). To the second, I do not care. It is probably strategic to have defense in first summary/ respond to first rebuttal in second rebuttal, but if you do not do that, I'm not going to say it has magically become a dropped argument.

- K's are cool, theory is cool. You need to know what you are talking about if you read these. You should be able to explain it to your opponents. If you are doing performance stuff give me a reason why. You should be prepared for the "we are doing PF, if you want to do performance why not go back to policy" debate.

- I default to whatever debaters tell me to default to. If you are in a util v structural violence framing debate, you better have reasons to defend your side. I do not default "util is trutil" unless it is won as an argument.

- Sound logic is better than crappy cards.

- The TKO is in play. If you know, you know.

- Speaker points will be reflection of your skill and my scale will remain consistent to reflect that. The average is between a 28.2-28.5. If you are an average debater, or your performance is average in round, that is what you should expect. Do not expect a 30 from me unless the tournament does not do halves.

Any questions:

email- ryleyhartwig@gmail.com

Or you can ask me before the round.

I am open to any argument as long as it is logical, topical, well-warranted, and well argued.

I may not be familiar with your jargon and abbreviations. I would like you explain your argument in a coherent fashion.

I don’t like spreading! I want to hear signposts clearly. Off-time roadmaps are preferred. Slow down your speaking whenever possible.

Do not rely too much on cards, your precise and concise analysis is more important.

I generally give 25 - 30 points, with 30s reserved for the outstanding speakers. Points will be taken off for rudeness and unethical evidence.

I am a parent judge, and I have judged for more than 3 years on the national circuit.

Preferences:

- Speak clearly at a conversational pace

- Have logical and well-explained arguments

- Avoid debate jargon

- Signpost clearly

- No Ks, Theory, etc.

- Be professional and civil

- Cross: I may not take notes but I pay attention

I am a parent judge but generally will follow the flow.

You may sit or stand to present but both teams will do the same. I prefer you to time yourself but I will keep a watch.

If you are going to speak fast, you will also need to speak very clearly so that I can follow you. I can't judge something I can't follow.

You may use an off-time road map to state the sequence of your argument but do not use it to make your case.

Don’t be rude and use offensive words.

Please take turns and don’t interrupt during cross.

I prefer clear, logical and well-explained arguments.

Theory or K's:

I know nothing about theory but if you explain so I understand it then go for it.

The main factor in my decision will be how convincing your arguments are. That being said, I am open to all arguments as long as they are not too extreme, well-explained and articulated, make sure that your arguments are fleshed out. Think twice if you want to run dedev, theory or kritiks.

Speaking:

- Please speak clearly and at an understandable pace.

- Always be courteous to your opponents (I will not tolerate rude behavior).

Content:

- Be clear about what argument you are talking about.

- All of your evidence needs to have a warrant - don't just say a piece of evidence - explain what it means and its implications in the round.

- If you have a problem with your opponent's evidence, call it and indict it in your speech.

- Weighing - tell me why your argument is more important.

- Impact - please don't exaggerate :)

Good luck and have fun!

I am a parent judge with four years of experience in judging Public Forum. Never competed Public Forum or any other Forensic activities, but as a parent judge I always read some review articles about the topics, therefore I do have some background knowledge in things that you are talking about and enjoy watching the debate.

I prefer clear and not too fast speech, so I can catch up the words and meaning of your talk.

I use following criteria when I judge a round:

Were the arguments intelligent? Your response to the arguments

The discrediting to the opposition’s response

The debaters back up their assertions with logical thinking and evidence when needed

Fair in interpretation of the resolution and one another’s statements?

Who is advancing the most significant arguments in the round?

I don’t weight much on the speed of speech, believe less words with sound arguments are much better than too much words which have to be delivered with fast speech.

Don’t have preference on the format of Summary Speeches, and evaluate argument over style.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, their arguments have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches. If a team is second speaking, I prefer that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech.

Don’t vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus.

Lay judge but fluent in english. Experience judging several tournaments.

Over warranting everything and explaining overexplaining arguments clearly will win you the round. I like true arguments that are tied to real world scenarios.

Former open debater at GMU from 2018-2022. I ran mostly queer theory, disability, and various forms of cap for the last couple years and am most familiar with those lit bases.

She/they pronouns. Put me on the email chain please, ceili1627 at gmail dot com. Feel free to email me after rounds with questions.

TL;DR: run whatever you want and I'll judge as best I can. I think my role as a judge is to be an educator/facilitator of idea exchanges regardless of whether those ideas are connected to anything from USFG action to interpretive dance performances. Keep in mind that even though debate is a game that you should have fun playing, it has real-world consequences for the real people who play it. As a great woman once said, "At the end of the debate, be sure to tell me why I should vote for you; if you don't, then you can't get big mad when I don't ... periodt" and I live by that <3

Policy:

K Affs: I'm totally down with k affs but I prefer them to have at least a vague link to the topic. It's super easy for the narrative of k affs to get lost during the round so please keep the aff story alive!! In FW/T debates, make sure to explain what debate rounds look like under your counterinterp, and that plus solid impact turns is usually a fairly easy ballot from me.

FW/T: As the same great woman once said, "I have voted against framework, I have voted for framework, but at the end of the day I don't really want to be there when framework is read." Run a caselist. Reasonability isn’t really an argument and fairness definitely isn't an impact. I tend to default to competing interps unless given a good reason otherwise. The neg needs to really spell out why I should err towards them on limits. TVAs are pretty useful for mitigating offense against fw as long as they're explained and contextualized well. Please for the love of god contextualize all your fw blocks to the round & aff in question instead of just reading a transcript of fw blocks from an NDT outround half a decade ago. I'm not persuaded by args that debate doesn't shape subjectivity--if you come out of a round the exact same as you entered it (regardless of if your opinions/beliefs have changed) then you're probably playing the game wrong.

Theory: Trying to convince me to care about potential abuse is an uphill battle. Don’t spread through theory blocks please. For blippy args I generally err towards rejecting the arg but will (extremely) reluctantly vote on it if dropped.

DAs/Case: Impact calc and clear internal link chains are both super important for me to vote on a DA. I tend to think that links determine DA direction but can probably be persuaded that direction is determined by uniqueness. I really enjoy heavy case debates and am disappointed that's increasingly missing from a lot of rounds. Also I think re-highlighting your opponents' ev is a bold move that's cool and often persuasive when it's done right but is pretty cringe if done poorly.

Ks: I was mostly a k debater in college and I'm most familiar with lit bases for queer theory, cap, set col, and debility. Still, you need to clearly explain your theories of power and all that good stuff instead of throwing around a bunch of obscure terms expecting me to know what you’re talking about. Please please please don't read a k just because you think that's what I want to hear--it makes for a bad debate and a grumpy judge. I’d like to think my ballot actually means something so explain to me what it does and I'll be more likely to pull the trigger for you. I feel most comfortable voting on specific links to the aff though I prefer the debate to go beyond the level of you-link-you-lose. Please give me a clear and coherent framework under which I consider the aff vs the alt, but also I think too many policy affs use framework to avoid engaging with the k at all which is both frustrating to judge and not at all strategic.

CPs: 50 state fiat is definitely core neg ground at the high school level. I’m fine with the neg having 2 conditional worlds, 3 makes me lean aff, and the neg shouldn't ever need 4+ conditional worlds. I don't judge kick and I'm likely to entertain most if not all CPs as long as they have a clear net benefit and explanation of how they solve the aff. Super meta CP theory confuses and bores me.

General: Tech > truth (often but not always, e.g. I usually tend to evaluate the debate through tech > truth but can be fairly easily convinced otherwise), debate is a game that you should have fun playing, clarity > speed (especially for zoom debate), I reserve the right to tank speaks if you're being homophobic, transphobic, sexist, racist, ableist, excessively rude, or clipping cards. Please don't make me have to judge something that happened outside the round like authenticity checks or happenings from other tournaments/seasons. I usually have little HS topic knowledge but that doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't pref me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ it's good for the neg on T insofar as I don't have a predetermined view of what the topic should look like, but it's also good for the aff because I don’t have much knowledge on the nuances of what affirmatives look like under particular definitions. I'm pretty hit or miss on reading ev after rounds unless explicitly told to, and on that note please highlight your cards in as close to complete and coherent sentences as you can. Violent verb fragments aren't arguments.

PF:

I did 4 years of PF in high school so I'm quite familiar with this format. Extend your own args, don’t drop your opponents’ args. I vote on the flow and default to util for impact comparison unless you tell me to frame impacts differently. I’m most likely to vote for a PF team that nails impact calc in the rebuttals, does solid work extending offense, and uses effective warrant-level evidence comparison. My 3 biggest pet peeves with PF are (1) labeling literally everything as a voter, (2) saying "de-link,", and (3) using "frontline" as a verb.

LD:

I never debated this format, though I understand it, and I tend to judge it from a somewhat policy perspective. I'm cool with both traditional and progressive formats--do what you do best/enjoy most and I'll vote off the flow. What bugs me most is the introduction of some kind of framing lens at the beginning of the round (like value/value criteria or another kind of framework) that isn't extended or used throughout the rest of the debate.

The Gamble

If you use One Direction lyrics in your speechI will raise your speaks a max of 0.5. Do with that what you will.

I debated in PF for three years in high school, and currently debate on the APDA Collegiate circuit at UVA. I am good with speed, unique arguments, or really whatever you are interested in trying during the round! Please be kind and respectful to all competitors, especially during CX. Feel free to ask my any other questions you have before the round.

I am a performance and critique oriented judge, I was a critique and performance oriented debater.

I am very receptive toward all manner of alternative styles of debate ranging from poetry to critiques of the debate community.

Attention: I give lower speaker points for arguments that I find to be offensive to my particular identities. I am a disabled queer.

Expect me to vote for your critical affs and to take a large amount of work to vote on a topicality violation.

When facing a critical affirmative, it is best for the negative to make case answers that reveal the contradictions present in the affirmative's arguments analytically as well as running an alternative framework and alternative methodology for solving the affirmative. In such debates, a strong link and impact is often the best defense against the chance of a permutation.

I will vote for Disads and can easily parse consequentialist reasoning.

It will be difficult for me to be receptive to things like Counter Plan theory.

I tend not to vote on topicality.

Update for 2019: none of this has changed, I expect perm debate and case debates against critical affs, case debates for policy affs are fine as well as disad or critique

I'm a parent judge. I am lay, very lay, very very lay!

Julia Soczynski - Juliasoc@gmail.com

George Mason '22

Wayzata '18

I now work for Ford Motor Company

Update: If I look cranky, I'm not (maybe).

A little bit about me. I debated for George Mason University, formerly Wayzata High School, I was a 2N. Come Sophomore at college they brought me to the dark side of being a 2A. I think that debate is a game, that said, the way you play is up to you. As a sports fan, I may disagree with some things but does not mean I do not see the value and understand why you play the game of debate the way you do.

As my friend Ezra Serrins puts it, "I appreciate it when debaters take arguments seriously, but you shouldn't take yourself too seriously, it'll just piss me off." The only thing I have to add to that is a good person and have fun.

PF

I've been judging a lot of it lately. Extend your own args, don’t drop your opponents’ args. I vote on the flow and default to util for impact comparison unless you tell me to frame impacts differently. I’m most likely to vote for a PF team that nails impact calc in the rebuttals, does solid work extending offense, and uses effective warrant-level evidence comparison. My 4 biggest pet peeves with PF are (1) labeling literally everything as a voter, (2) saying "de-link,", and (3) using "frontline" as a verb. (4) stealing prep - you will get 15 speaker points. <-- a note on this, I have done this 0 times. It needs to be pretty bad for me to call you on this. I am not evil

Ask me questions, I wrote this quick.

Framework

I probably am 60/40 on voting on framework. The farther the aff is from the rez, the odds of me voting on FW significantly increase. I was raised with the Ogbuli ideal of framework "Fairness is an internal link more than it is an impact, but with sufficient work it can be an impact, this is work missing from the vast majority of framework debates. It's probably not the best impact against teams making identity-based arguments, against all other teams it should make an appearance. Substantive framework impacts such as cede the political, agonism, deliberation, etc are generally more persuasive especially against identity based arguments." The idea of debate being fair. Eh.

Topicality

Both teams (especially aff teams): articulate your vision of the topic/debate and why it's better than the other team's. If I don't know what that is, it's not an insta-kill for the other team, but it will definitely hurt you. Please have an impact, please do framing, thank you in advance. Aff teams: I like it when the aff relates to the resolution in some way. That doesn’t mean you have to have a plan, but the further you go from the rez, the likelier I’ll be to Vote neg on T. I really like when the aff has offense outside of "procedurals are violent". Internal link turn stuff, that's fun. Neg teams: yes, I'm in the camp that thinks there is a difference between T and FW. Just because I think this doesn't mean you get to blow off their offense with "we're T not FW" and leave it at that (explain stuff please). I like it when there's a TVA, especially on this topic.

Nontraditional/K affs

Both teams (especially aff teams): articulate your vision of the topic/debate and why it's better than the other team's. If I don't know what that is, it's not an insta-kill for the other team, but it will definitely hurt you. Please have an impact, please do framing, thank you in advance.

Aff teams: I like it when the aff relates to the resolution in some way. That doesn’t mean you have to have a plan, but the further you go from the rez, the likelier I’ll be to vote neg on T. I really like when the aff has offense outside of "procedurals are violent". Internal link turn stuff, that's fun.

Neg teams: yes, I'm in the camp that thinks there is a difference between T and FW. Just because I think this doesn't mean you get to blow off their offense with "we're T not FW" and leave it at that (explain stuff please). I like it when there's a TVA, especially on this topic.

Kritiks

I understand at least the basic theory behind most Ks, and increased the number I run tremendously between junior year of hs and the end of my debate career. However, please don’t blow off explanation and contextualization. Too many aff teams let negs get away with read generic links or links that are about the status quo - call them on that. Impact comparison is severely underutilized in K debates. Alts are usually the weakest part of these debates, so the neg should devote time (before the 2NR, come on now) to explaining how the alt functions/solves. Floating PIKs are probably not a reason to reject the team, but reading one will make me a lot more sympathetic to the perm. Links of omission are not real links. PS. If you call someone out of there link of omission and say "oh yes, the link of omission." I will bump your speaks up.

Counterplans

Love them!

I will only kick the CP if asked. 2As tell me why they shouldn’t get to I will listen!

Disads

I Love DAs. The unfortunate a lot of people read with hyper-generic links that require a ton of spin to win. With that in mind, case specific disads (or even just hyper-specific link cards) are awesome. Politics is great. Politics and a CP were 80% of my 2NRs. I love really unique, well-explained turns-case stories.

Theory

I have no predisposition to sides when theory is run as a as a reason to reject the argument, but I most likely won’t vote on theory as a reason to reject the team unless it’s condo. On the condo question, I really don’t care. You can win that one condo is bad/good or 5 condo is bad/good. More reasonably, 5 condo may be is pushing it. (I have been informed this is a hot take). Please slow down and do line by line on theory, as it makes it easier for me to judge.

Yeah, that's it. Have fun!

I’ve been a debate judge for 13 years, and I enjoy judging debate very much! I like to do research on the debate topics before I judge each debate. I will not only pay attention on your delivery, but also on how well you did your research and how deep you understand the debate topic. You should be an expert on your debate topic to convince me.

I want to you to speak clearly and not too fast so that I can remember and write done your key points. If I cannot catch your points, you lose those points. That may reduce your chance to win.

Do not just dump a lot of information. I would like to see your clear rationality, good analysis and strong reasoning based on solid evidence, instead of widely circulated false news or assumptions.

During the cross fire, I would like to listen one person speak at one time. Please do not interrupt others’ speech when others haven’t finished. Do not try to dominate the cross fire time, give your opponent fair chance to speak.

Please speak very clearly in your summary and final focus. This is your last chance to convince me. I will vote objectively based on your arguments, impacts, evidence, reasoning, questioning, defense, delivery and your expertise on the debate topic.

Hi, this is her daughter speaking.

My mom is a lay judge but she has judged pf tournaments for the past 3 years. That being said, don't be progressive in your arguments. No theory's, no K's, no spreading. She votes off of "good points" and "clarity". If you sound good and you are logical, she'll vote you up.

*UPDATE* she will drop you if you don't respond to an argument and your opponent extends that argument in summary in FF

also, she will not evaluate new responses in FF unless it's some sort of weighing analysis, just like all judges should do. She is attempting to be as "technical" as possible, but then again, she is a parent lol.

2024 Paradigm

Experience: I debated and coached policy ranging from the middle school to collegiate levels from approximately 2003 to 2017. I've judged on and off since then. I also have some experience judging PF, Congress, LD, and some Speech events. I served as the Tidewater Debate League President from 2014-2015 and created the Virginia Debate and Speech Judging Facebook group. I have been out of the scene for a few years now at this point. Schools I was directly affiliated with/debated for/coached: Kemps Landing Middle School, Princess Anne High School, Harrisonburg High School, James Madison University.

Preferences: I probably can't flow or comprehend varsity policy collegiate-level spreading as well as I used to, but hope to re-build this tolerance. The same probably goes for technical terminology, especially if it's newer (within the past 5 years).

Note-Taking: Due to my training, my default setting is "flow everything." I could be convinced otherwise.

Argument/Style: Like note-taking, I have preconceived notions of what's important; however, I am amenable to being told what should be important.

Conduct: As I refamiliarize myself with the scene, I will be open and observant to how customs and practices have evolved in my absence.

TL;DR I have experience judging/competing/coaching and am open to many different arguments and styles; however, I've been out of the scene for a few years.

For Public Forum Debaters: Please give me impacts to weigh, even if only in your Final Focuses. I find myself having to make value judgments about how things should weigh against each other after most pofo rounds and you don't want me having to do that.

Email is mgveland@gmail.com

I am a lay parent judge.

I'm a lay judge. So speak clearly and slowly.

Email for evidence sharing: jamesmwhite1@gmail.com

Experience judging in both National Circuit and WACFL. Extensive experience with LD and public forum debating, as well as extemp. I value argumentative quality over quantity. I expect a professional decorum. Treat your competitors respectfully. Other preferences include:

-- Tight flow / logic with well-organized arguments
-- Clear articulation (though speed is fine)
-- Quality support and evidence
-- Debating the topic (though prog K is acceptable)
-- Silly/trick arguments are unconvincing

Relate your arguments back to the standard / criterion first imposed. Framework is important. Make clear why your argument is most consistent with the framework, and why your opponent's is not. LD is not policy. Value-based argumentation is important. Convince me that you're right. Persuasiveness is more than technical proficiency.

Open to critique approaches, but no tolerance for progressive LD tricks that avoid debate altogether. Important to demonstrate a strong philosophical foundation for any critiques.

Email for evidence sharing - jamesmwhite1@gmail.com

Hi. My name is Laura Worrel. I am very much a lay judge but have been judging public forum for a couple of years. I prefer organized speeches that I can understand. Please make it very clear why I should vote for you. I will try my best to flow and make an informed decision. Thanks!