Last Update: January 7, 2022

I competed in various forms of debate for five years on the college level however, I primarily competed in NPDA and LD Debate. I competed for Moorpark College (more traditional debate) and Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley (Nat circuit tech debate). At the 2021 NPDA I got to Semis and NPTE I got fifth in season-long rankings and fifth at the NPTE itself. I am ecstatic to see the future generation of debaters compete as a judge with that being said let’s get onto my judging philosophy which is probably the only thing you care about and are reading this for.

TLDR: As the great, powerful, wise debater Brian Yang once said "Go Nuts!" to be a bit more specific my paradigm is heavily influenced by Trevor Greenan, Brian Yang, Tom Kadie, Jessica Jung, and Ryan Rashid so I would expect paradigm similar to them. In order of probably what I am probably best/most experienced judging Theory/Tricks/Larp/K 1, Phil 2 (just not as experienced although I did debate it a bit and learned from Phil debaters so I understand it and can judge it pretty competently) (Advice: For Parli Paradigm questions look to sections 1-4 for evidence debate gloss over section 1 real quick only a few things there matter then look to sections 2-5, for extra salt, info, and general advice include 6,7) bold/highlighted text is generally the more important stuff I would recommend looking at though the rest of it provides a lot of context and stuff so I would read everything there will in fact be a pop quiz... jkjkjkjkjk.... unless........

Table of Contents:

1. General Philosophy

2. Case Debate

3. Theory

4. Kritiks

5. Evidence Debate Specific

6. Contact Info

7. Uniqueness Rant... (no need to look to with regards to paradigm questions just tired of giving the same feedback lol)

My current views for debate, in general, are as follows:

1. General Philosophy:

A) Tech over Truth: Wtf is "Truth" honestly the fact that you vote on the flow shouldn't be an opinion you have it should be a requirement otherwise what is the point of having a judge other than to have some rando arbitrarily and most likely with prejudice decide on random claims it doesn't seem like a very fun event in that world but rather idk an event coated by some serious paternalism coded by all sorts of isms? I know I have def been screwed over before by judges that thought something was "true/untrue" when they were just wrong and describing something I did entire research papers on being like okkkk buddy...
B) Partner communication: I only flow what the recognized speaker says unless you have some sort of framework, performance, or theory justification that is won. Communicate as much or little as you want you do you.

C) Protecting the flow: I do try to protect the flow to the best of my ability. However, I would still recommend calling points of orders just in case I miss something.

D) Things that make me unhappy :( I reserve the right to drop anyone for being bigoted will cause me to drop the team given the real-world implications and harm that it creates.

E) Speaks: I have decided that speaks are probably disablist, sexist, racist, etc. particularly in debate events and as such I will give each team the highest possible speaks be it block 30s and 29.9 or descending by whatever the tournament allows. The exception is if your racist, sexist, antisemitic, disablist, transphobic, homophobic, or any of the phobics or antis or isms (come close to breaking this rule a couple of times although I haven't had to yet...). If I can’t give block scores I will give the winners higher speaks and the losers the lower ones descending.

F) Views on spreading: You do you I can flow. My partner Will White was probably one of the fastest debaters when going max speed so it's highly unlikely you can spread me out as Will could hit like 450WPM without cards and I could flow.

G) Shadow Extensions: I believe Shadow Extensions are new arguments. (A shadow extension is an argument dropped during the member speeches that magically reappears in the rebuttal speeches)

H) Extensions:

I. When extending an argument should it be untouched I am okay with a simple extend _____ there is no need to reexplain as long as your arguments related will not be new and only weighing in the rebuttal speeches. However, if you are planning to leverage it against another argument on the flow you need to explain how it applies.

II. If you are kicking something you do need to say "kick this" or "extend their we meet" or whatever "we're not going for it"

III. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PLEASE EXTEND YOUR VOTERS ON THEORY.

I) Cross-Applications in Rebuttals: I believe that cross applications through other sheets of paper are new arguments. For example, if you make an argument on theory and then in the rebuttal speeches apply it to case or K when it is only on theory in the flow and you don't say it applies to case or K that would be a new argument.

J) Words that you say when other people are speaking for lack of a better term: Slow and speed mean to slow down, Clear means to talk clearer not necessarily to slow down, Text means to pass the text, signpost means to say where you're at on the flow.

K) Written copies) Please give me written/typed copies of your advocacies/ROJ/ROB/Interps/counterinterps in case I miss something important. What you write down is the interp is what I will follow unless contested and told to do otherwise. I may ask for clarification after the speech and before the next speech before time starts for the exact wording.

L) Weighing) Absent weighing done for me by the debaters I default to Strength of link>magnitude>probability>timeframe.

2. Case Debate:

A) Affirmative:

I. Policy:

a. Have a plan text and preferably advantages. Other than that it is pretty much up to you and your opponent. I do enjoy a good Heg, econ, and Uniqueness solves the case debate for Tix if you can't think of anything...

b. Advantages: Preferably in the formats of Uniqueness, Links, Internal Links, then Impacts or Uniqueness, Links, Impacts. Make sure your uniqueness is going in the right direction, explain your links, and terminalize your impacts. I would love it if you would give me clear links not just plan passes and war, explain how you get to war. Don’t just say death and expect me to do the work for you. If you say gut check as a wise man once told me “I will gut check everything and you may not like that.”

II. Value: Should have a criteria and contentions. You don't need a Value Criteria in addition to your regular one but if you want to provide one strategically that is up to you. Preferably for both Contentions and Countercontentions on the Negative, the structure I usually ran was H.I.S. (Harms, Impact, Solvency) with harms being the harms of the opposing value, Impacts being the impacts of that, and Solvency being the solvency for using your value but I understand there are many different structures and not every value round is capable of having that clear of a structure so how you run it is up to you.

III. Fact: You should have a criteria and contentions. Your contentions should preferably have impacts and not just be statements otherwise it is very hard to weigh the debate.

B) Negative:

I. DAs: refer to section 2.a.I.b. on advantages.

II. Counterplans: some of my favorite debates are plan CP debates having originally been coached by one of the “inventors” of the CP. I’ll vote on any type of perm textual, functional, one with net benefits, severance, intrinsic, timeline, etc. if it’s won. I default to perm is a test of competition, not an advocacy. Also going for Severance and going for your aff is not a double turn just two independent win conditions unless the opposing team makes/wins an arg that it is. If a perm hasn't been argued as either a test of competition or advocacy come the 2AR my default is locked and I will consider it a test of competition and any argument as to the contrary as new.

III. Presumption: I default to presumption flows Neg unless the neg runs an advocacy/Alt/CP in which case it flips AFF absent a framework argument that is argued that it is negative. If you’re condo and kick it I default to it flips back to the neg but am open to arguments that it stays aff. Side note: I default permissibility affirms

IV: Offense V Defense: if you clearly articulate how it is terminal defense and presumption is still negative ground I will vote on it. Generally, I vote along a very heavy offense-defense paradigm unless told otherwise

V: Condo V Uncondo: Default to all plans are condo unless the status is asked and they say not condo. IDC how you run it up to you. Also like the great Amanda Miskell says “Dispo is just Condo in a suit” jkjkjkjk even though it isn't tbh most of the same standards level offense will be triggered on a theory position maybe you get some additional education offense depending on conditions but it seems minimal to me but meh whatever you do you. I don't care one way or another on condo will vote on condo bad (if won) as much as I will vote for infinite condo good (if won) fun math proof for infinite condo here ( I don't think it's fully accurate but its def fun/funny lol): https://debatedrills.com/en/blog/defense-infinite-conditionality/ .

VI: Judge Kick: I don't default to judge kicking the CP but if you win that I should judge kick that's fine. I also think that responses to judge kicking coming out of the PMR in response to new MO framing should be to drop the argument not drop the debater.

3. Theory:

A) Structure: It should preferably have an Interp, Violation, Standards, and Voters. Unless it is an IVI, RVI, paragraph theory all of which I will vote for.

I. Interpretation:

a. No preference for or against any type of Theory run whatever you and friv theory = FUN. Condo bad, no neg fiat, Ks Bad, AFC, Spec, Topicality, Trichot, tropicality, neg gets to split the block, etc. (although I will likely be heavily biased against theory that calls out someone's personal appearance and/or the way they dress... to the point I most likely will intervene and not vote for it but I haven't fully decided on that yet)

II. Violation: probably should clearly articulate the violation even if so blatantly obvious and not just they violate but it can be quick if it’s very clear like if you run F-Spec, just say “they didn’t specify the funding mechanism in the PMC” or something like that.

III. Standards:

a. Your standards should provide clear links to each voter that they work in conjunction with Fairness, Education and/or accessibility and work as reasons to prefer your theory sheet. Ideally, they should be contextualized to the round/interp rather than just general descriptions of the standard.

IV: Voters

a. To vote on theory I need clear explained voters don’t just say Apriori, fairness, and education and expect me to vote on them you need to terminalize those voters and what they mean. For example, with education you could say that education is the reason debate exists and without education, nobody would do debate and it collapses or for fairness say that if the round is unfair we cant evaluate arguments to tell if they're true. Or on fairness, we cant test their arguments/methods/ it skews eval etc.

b. For theory, I have no preference for reasonability vs. competing interpretations and will vote on how you tell me to vote. though I will say I have no idea what reasonability means until you provide some sort of bright line like winning all the Counterstandards and standards or something I dunno your argument you figure out what it will be and without a brightline, I just go back to competing interps

c. I default to drop the team, competing interps, no RVIs, Fairness>education (tho ig it would depend on the impact justifications under this model I am assuming skews eval/truth testing as your fairness impact), Text>Spirit, Pragmatics>Semantics.

d. Abuse: I default to potential abuse is sufficient as CInterps would cause me to evaluate under a risk of offense paradigm comparing the two interps not necessarily what happened in a given round. Unless a very good argument for articulated abuse is given most likely with some sort of reasonability framework being won.

e. A “we meet” that is won is a no link to a theory shell even under competing interpretations unless argued otherwise and very clearly won in the debate. While you can weigh the risk of offense on some level of the we meet if they only meet part of your interp i.e. they don't fully violate like a no link on one of the potential scenarios on a DA. To achieve terminal defense the we meet would likely have to fully meet the interp, some framing claim as to why a partial meeting is sufficient to not evaluate the sheet, and/or the we meet is generated via an interp flaw which means they can't solve their offense given they wrote they're interp bad allowing you to meet.

B) IVIs/RVIs/paragraph theory/Kritikal Turns: I will vote on them if you win them and have clear links and reasons why I should vote on them, tell me how to vote on them and framing/sequencing. I will vote on an RVI but I probably have a slight bias against them. I default to no RVIs but if you win the RVI framing I will vote on it. Also, this is something I have noticed in parli it seems what an RVI is has gotten lost in translation from Nat Circuit LD to Parli, the way I understand it is how it is understood in nat circuit LD i.e. it is a framing claim with regards question of the directionality of offense if you win that something is an RVI you win that offense is Bidirectional, not Unidirectional as under a no RVI theory on framework so saying we get an RVI is sufficient to get an RVI but not sufficient to win an RVI as to win an RVI begs the question of whether you won the theory sheet in itself (when judges vote for bidirectional offense on a K they are voting for an RVI shhhh... don't tell them), if you do and you win you get an RVI and that theory is the highest layer you would then trigger a win condition most likely. The way they've become translated for the most part in parli is just IVIs saying theory is bad not RVIs.

4. Kritiks: Run whatever you want (yes, I know that these examples don't fit cleanly into each category and can fit into several just giving examples) be it more sociological like Cap, Set Col, antiBlackness, Psychoanalysis like Lacan (sidenote: Nietzsche Stan so like the implications of that are generally not the biggest Lacan/psychoanalysis fan in general though I will vote for it just not enjoy myself), or POMO like Nietzsche, Baudrillard, DNG, "eastern" philosophy (probably my fave tbh) like Taoism or Buddhism, your Deont 1AC/NC, and ofc your nailbomb 1AC, IDC I vote on the flow. Don't assume I know your lit even though I know a pretty big lit base and so your K should be clearly explained preferably. As for literature that I am particularly familiar with I mostly ran Nietzsche, Buddhism, Disablism, Anthro, Cap/Racial Cap, Set Col, and Orientalism. However, I am heavily biased against nazi literature please don't run it like Schmitt or Heidegger because ya know... I had family subjected to the Holocaust... K-Affs are fun I def ran them a lot but I probably err slightly towards FWT maybe 55/45 should the best arguments be made although (the best args are rarely/almost never made) so I actually end up voting at about 50/50 or edging slightly in favor of K-AFFs.

II Framework:

A. ROB/ROJ: I think that both are really just thesis claims for your framework and in themselves not necessarily arguments. i.e. a role of the justification for existence absent framework arguments and no function as to what it means and should you make an argument about framework regardless of whether you say the role Role of the ballot/Judge is ___ the function of how I evaluate the round stays the same so in the end whether you say an explicit role of the ballot text or not the end result is the same, therefore it follows that a ROB/J cannot be more than a thesis claim because it doesn't change the outcome of the round by default absent some sort of internal justification but then that begs what it means via the framework arguments rendering the whole thing circular leading back to the same place that it is in fact a thesis claim.

B. Framing: Your framework should preferably offer some explanation on how impacts should be evaluated in relation to other impacts and what should type of evaluation comes first, what methods ought be prioritized etc.

C. I default to epistemic modesty over confidence on frameouts and impact defense. That means without any in-depth explanation, I'll evaluate your frameout as a reason why your impacts are more probable than your opponents, and why your opponents have a lower probability of solving their impacts. If you want me to evaluate your frameout as terminal defense, or a reason the k is sequentially a prior question to the aff, you need to do the technical extensions of why that is necessarily the case. I also default to epistemic modesty when it comes to impact defense that means absent an explicit argument as to why that defense is terminal I will only evaluate it as mitigatory. When it comes to epistemic skew claims I functionally default to confidence as I believe they create new layers within the debate. Finally, stating that X is terminal defense if the claim is uncontested will cause me with regards to that particular impact to view that as terminal defense regardless of whether it is coherent as the implication will not have been contested however, if something is not explicitly stated to be terminal defense and there is not an explicit claim saying it is such or flipping my paradigm then I will view any defense as mitigatory as described.

C. MISC.

1. Will vote on Skep triggers if they are terminalized and explained and I think tricks belong in parli but IG that's up for debate tho.

2. I default to theory is Apriori however, I will vote on K before T if the argument is made/won. Or they are on the same level if arg is made/won.

3. I have no idea what "vote for the best/better debater" means.

4. Not as experienced with Phil tho I do enjoy it and have def learned a lot from former Phil debaters and understand a decent amount of it.

5. Role of the ballots/Judges are really just thesis claims for framework arguments imo from what I have seen though i.g. if you want it to be more binding then that you need to probably make that argument although I will probably all things being equal be more receptive to the claim that its a thesis claim.

III. Impacts:

a. Have them and terminalize them. As stated above don't just say nuclear war or poverty and expect me to do the work for you.

b. full disclosure I probably find the proximal impacts bad for debate highly persuasive. Not to say that I won't vote for proximal impacts if they're won on the flow (I def ran them occasionally when I did debate) and that you've won that they're good but due to personal experiences and the ways I have seen them utilized I have a bias against them. I also think there's a distinction between proximal impacts that occurred in the debate round i.e. someone did something violent in which case I think those proximal impacts are probably persuasive versus proximal impacts brought into the round that your advocacy or alt solves for you or other debaters in-round which is where I find my bias against proximal impacts probably comes in.

IV Alt/Advocacy:

a. Preferably have one and tell me which way I should vote unless its part of your FW, solvency, performance, or something I guess that you don't need one.

b. If it has a really complex idea and philosophy explain what the terms mean either under your alt/advocacy or in your solvency ideally.

V Solvency:

a. You should have it and clearly explain how it solves the impacts you have provided at a minimum. Don't just say we solve you should state the mechanism and way in which you solve.

VI: Perm: Refer to 2, B), II. the perm section under counter plans.

5. Evidence Debate specific:

A) Carded evidence: it is very important for Evidence debate but you must also make arguments not just cite sources. Analytics theoretically can beat cited cards if you do the better debating. Also please don’t get into your source is bad arguments unless they cite the most biased source like Breitbart (obviously evidence comparison is encouraged though) I more so mean the "wahhhh no u, debates) for the evidence chain please send to Joshua.alpert (AT) berkeley.edu

B) Power-tagging/cutting: don't... Please Don’t... I’m very probably pretty receptive to some sort of theory shell against it if it is won... please don’t lose it if you do run it or I will be sad. A drop the argument claim made by the team calling it out at the very least probably has a good chance of winning in front of me.

C) No clipping!!! this shouldn't have to be said but apparently, it does.

6. If you have any further questions feel free to ask me before or after the round or if you have questions about a round I judged feel free to email me or send me a Facebook message.

7. My Uniqueness rant.... feels like half the time I am judging HS rounds with two linear impacts pitted against each other and like some rough uniqueness so I am gonna put a RQ rant on how uniqueness works so I don't have to keep repeating myself

a. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link: I.e. if the uniqueness is headed in one direction things bad the link should be things get better or vice versa on a DA. This means that thumpers/uniqueness overwhelms the links arguments aren't particularly responsive more so mitigatory as there is still only a risk things get worse as such in order to really control the link debate its ideal you control the uniqueness debate as well. (side note: generally case turns also need uniqueness too otherwise they're pretty linear which makes it easier for the opposing team to handwave away with "try or die".

b. Uniqueness positive v negative v flux: Uniqueness in terms of directionality follows one of three types Positive v. negative v flux Positive uniqueness indicates the squo is headed in the right direction (squo good) this is the uniqueness you generally want on a DA, negative would indicate the squo is bad and is what you want on an advantage, and in flux would indicate that it could head either direction it is dependent on a "singular action" it can go in either an AD or DA and generally, requires strong control of the Link/Internal Link debate while strategic in some instances it is generally high-risk high reward.

c. Predictive v Descriptive Uniqueness: Uniqueness can either be predictive or descriptive what I mean is uniqueness can either state what is happening "right now" or in the "past" (descriptive) or it can be predictive describing what is expected to happen in the future look to an econ debate descriptive uniqueness would state that unemployment is at an all-time high with X unemployment and the investor confidence is low at ___ versus predictive would be unemployment is expected to drop ____ because of ___ and investor confidence is headed towards a free fall as X bubble bursts.

d. Uniqueness as a spot for internal links: uniqueness can be used as a spot to place internal links instead of having separate internal links sections you can embed that X type of thing is the internal link i.e. you can have a section that says soft power is the internal link to Heg or investor confidence key to Heg to save you some time from having to flesh out a whole separate internal link section.

e. Brink Scenarios: Please for the love of god have brink and/or flashpoint scenarios in your uniqueness i.e. some event or location that is heading in the wrong/right direction think if you have a war with Russia scenario isolate someplace like the Baltics, arctic, cyberspace, etc. rather than some vague place and isolate why now is key and what is going to happen if we don't do this otherwise it kind of makes your uniqueness linear and a nightmare to evaluate and of course to leverage tbh.

F: Non-Case debate

I K's: The alternative generates uniqueness in a K debate: i.e. all the framing, links, and impacts are generally nonunique until you have created a way to solve them via your advocacy/alt.

II: Theory: Your interp/counterinterp is what generates your uniqueness in a case debate in a similar fashion to how the alt does as you have established an "advocacy/rule" for an interpretation of how debate should functions in order to resolve impacts isolated in the same way that if the alt on a K has terminal defense to resolving its offense making it nonunique and thus not a reason to vote against the AFF it means that should an interp have terminal defense on it it is not a reason to vote down the opposing team as its offense can't be resolved, it also means that absent a counterinterp you don't meet or a we meet/interp flaw that even if you have offense of why the interp is bad you have no way to resolve that offense so the interp is automatically preferable (unless you've impact turned/framed it out ofc).

e. Example/outline:
Advantage Heg:
uniqueness:
1. heg is low right now because ___ (this should be related to the type of power on uniqueness 2 and the location on 3 otherwise you will thump your own offense)
2. __ type of Power is key to Heg
3. ___ Flashpoint is Key to ___ type of power and something bad is happening there rn

Hello,

I've been in debate as a whole for about 8 years. Last debated in '20 (just before rona lol) . I've coached various formats of debate (Policy, LD, Parli, Public Forum) along with being a participant in those formats also. Here's my view: Debate is a space to challenge ideologies and come to the best way of making a change. That may look like a plan text that has an econ and heg or, it's an advocacy that talks about discourse in the debate space. I'm here for you as an educator so tell me where and how to vote. Impact Magnitude in the later speeches will help you and me a lot.

Add me on the Email doc:3offncase@gmail.com

Here's my view on certain arguments:

T and Framework and theory in general: I'll listen and adjudicate the round based on the information that you frame my ballot.

Counterplans: Gotta prove the Mutual Exclusivity of said CP. Not really a preference or style choice on this.

D/A's: Uniqueness has got to be relatively recent or the debate is gonna be a tough one to win. If paired with a C/P you must prove how you avoid said D/A or perm is gonna be super cheezy here. Again don't let that stop you from running it in front of me.

K's: I'm good with whatever you desire to run but if its some super high level (D&G or around that lit base) stuff you gotta explain what that means. Also, please be sure to know your author's lit bases here. Perm debates against K's have to prove the accessibility of the Perm along with the net benefits of the perm. Also, Impact Framing the K is gonna make your job along with mine a lot easier.

K Aff's: You do you. Tell me where to frame the ballot and how to view any performances within the round. You do you. Solvency is gonna be the point of clash along with framing.

Update for '21: My internet at my house is absolute garbage so PLEASE: start at 80% speed, I'm always ready for your speech and I'll give a reaction in zoom if I'm not.

why waste more word when few word do trick

2A for 3 years, comfortable with the topic

for ggsa - just look at debnil sur and kelly ye's paradigms as my views on debate are the same as theirs lol

Top-level stuff:

- tech > truth

- err aff on *most* theory (eg abusive counterplans)

- feel free to spread or have a lay round - both sides must agree to a style

- please do line by line and impact calc

- if you try to make small talk with me I’ll dock you 0.5 speaks <3

- if you turn 360 degrees when you say "turn" I will award you 0.2 speaks

Irrelevant stuff:

Heg outweighs and deescalates conflict

Can be bribed (potentially)

Somewhat susceptible to flattery

Likes: making fun of Jesuit boys

Dislikes: Postmodernism (kinda, but mostly just baudrillard). If your name is Asya, I will listen to your K. Granted, Asya forced me to put this in my paradigm.

Email chain: lisaj@sonic.net

About me - I am a parent judge-please do not spread. I have judged league debates for three years, but I am still not super well versed in debate. I can handle a bit faster than conversational speed, and I try to flow the best I can but I sometimes can't get all the arguments. Please don't run theory or K's when I am judging. I understand Disadvantages and counterplans better than those arguments, and I am open to vote on presumption on neg.

Hullo. So I did a lot of debate in the national circuit in high school-- A fair number of late outrounds/bid rounds during my last year of debate. I'm not gonna make this paradigm super long, but I'll say a couple basic things:

I'm a pretty tech over truth judge, which means I'm gonna be flowing everything you say and evaluating the round off my flow-- I'll vote for literally any argument if you can win the flow, even if it's the most asinine and ridiculous argument that just isn't true whatsoever. THAT BEING SAID-- do not run unethical arguments in front of me, and pls don't be jerks to your opponents-- I'll probably nuke your speaker points and might just give you an L, depending on how offensive what you say is. Obviously though, very down for jokes/funny stuff in round-- just don't make them at the expense of your opponent.

DA and CP-- Honestly, CP+DA debates are probably my favorite debates, but only if they're done right-- pls engage with what the opponent is saying. Read their cards, understand the warrants behind their cards, and then respond to the warrants of the card-- not the tag. Like I said above though; I'll vote on any arg, even if the Disad is kinda sus. That also means though that I'm very willing to pull the trigger on a theory arg, so be careful with super cheaty CP's lol.

K-- I'll be perfectly honest, I've always kinda struggled with K's (with some exceptions) because I don't quite understand some of the theories and how they contextualize to debate. Obviously, there are some K's (Cap, Anti-blackness, Cripistemology, to name a few) that I've had to familiarize myself with just cause I hit them super often or sometimes ran them. I'm definitely not super understanding of really postmodern K's, so I'm probably not the best judge for you if you run those, but I 100% will try to understand any K that you read in front of me and I won't evaluate them with any bias. In terms of the alt, though, pls be able to explain the alt/what it does if you're gonna go for it-- I get there are a ton of K's that just kick out of the alt to beat the Aff, and if that's you, no worries, but if the alt is actually a big part of your K, give me an explanation either in cross or during your speeches about what that alt looks like in the real world and what it does to solve your impacts.

In general though, (and I know this is oversaid), read what you like reading in front of me :) I'll evaluate anything to get to a decision, and you don't have to change your strategy a ton in order to accommodate me-- trust me, I've hit some WHACKY stuff (we should literally let in out-of-space aliens, for instance), and I promise you I'm willing to vote for it. Email me if you have any questions! andrewjiang311@gmail.com

I judge based on the arguments presented, not on my own convictions. Apart from listening to first affirmative and negative constructs carefully, I pay close attention to cross examination, rebuttals, and timings before voting.

I am based out of East Bay, California.

I have been judging for past 8 years (in fact earlier than that).

I have judged congress house and senate, parliamentary, spar and a little bit of policy.

I like to see clear arguments and points that are logically self consistent with it being easy to understand precisely what point is being made.

It is good to keep track of what arguments the opponent is making so that they can be specifically addressed (where appropriate).

My background is in science, R&D and general business.

*wear a mask if you are any degree of ill*

neutral or they/them pronouns // aprilmayma@gmail.com

me: 4 yrs TOC circuit policy @ Blue Valley West ('19: surveillance, china, education, immigration) // BA Political Science @ UC Berkeley ('22) // [Current] PhD student, Political Science @ Johns Hopkins. did not debate in college.

conflicts: college prep (2019-present), georgetown day (2023-present), calvert hall (2023-present)

judging stats: 264 sum, aff: 126(46.8%) - neg: 143(53.2%) // panels: 63, sat: 6x, split: 19 // decisions regretted: like 2, maybe 3

non-policy: dabbled but will evaluate like a policy judge.

___

juj preferences

[me] my debate opinions are influenced primarily by KU-affiliated/Kansas debate diaspora (ian beier, allie chase, matt munday, jyleesa hampton, box, hegna, Q, countless others, peers I had the privilege to debate against). i read heg affs as a 2A. I went for the K, impact turn & adv cp, and T as a 2N. Great for policy/T, policy/policy & policy/K, OK for K/policy, mid for K/K & theory. I think i'm good for a fast/technical debate for someone having been out of debate for 5 years. LOL. have mercy on me.

[norms] CX is a speech except when using extra prep. I do not care about respectability/politeness/"professionalism", but ego posturing/nastiness is distinct from assertiveness/confidence/good faith. respect diverse skill levels and debating styles. non-debate (interpersonal) disputes go straight to tab, NOT me. I am a mandated reporter.

[rfd] I will take the easiest way out. I try to write an aff and neg ballot and resolve one of them with as little intervention as possible - read: judge instructions necessary. I only read cards if they're extended into rebuttals w authors & warrants. Ev work, like Mac dre said, is not my job. framing the round through offensive/defense framing, presumption, models, etc. also helpful (if consistent). i flow on paper so slow down where it matters.

[online] do not start if my camera is off. SLOW DOWN, like slower than an in-person tournament, or else your cpu mic/my speaker will eat all your words; I will type "clear" in the round chat box once per speech.

[IRL] I'll clear u once per speech & stop flowing if i don't understand. my facial expressions reveal a lot about what I do/dont understand. track your own prep, but if you're bad at stealing prep (aka, I can tell), you will not like your speaks. cut my rfd short if you need to prep another round immediately.

[gen] debate is not debaters adjusting to the judge. do the type debate you are good at, not what you think I will like. I will meet you where you are, as long as you can explain your args. I like efficiency & will not punish a shortened speech unless its prematurely concluded. i do not read "inserts", a recut card is still a card - read it. I will not evaluate what I cannot flow & I do not flow analytics off the doc. #lets #signpost. clarity > speed, tech > truth. content warnings/disability accommodations/etc should be made verbally before disclosure/round.

** TLDR: I like good debate; as in, the more rounds I judge, the less strong feelings I have about specific arguments. I can be persuaded by most arguments (if you are good at being persuasive). do the work and you will win me over. good luck and have fun! :)

___

argument notes

[ETHICS VIOLATIONS] Teams must call an ethics violation to stop the round. if verified, the violating team drops with lowest speaks. otherwise, the accusing team drops with lowest speaks. [clipping] usually necessitates recording, contingent on debaters consent & tournament rules. clipping includes being unclear to the point of being incomprehensible & not marking.**I am following at least the 1AC and 1NC - read every word. seriously READ ALL THE WORDS!!!! if I notice clipping and no one else calls it out, I will not stop the round, but your speaks will reflect what I hear.

[case] yes. plan texts are my preference, but not a requirement. #1 fan of case debate. case turns too. does anyone go for dedev anymore?

[K-aff] okay, but not my neck of the woods. being germane to the resolution is good, or affs must resolve something or have offense. don't miss the forest for the trees- ex: 2NR responds LBL to the 1AR but fails to contextualize to the rest of the debate. I find myself often w a lot of info but unclear reasons to vote. judge instruction prevents judge intervention (esp. re: kvk debate).

[K-neg] sure. tell me what ur words mean. I'm familiar with most neolib/security/ontology-relevant K's, but never never never assume I know your theory of power. idk your white people (heidegger, bataille, schlag, baudrillard, wtv). K tricks r dope, if you can explain them.

[disads] yes. impact turns/turns case are awesome. idk anything about finance, spare me the jargon or at least explain it in baby words.

[cp] okay. slow down/signpost on deficits & impact out. "sufficiency framing" "perm do ____" are meaningless w/o explanation. abolish perm vomit! adv cp's r awesome!! risk of net ben before CP solvency (unless told otherwise... judge instruction is your friend). remember to actually "[insert aff]" in your cp text.

[T] good (but I'm waiting for it to be great...). default to competing interps/framing through models unless told otherwise. caselists are good. SIGNPOST. slow down, i need to hear every word. + speaks for T debate off the flow. Impress me, & your speaks will reflect it! [re: T vs. K-aff]: I admittedly lean neg for limits being good & personal familiarity of args. i find K-aff v. fw rounds are increasingly uncreative/unadaptive... TVA's are persuasive (aff teams are not good at debating against them). judge instruction is your friend!

[theory] rule of thumb: equal input, equal-ish output. aka, blipped theory warrants blipped answers. do not expect a good rfd if you are speeding through theory blocks like you are reading the Cheesecake Factory menu. I will not vote on theory if you are simply asserting a violation - it is procedural argument, treat it like one.

[speaker points] i am anti speaks inflation. everyone starts at 28. I drop speaks for aforementioned reasons + disorganization + offensive/bad faith behavior. speaks are earned via efficient/effective speech construction, cx usage, succinctness, and strategy. 29.2+ reserved for exemplary speeches. below 28 indicates more pre-tournament prep is needed.

Please add me to the email chain and contact me if you need: michelil@tcd.ie

About me: Debated at Sonoma Academy for 2 years under Lani Frazer and Laila McClay

General: I don't really have any strong preferences, do what you are comfortable and confident with. That being said be clear with the differentiation of your arguments and set a road map. I won't be able to vote on arguments if they aren't clear or don't make sense.

I'm not against spreading but I have to be able to understand what you are saying so be coherent. If you have to spread incoherently to fit all the arguments into your speech you have too many arguments in one speech.

I'm not a great theory judge so stick to substance and evidence, that being said if you properly explain why I should vote on an argument, I will.

Organisation is key, tell me where I should flow and make it clear when you are changing arguments

Engage with the arguments but don't be mean. Debate is already stressful enough so just don't be rude, I will dock speaks for it.

If you make racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, classist, ableist etc. comments, I will tank your speaks and contact your coach.

Please feel free to contact me if you need any adjustments, have problems, or questions

This is just a basic overall paradigm, feel free to ask me more specific questions during a round.

I have experience competing in college for the last few years in Parli and LD and I.E's. I've judged for the last few years of high school policy, LD, PF, Congress, some I.E's, and Parli.

I'd like to consider myself a flow judge meaning that I will examine every argument and evaluate the debate based on what is on the flow.

That being said I usually follow the rules of each syle of events whenever I'm judging unless I'm told otherwise in the debate as for examples why rules are bad.

In terms of speed/spreading, I'm ok with it since I can keep up with it. That being said I care more about accessibility into the round, meaning if you're going too fast for your opponents and they try clearing you or telling you to slow down, it is probably a good idea to try and adjust your speed in those situations.

I'm open to any type of argument. My only preference is that arguments are impacted out in the round. I'm a lazy person by nature and like to do the minimum amount of work, meaning I prefer when teams tell me exactly where and what to vote for on my flow. Don't assume I know which arguments you are going for at the end of the debate. I also tend to protect against new arguments in the final speeches. Additionally, treat me as someone who has no sense of direction and needs to be given clear instructions to any destinations that you need me to go to.

And finally, don't be jerks to your opponents.

So the bottom line is to do whatever you'd like to do, have fun and throw in a joke or 2, even make references to anime, European football, or anything for that matter.

I mainly judge public forum, and occasionally policy or congress.

The following is for Public Forum. Here’s what I expect:

1. Make sure you introduce yourselves before you start.

2. I expect all debaters to know the rules and be respectful to one another.

3. Debaters should keep track of their prep time and speech times but I may monitor them and time myself.

4. Be clear and communicate effectively (No spreading please). If I can't understand you, I will assume you don't know your topic.

5. Anything dropped in the round can not be responded to later in the debate.

6. Don’t read new cards in the Final Focus.

7. Do lots of weighing in the Summary and Final Focus; you should make it clear to me who won the round, I shouldn’t have to do the weighing myself.

Policy

1. Come prepared to round with a flash drive in case the WiFi is down and you can't email your speech docs.

2. Say which argument you are responding to before you read a card, and group arguments.

3. Don't read just evidence and expect me to interpret why they were said; make it clear what each card means in the context of the debate with analysis.

4. Do what you would do in a normal policy round- don't read floating pics and unreasonable theory shells against your opponents just because they or I don't know the rules as much as you.

5. I will be reading your speech docs but it would be wise for you to read at a speed at which I can clearly understand what you're saying.

6. Divide the neg block between your partner reasonably- for example you shouldn't be going both case and off case in each speech of the block.

7. Properly flow the round and be respectful to your partner and opponents by at least acting like your listening to their speeches. This will enable you to debate line-by-line rather than just using pre-made blocks that don't necessarily address the warrant of your opponent's arguments.

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.

I am a parent judge for Dougherty Valley, and this is my first year judging policy debate. Please see below on how I award speaker points and make my decision. I will be taking notes throughout the debate. I will try my best to make reasonable decisions and write constructive RFDs.

SPEAKER POINTS

• Clarity and Speed: Please do not spread. If you read very quickly and slur/mumble your words, I will dock off points. I need to be able to comprehend your arguments and analytics.
• Cross Examination: I allow tag-teaming, but if a debater dominates their partners’ CX, I will dock points. Also, if there are unnecessary rudeness, I will also dock off points. I will reward points based on your confidence and body language during CX.
• Appearance: No gain or loss of points! It will not influence my decision.
• Collaboration: I will be looking at partnerships from time to time. I believe that good collaboration and cooperation is important to partner events. If I hear demeaning comment made between partnerships, I will be severely penalize the team.

RFD

• Impacts over Technicality: Because I’m new to judging, I won’t be able to understand your jargon and small nuances of policy debate. The more clear and logical impact calculus you make throughout your debate, the more I will sway towards your side.
• Real World Impacts: If you’re going with the status quo, it should correlate to current events of today (Example: The status quo of 2020 as of now is the coronavirus). Please try to prep cards that are up to date with current events! :)
• Evidence Usage: If you read just cards, I will have difficulty voting in your favor. Please read analytics as support!
• Constructive Speeches: After the first constructive, please provide overviews so it’s easier to follow each sides’ argumentation. Also, please sign post!
• Rebuttals: Write the ballot for me. Paint a story with effective impact calculus. My decision will be made heavily in the rebuttal speeches. So even if you feel like you messed up in the constructive speeches, you can definitely catch up.

Overall Notes

• Do not read any theory, Ks, or Ts. They’re still difficult for me to follow because, again, I’m still relatively new to judging. If your opponent manages to point this in one of your speeches, this can be detrimental to your speaker points.
• Please be nice to your partners and opponents! The debate environment has become so toxic and I would hate to dock off speaker because of your behavior.
• Look like you’re having fun! Debate should be an activity you genuinely enjoy. :)
• Good luck! Y’all will do great!!

he/him/his

Pronounced phonetically as DEB-nil. Not pronounced "judge", "Mister Sur", or "deb-NEIL".

Policy Coach at Lowell High School, San Francisco

Email: lowelldebatedocs [at] gmail.com for email chains. If you have my personal email, don't put it on the email chain. Sensible subject please.

Lay Debate: I care deeply about adaptation and accessibility. I find "medium" debates (splits of lay and circuit judges) incredibly valuable for students' skills. I don't think I'd ever be in a setting where I'm the sole lay judge. In a split setting, please adapt to the most lay judge in your speed and explanation. I won't penalize you for making debate accessible. Some degree of technical evaluation is inevitable, but please don't spread.

Resolving Debates: Above all, tech substantially outweighs truth. The below are preferences, not rules, and will easily be overturned by good debating. But, since nobody's a blank slate, treat the below as heuristics I use in thinking about debate. Incorporating some can explain my decision and help render one in your favor.

I believe debate is a strategy game, in which debaters must communicate research to persuade judges. I'll almost certainly endorse better judge instruction over higher quality yet under-explained evidence. I flow on my laptop, but I only look at the speech doc when online. I will only read a card in deciding if that card was contested by both teams or I was told explicitly to and the evidence was actually explained in debate.

I take an above-average time to decide debates. My decision time has little relationship with the debate's closeness, and more with the time of day and my sleep deprivation. I usually start 5-10 minutes after the 2AR, so I can stretch my legs and let the debate marinate in my head. Debaters work hard, and I reciprocate that effort in making decisions. My decisions themselves are quite short. Most debates come down to 2-4 arguments, and I will identify those and explain my resolution. You're welcome to post-round. It can't change my decision, but I want to learn and improve as a judge and thinker too.

General Background: I work full-time in tech as a software engineer. In my spare time, I have coached policy debate at Lowell in San Francisco since 2018. I am involved in strategy and research and have coached both policy and K debaters to the TOC. I am, quite literally, a "framer", as a member of the national topic wording committee. Before that, I read policy arguments as a 2N at Bellarmine and did youth debate outreach (e.g., SVUDL) as a student at Stanford.

I've judged many excellent debates. Ideologically, I would say I'm 60/40 policy-leaning. I think my voting records don't reflect this, because K debaters tend to see the bigger picture in clash rounds.

Topic Background: I judge and coach regularly and am fully aware of national circuit trends. I'm less in the weeds as many other coaches. I don't cut as many cards as I did in the pandemic years, and I don't work at debate camp.

If you're reading the web3 UBI affirmative, I implemented one of the first CBDC pilots back in 2018/19. If you know what you're talking about, I'm the best possible judge. But if you don't, I'll be much more easily persuaded by the negative, especially on the case debate.

Voting Splits: As of the end of the water topic, I have judged 304 rounds of VCX at invitationals over 9 years. 75 of these were during college; 74 during immigration and arms sales at West Coast invitationals; and 155 on CJR and water, predominantly at octafinals bid tournaments.

Below are my voting splits across the (synthetic) policy-K divide, where the left team represents the affirmative, as best as I could classify debates. Paradigm text can be inaccurate self-psychoanalysis, so I hope the data helps.

I became an aff hack on water. Far too often, the 2AR was the first speech doing comparative analysis instead of reading blocks. I hope this changes as we return to in-person debate.

Water

Policy v. Policy - 18-13: 58% aff over 31 rounds

Policy v. K - 20-18: 56% aff over 38 rounds

K v. Policy - 13-8: 62% aff over 21 rounds

K v. K - 1-1, 50% aff over 2 rounds

Lifetime

Policy v. Policy - 67-56: 55% for the aff over 123 rounds

Policy v. K - 47-52: 47% for the aff over 99 rounds

K v. Policy - 36-34: 51% for the aff over 70 rounds

K v. K - 4-4: 50% for the aff over 8 rounds

Online Debate:

1. I'd prefer your camera on, but won't make a fuss.

2. Please check verbally and/or visually with all judges and debaters before starting your speech.

3. If my camera's off, I'm away, unless I told you otherwise.

Speaker Points: I flow on my computer, but I do not use the speech doc. I want every word said, even in card text and especially in your 2NC topicality blocks, to be clear. I will shout clear twice in a speech. After that, it's your problem.

Note that this assessment is done per-tournament: for calibration, I think a 29.3-29.4 at a finals bid is roughly equivalent to a 28.8-28.9 at an octos bid.

29.5+ — the top speaker at the tournament.

29.3-29.4 — one of the five or ten best speakers at the tournament.

29.1-29.2 — one of the twenty best speakers at the tournament.

28.9-29 — a 75th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would barely clear on points.

28.7-28.8 — a 50th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would not clear on points.

28.3-28.6 — a 25th percentile speaker at the tournament.

28-28.2 — a 10th percentile speaker at the tournament.

K Affs and Framework:

1. I have coached all sides of this debate.

2. I will vote for the team whose impact comparison most clearly answers the debate's central question. This typically comes down to the affirmative making negative engagement more difficult versus the neg forcing problematic affirmative positions. You are best served developing 1-2 pieces of offense well, playing defense to the other team's, and telling a condensed story in the final rebuttals.

3. Anything can be an impact---do what you do best. My teams typically read a limits/fairness impact and a procedural clash impact. From Dhruv Sudesh: "I don't have a preference for hearing a skills or fairness argument, but I think the latter requires you to win a higher level of defense to aff arguments."

4. Each team should discuss what a year of debate looks like under their models in concrete terms. Arguments like "TVA", "switch-side debate", and "some neg ground exists" are just subsets of this discussion. It is easy to be hyperbolic and discuss the plethora of random affirmatives, but realistic examples are especially persuasive and important. What would your favorite policy demon (MBA, GBN, etc.) do without an agential constraint? How does critiquing specific policy reforms in a debate improve critical education? Why does negative policy ground not center the affirmative's substantive conversation?

5. As the negative, recognize if this is an impact turn debate or one of competing models early on (as in, during the 2AC). When the negative sees where the 2AR will go and adjusts accordingly, I have found that I am very good for the negative. But when they fail to understand the debate's strategic direction, I almost always vote affirmative. This especially happens when impact turning topicality---negatives do not seem to catch on yet.

6. I quite enjoy leveraging normative positions from 1AC cards for substantive disadvantages or impact turns. This requires careful link explanation by the negative but can be incredibly strategic. Critical affirmatives claim to access broad impacts based on shaky normative claims and the broad endorsement of a worldview, rather than a causal method; they should incur the strategic cost.

7. I am a better judge for presumption and case defense than most. It is often unclear to me how affirmatives solve their impacts or access their impact turns on topicality. The negative should leverage this more.

8. I occasionally judge K v K debates. I do not have especially developed opinions on these debates. Debate math often relies on causality, opportunity cost, and similar concepts rooted in policymaking analysis. These do not translate well to K v K debates, and the team that does the clearest link explanation and impact calculus typically wins. While the notion of "opportunity cost" to a method is still mostly nonsensical to me, I can be convinced either way on permutations' legitimacy.

Kritiks:

1. I do not often coach K teams but have familiarity with basically all critical arguments.

2. Framework almost always decides this debate. While I have voted for many middle-ground frameworks, they make very little strategic sense to me. The affirmative saying that I should "weigh the links against the plan" provides no instruction regarding the central question: how does the judge actually compare the educational implications of the 1AC's representations to the consequences of plan implementation? As a result, I am much better for "hard-line" frameworks that exclude the case or the kritik.

3. I will decide the framework debate in favor of one side's interpretation. I will not resolve some arbitrary middle road that neither side presented.

4. If the kritik is causal to the plan, a well-executing affirmative should almost always win my ballot. The permutation double-bind, uniqueness presses on the link and impact, and a solvency deficit to the alternative will be more than sufficient for the affirmative. The neg will have to win significant turns case arguments, an external impact, and amazing case debating if framework is lost. At this point, you are better served going for a proper counterplan and disadvantage.

5. I will not evaluate non-falsifiable statements about events outside the current debate. Such an evaluation of minors grossly misuses the ballot. Strike me if this is a core part of your strategy.

Topicality:

1. This is about the plan text, not other parts of the 1AC. If you think the plan text is contrived to be topical, beat them on the PIC out of the topic and your topic DA of choice.

2. This is a question of which team's vision of the topic maximizes its benefits for debaters. I compare each team's interpretation of the topic through an offense/defense lens.

3. Reasonability is about the affirmative interpretation, not the affirmative case itself. In its most persuasive form, this means that the substance crowdout caused by topicality debates plus the affirmative's offense on topicality outweighs the offense claimed by the negative. This is an especially useful frame in debates that discuss topic education, precision, and similar arguments.

4. Any standards are fine. I used to be a precision stickler. This changed after attending topic meetings and realizing how arbitrarily wording is chosen.

5. From Anirudh Prabhu: "T is a negative burden which means it is the neg’s job to prove that a violation exists. In a T debate where the 2AR extends we meet, every RFD should start by stating clearly what word or phrase in the resolution the aff violated and why. If you don’t give me the language to do that in your 2NR, I will vote aff on we meet." Topicality 101---the violation is a negative burden. If there's some uncertainty, I almost certainly vote aff with a decent "we meet" explanation.

Theory:

1. As with other arguments, I will resolve this fully technically. Unlike many judges, my argumentative preferences will not implicate how I vote. I will gladly vote on a dropped theory argument---if it was clearly extended as a reason to reject the team---with no regrets.

2. I'm generally in favor of limitless conditionality. But because I adjudicate these debates fully technically, I think I vote affirmative on "conditionality bad" more than most.

3. From Rafael Pierry: "most theoretical objections to CPs are better expressed through competition. ... Against these and similar interpretations, I find neg appeals to arbitrariness difficult to overcome." For me, this is especially true with counterplans that compete on certainty or immediacy. While I do not love the delay counterplan, I think it is much more easily beaten through competition arguments than theoretical ones.

4. If a counterplan has specific literature to the affirmative plan, I will be extremely receptive to its theoretical legitimacy and want to grant competition. But of course, the counterplan text must be written strategically, and the negative must still win competition.

Counterplans:

1. I'm better for strategies that depend on process and competition than most. These represent one of my favorite aspects of debate---they combine theory and substance in fun and creative ways---and I've found that researching and strategizing against them generates huge educational benefits for debaters, certainly on par with more conventionally popular political process arguments like politics and case.

2. I have no disposition between "textual and functional competition" and "only functional competition". Textual alone is pretty bad. Positional competition is similarly tough, unless the affirmative grants it. Think about how a model of competition justifies certain permutations---drawing these connections intelligently helps resolve the theoretical portion of permutations.

3. Similarly, I am agnostic regarding limited intrinsicness, either functional or textual. While it helps check against the truly artificial CPs, it justifies bad practices that hurt the negative. It's certainly a debate that you should take on. That said, if everyone is just spreading blocks, I usually end up negative on the ink. Block to 2NR is easier to trace than 1AR to 2AR.

4. People need to think about deficits to counterplans. If you can't impact deficits to said counterplans, write better advantages. The negative almost definitely does not have evidence contextualizing their solvency mechanism to your internal links---explain why that matters!

5. Presumption goes to less change---debate what this means in round. Absent this instruction, if there is an advocacy in the 2NR and I do not judge kick it when deciding, I'm probably not voting on presumption.

6. Decide in-round if I should kick the CP. I'll likely kick it if left to my own devices. The affirmative should be better than the status quo. (To be honest, this has never mattered in a debate I've judged, and it amuses me that judge kick is such a common paradigm section.)

Disadvantages:

1. There is not always a risk. A small enough signal is overwhelmed by noise, and we cannot determine its sign or magnitude.

2. I do not think you need evidence to make an argument. Many bad advantages can be reduced to noise through smart analytics. Doing so will improve your speaker points. Better evidence will require your own.

3. Shorten overviews, and make sure turns case arguments actually implicate the aff's internal links.

4. Will vote on any and all theoretical arguments---intrinsicness, politics theory, etc. Again, arguments are arguments, debate them out.

Ethics:

1. Cheating means you will get the lowest possible points.

2. You need a recording to prove the other team is clipping. If I am judging and think you are clipping, I will record it and check the recording before I stop the debate. Any other method deprives you of proof.

3. If you mark a card, say where you’re marking it, actually mark it, and offer a marked copy before CX in constructives or the other's team prep time in a rebuttal. You do not need to remove cards you did not read in the marked copy, unless you skipped a truly ridiculous amount. This practice is inane and justifies debaters doc-flowing.

4. Emailing isn’t prep. If you take too long, I'll tell you I'm starting your prep again.

5. If there is a different alleged ethics violation, I will ask the team alleging the violation if they want to stop the debate. If so, I will ask the accused team to provide written defense; check the tournament's citation rules; and decide. I will then decide the debate based on that violation and the tournament policy---I will not restart the debate---this makes cite-checking a no-risk option as a negative strategy, which seems really bad.

IMPORTANT: I will only vote on an ethics violation about previously-read evidence (missing an author, missing a year, paragraph missing but no distortion, etc) if the team alleging the violation has evidence that they contacted the other team and told them about the issue. Clearly, you had the time to look up the article. As a community, we should assume good faith in citation, and let the other team know. And people should not be punished for cards they did not cut. But if they still are reading faulty evidence, even after being told, that's certainly academic malpractice.

Note that if the ethics violation is made as an argument during the debate and advanced in multiple speeches as a theoretical argument, you cannot just decide it is a separate ethics violation later in the debate. I will NOT vote on it, I will be very annoyed with you, and you will probably lose and get 27s if you are resorting to these tactics.

6. The closer a re-highlighting comes to being a new argument, the more likely you should be reading it instead of inserting. If you are point out blatant mis-highlighting in a card, typically in a defensive fashion on case, then insertion is fine. I will readily scratch excessive insertion with clear instruction.

Miscellaneous:

1. I'll only evaluate highlighted warrants in evidence.

2. Dropped arguments should be flagged clearly. If you say that clearly answered arguments were dropped, you're hurting your own persuasion.

3. Please send cards in a Word doc. Body is fine if it's just 1-3 cards. I don't care if you send analytics, though it can help online.

4. Unless the final rebuttals are strictly theoretical, the negative should compile a card doc post 2NR and have it sent soon after the 2AR. The affirmative should start compiling their document promptly after the 2AR. Card docs should only include evidence referenced in the final rebuttals (and the 1NC shell, for the negative)---certainly NOT the entire 1AC.

5. As a judge, I can stop the debate at any point. The above should make it clear that I am very much an argumentative nihilist---in hundreds of debates, I have not come close to stopping one. So if I do, you really messed up, and you probably know it.

6. I am open to a Technical Knockout. This means that the debate is unwinnable for one team. If you think this is the case, say "TKO" (probably after your opponents' speech, not yours) and explain why it is unwinnable. If I agree, I will give you 30s and a W. If I disagree and think they can still win the debate, you'll get 25s and an L. Examples include: dropped T argument, dropped conditionality, double turn on the only relevant pieces of offense, dropped CP + DA without any theoretical out.

Be mindful of context: calling this against sophomores in presets looks worse than against an older team in a later prelim. But sometimes, debates are just slaughters, nobody is learning anything, and there will be nothing to judge. I am open to giving you some time back, and to adding a carrot to spice up debate.

7. Not about deciding debates, but a general offer to debate folk reading this. As someone who works in tech, I think it is a really enjoyable career path and quite similar to policy debate in many ways. If you would like to learn more about tech careers, please feel free to email me. As a high school student, it was very hard to learn about careers not done by my parents or their friends (part of why I'm in tech now!). I am happy to pass on what knowledge I have.

Above all, be kind to each other, and have fun!

✧ EXPERIENCE AND ETIQUETTE:

I competed in Policy and LD for four years in high school and I now compete in LD and Parli in college. I've been judging for almost four years now and I used to coach LD as well. I'm fine with speed so go as fast as you like. If there is something particularly important such as an dropped argument, an alternative, counter plan texts or anything else you NEED me to hear I suggest you slow down and emphasize it. Do not sacrifice clarity for speed. Time yourselves and keep document sharing time within reason. If doc sharing exceeds a minute its going to come out of your prep. If there is an email chain Id like to be on it, my email is toriawilson18@gmail.com. I will usually always give my decision and RFD unless instructed not to.

✧ GENERAL:

Do whatever you want, run whatever you want. Ill even vote on a shrek k as long as it has proper links and impact analysis. As a judge Im just here to evaluate the outcome of the round but its your responsibility as debaters to create the outcome you want. That being said, argument clash, line by line answers, and impact analysis are extremely important. Although its difficult not to, I will not connect arguments for you. If there are not proper extensions those arguments wont be analyzed when making my final decision. I've been told I 'judge like a policy debater' whatever that means.

✧ THEORY & TOPICALITY:

Let me start by saying that I don't like theory all that much. Its whatever, if you want to run it go ahead. Ill evaluate it but ill be bored as hell doing it. I definitely don't want to watch 1NC thats 5 off on theory, try to limit yourself. I will be very hesitant to vote on any topicality or theory arguments that lack impacts or proper violations.

✧ KRITIKS:

Criticisms need strong links and a clearly articulated alternative. Im fine with voting for pre-fiat impacts but keep in mind you must be winning your FW debate. I will not vote on a K unless you do the work of proving why i should vote the 1AC down. Not why i should reject the squo, not why the state is bad and the plan is bad because it uses the state, etc. If all you can prove is that the aff exists in the world of the k then your'e outta luck. If you plan on running a particularly unique k then please explain it thoroughly. K affs are fine, I've run a multitude myself. BUT like I said above I find myself voting most k affs down against FW or theory. I will have no problem voting for a k aff that can prove that their advocacy is implementable, how the advocacy solves in either the pre fiat or the post fiat world (or both), and that the mechanism/advocacy in which the aff is implemented through still allows the negative ground in the round. Even if you can win that discourse precedes fairness/rules I need to see how the neg can contest the aff without a hyperspecific 1NC or a generic policymaking good fw shell.

✧ IMPACT CALC:

I tend to vote on impacts with a higher probability and a decent magnitude versus terminal impacts with a 1% chance of happening but again my vote is ultimately determined by your in round performance/analysis. At the end of the day it's up to you what I vote for.

✧ SPEAKS & OTHER:

Speaker points will be awarded based on the organization and efficiency of a debaters speech, quality of arguments made, and cross ex performance. Im fine with cussing however if it becomes excessive I may drop your speaks. Ill also drop speaks for being excessively rude, snarky or hostile towards your opponents. Keep it friendly please.

At the end of the day debate is supposed to be fun. Don't stress yourself out too much. Drink your water and do your best. (づ｡◕‿‿◕｡)づ

Lowell '20 || UC Berkeley '24 (Studying Computer Science, not debating) || Assistant Coach @ College Prep || she/her/hers

Please add both kellyye16@gmail.com and cpsspeechdocs@gmail.com to the chain.

Please format the chain subject like this: Tournament Name - Round # - Aff Team Code [Aff] vs Neg Team Code. Please make sure the chain is set up before the start time.

Background

I debated for four years at Lowell High School. I’ve been a 2A for most of my years (2Ned as a side gig my junior year). Qualified to the TOC & placed 7th at NSDA reading arguments on both sides of the spectrum. I'd say my comfort for judging rounds is Policy vs. Policy > K vs. Policy >> K vs. K.

I learned everything I know about debate from Debnil Sur, and I think about debate in the same way as this guy.He's probably the person I talk to the most when it comes to strategies and execution, it would be fair to say that if you like the way that he judge then I am also a good judge for you.

General Things

I'll vote on anything.I think there is certainly a lot of value in ideological flexibility.

Tech >>>>>>>>> truth: I'd rather adapt to your strategies than have you adapt to what you think my preferences are. The below are simply guidelines & ways to improve speaks via tech-y things I like seeing rather than ideological stances on arguments.

Looooove judge instruction - if I hear a ballot being written in the 2NR/2AR, I will basically just go along with it and verify if what you are saying is correct. The closer my decision is to words you have said in the 2NR/2AR, the higher your speaker points will be.

I think evidence quality is important, but I value good spin more because it incentivizes smart analysis & contextualization - I think that a model of debate where rounds are adjudicated solely based on evidence quality favors truth more than technical skills. As a result, I tend not to look at evidence after the round unless it was specifically flagged during speeches. With that being said, I’ll probably default to reading evidence if there’s a lack of resolution done by teams in a round. You probably don't want this because I feel like its opens up the possibility for more intervention -- so please just help me out and debate warrants + resolve the biggest points of clash in your 2NR/2ARs.

2023-2024 Round Stats If You Care:

Policy vs. Policy (11-18): 37.93% aff over 29 rounds, 22.22% aff in a theory debate over 9 rounds

Policy vs. K (5-2): 71.43% aff over 7 rounds

K vs. Policy (2-3): 40% aff over 5 rounds

K v K (1-0): 100% aff over 1 round

Sat once out of 12 elim rounds

Disads

Not much to say here - think these debates are pretty straight forward. I start evaluation at the impact level to determine link threshold & risk of the disad. My preference for evaluation is if there is explicit ballot writing + evidence indicts + resolution done by yourself in the 2NR/2AR, I would love not to open the card document and make a more interventionist judgement.

CPs

Default to judge kick. If the affirmative team has a problem with me doing this, that words "condo bad" should have been in the 2AC and explanation for no judge kick warranted out in the 1AR/2AR.

The proliferation of 1NCs with like 10 process counterplans has been kind of wild, and probably explains my disproportionately neg leaning ballot record. Process/agent/consult CPs are kind of cheating but in the words of the wise Tristan Bato, "most violations are reasons to justify a permutation or call solvency into question and not as a voter."

I think I tend to err neg on questions of conditionality & perf con but probably aff on counterplans that garner competition off of the word “should”. Obviously this is a debate to be had but also I’m also sympathetic to a well constructed net benefit with solid evidence.

Ks

Framework is sosososo important in these debates. I don’t think I really lean either side on this question but I don’t think the neg needs to win the alt if they win framework + links based on the representational strategy of the 1AC.

Nuanced link walls based on the plan/reps + pulling evidence from their ev >>>> links based on FIATed state action and generic cards about your theory.

To quote Debnil “I'm a hard sell on sweeping ontological or metaphysical claims about society; I'll likely let the aff weigh the plan; I don't think the alt can fiat structures out of existence; and I think the alt needs to generate some solid uniqueness for the criticism.“

Bad for post-modernism, simply because I've never read them + rarely debated them in high school. If you have me in the back you need to do a LOT of explanation.

Planless Affs/Framework

Generally, I don’t think people do enough work comparing/explaining their competing models of debate and its benefits other than “they exclude critical discussions!!!!”

For the aff: Having advocacy in the direction of the topic >>>>>>>> saying anything in the 1AC. I’ll probably be a lot more sympathetic to the neg if I just have no clue what the method/praxis of the 1AC is in relation to the topic. I think the value of planless affs come from having a defensible method that can be contested, which is why I’m not a huge fan of advocacies not tied to the topic. Not sure why people don’t think perms in a method debate are not valid - with that being said, I can obviously be convinced otherwise. I prefer nuanced perm explanations rather than just “it’s not mutually exclusive”.

For the neg: I don’t really buy procedural fairness - I think to win this standard you would have to win pretty substantial defense to the aff’s standards & disprove the possibility of debate having an effect on subjectivity. I don't think I'd never vote on fairness, but I think the way that most debaters extend it just sound whiney and don't give me a reason to prefer it over everything else. Impacts like agonism, legal skills, deliberation, etc are infinitely more convincing to me. Stop with the question of "what does voting aff in round [x] of tournament [y] do for your movement", you're hardly ever going to get the gotcha moment you think you will. Absent a procedural question of framework, I am just evaluating whether or not I think the advocacy is a good idea, not that I think the reading of it in one round has to change the state of debate/the world.

Topicality / Theory

I default to competing interps. Explanations of your models/differences between your interps + caselists >>>>> “they explode limits” in 10 different places. Please please please please do impact comparison, I don’t want to hear “they’re a tiny aff and that’s unfair” a bunch.

Topic education, clash, and in-depth research are more convincing to me than generic fairness impacts.

Theory debates are usually the most difficult for me to resolve, and probably the most interventionist I would have to be in an RFD. Very explicit judge instruction and ballot writing is needed to avoid such intervention.

Ethics Violations/Procedurals

I don't flow off speech docs, but I try to follow along when you're reading evidence to ensure you're not clipping. If I catch you clipping, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't know what you're doing. I will give you a warning, but drop you if it happens again. If the other team catches you and wants to stake the round on an ethics challenge, I doubt you're winning that one.

Questions of norms ≠ ethics violations. If you believe the ballot should resolve a question of norms (disclosure, open sourcing, etc), then I will evaluate it like a regular procedural. If you believe it's an ethics violation (intentionally modifying evidence, clipping, etc), then the round stops immediately. Loser of the ethics challenge receives an auto loss and 20s.

Evidence ethics can be really iffy to resolve. If you want to stake the round on an evidence distortion, you must prove: that the piece of evidence was cut by the other team (or someone affiliated with their school) AND there was clear and malicious intent to alter its meaning. If your problem isn't surrounding distortion but rather mistagging/misinterpreting the evidence, it can be solved via a rehighlighting.

Online Debate

Please don't start until you see my camera on!

If you're not wearing headphones with a microphone attached, it is REALLY hard to hear you when you turn away from your laptop. Please refrain from doing this.

I would also love if you slowed down a tiny tiny tiny tiny bit on your analytics. I will clear you at most 3 times, but I can't help it if I miss what you're saying on my flow ;(.

Lay Debate / GGSA
I actually really appreciate these rounds. I think at the higher levels, debaters tend to forget that debate is a communicative activity at its core, and rely on the judge's technical knowledge to get out of impacting out arguments themselves. If we are in a lay setting and you'd rather not have a fast round when I'm in the back, I'll be all for that. There is such a benefit in adapting to slower audiences and over-explaining implications of all parts of the debate -- it builds better technical understanding of the activity! I'll probably still evaluate the round similar to how I would a regular round, but I think the experience of you forcing yourself to over-explain each part of the flow to me is greatly beneficial.

Public Forum

I've never debated in PF, but I have judged a handful of rounds now. I will evaluate very similarly to how I evaluate policy rounds.

I despise the practice of sending snippets of evidence one at a time. I think it's a humongous waste of time and honestly would prefer (1) the email chain be started BEFORE the round and (2) all of the evidence you read in your speech sent at once. Someone was confused about this portion of my paradigm -- basically, instead of asking for "Can I get [A] card on [B] argument, [C] card on [D] arg, etc...", I think it would be faster if the team that just spoke sent all of their evidence in one doc. This is especially true if the tournament is double-flighted.

If you want me to read evidence after the round, please make sure you flag is very clearly.

I've been in theory/k rounds and I try to evaluate very close to policy. I'm not really a huge fan of k's in public forum -- I don't think there is enough speech time for you to develop such complex arguments out well. I also don't think it makes a lot of sense given the public forum structure (i.e. going for an advocacy when it's not a resolution that is set up to handle advocacies). I think there's so much value in engaging with critical literature, please consider doing another event that is set up better for it if you're really interested in the material. However, I'm still willing to vote on anything, as long as you establish a role of the ballot + frame why I'm voting.

If you delay the round to pre-flow when it's double-flighted, I will be very upset. You should know your case well enough for it to not be necessary, or do it on your own time.

Be nice & have fun.