Hi, I'm Bekah. I'm a first-year on the Columbia APDA team, and I did parli for four years at Choate. I don't flow cross-x. Please weigh, signpost, and don't spread. Extend defense in first summary if second rebuttal frontlines.

Note// I am a very expressive judge. If I do not like or buy an argument, you will see it on my face. Do what you will with this information

TLDR:

Edited mid-Harvard Tournament: after reading a few other judges paradigms I have come to the conclusion that I will add this, I do not like args that say "I can do x because I am y identity group", especially when the x that you want to do is "abusive". This does not mean I won't vote on it, it just means that my threshold for responses is lower than most other arguments.

Dont like: really messy substance debates, blippy 1ar theory that is collapsed to in the 2ar (no 10 second shells!), tricks, performance affs that drop their performance in the 1AR/2AR, new in the 2 >:(, speaking past time, etc.

Likes: clarity, overviews + why you are winning; weighing & IMBEDDED weighing; if running k, on THEME K debates (w/prefiat analysis); EXTENSIONS, etc.

I want to be on the email chain- kristenarnold1221@gmail.com

Run anything except tricks! How to pref me:

Reps/K: 1

T/Theory: 1 (Lower if you are going to spread through all your analytics)

Larp: 1-3

Phil: 2-4 (I love Phil but not when you spread analytics)

Tricks: strike

Hi y'all! A lil background on me: I debated for Pinnacle High School in Phoenix, AZ for 4 years from 2015-2019. I currently attend the University of Pennsylvania. I at-larged to the TOC my Senior year and debated almost entirely locally my freshman and sophomore year so I am comfortable with more traditional style debating as well as progressive. I have run every type of argument that exists in LD debate so I will try my best to adjudicate rounds as tab as possible but I will provide a disclaimer to you that I tend to give more weight to Reps than most judges because I very often ran Reps myself as a debater- that does not mean reading reps is an auto win so just make good args.

Things to keep in mind: I will let you know by saying "Clear" 3 times before I start docking speaks. Also when switching between flows: say 1, 2, .., etc so I can keep my flows separate. I am generally a messy flow-er and I do not think that will change. If I miss something because you didn't listen to me when I cleared you, that is on you. Also if something is really important, SLOW DOWN. You do not want me to miss your ballot story.

General thoughts on Progressive vs Traditional debates: I do not think you should have to go out of your comfort zone to try to match a traditional debater. If they ask you to slow down, please do. If they ask you to explain your arguments, please do. I will not hurt your speaks for your strategy but being not nice warrants at the highest a 27. If you both explain and maintain a slower pace, I will be a points fairy.

How I view rounds:

Layers of debate (obviously negotiable- but my defaults- pls do weighing and change my mind)

Reps

T

Theory

K

Substance

My defaults on theory: Drop the debater & Competing interps

Phil: I did this a lot in high school but if you are running a less well-known philosopher in debate, please take time to slow down and explain how the framework operates. I ran a lot of tricky framework args in high school to auto-win framework so I am fairly well versed in how these debates run. Default epistemic confidence.

Aff K's: I ran these but also debated them so I have no default opinion. I have both read and responded to T against these but if it is the type of debate you are most comfortable with or feel like you have a strong message, please read them. Just make sure to give me a ballot story or I don't know how to evaluate your AC.

K: I love the K but pls if you don't understand your K and cannot give a 2N on it, do not run it. Your speaks will be very disappointed in you. Other than that, give me a ROTB and prove that the alt solves the impacts you read and I will evaluate your K. Pretty well versed on almost every K- legit all reps, Cap, Anthro, Antiblackness (mostly ran Wilderson), Set col, Nietzsche (wouldn't suggest running it unless you are very confident because I have pretty low threshold for responses to it), Fem, Security, Baudrillard (but really just who on heck* is Baudrillard), etc. K's I don't know much about: Psychoanalysis (tried to avoid these debates by uplayering) and Bataille. God, please stop reading Deleuze and Baudrillard with me as a judge. I do not like it, and you do not explain it well.

T: I love T and imbedding reps into it-- Shoutout to the OG Sai Karavadi for being an icon at doing this. That being said, I would run 3 T shells if the aff violated so I love these debates. 2N should collapse and weigh. I don't have any defaults but Nebel T is kinda funny although I ran it all the time so I think it's a legit arg (or time suck). RVIs are great, go for them.

Theory: I mean go for it. I will vote on bad args if they win. Just pls read paradigm issues. RVIs are great, go for them.

1AR theory: I do not like the 5 second condo bad shells, please read something that you can grandstand on in the 2AR without making a ton of new args. That being said, please read 1AR theory because I will vote on it if you win it and win weighing.

DISCLOSURE: PLEASE DISCLOSE. I have been both pro and anti disclosure through my debate career but by the end of my senior year, I can say that I am a very strong advocate of disclosure. If your opponent does not have a wiki, find them on facebook or in person and ask for their case. If they are a traditional debater, they are still required to give it to you. I think disclosure theory is always valid if you have asked and they have declined to give it to you (Esp if they know what the wiki is). However, if you could not find your opponent and their case is very traditional and you have blocks to it, please read those instead.

Tricks: No pls no. If you do read them, I believe in new in the 2 responses and will provide a very low threshold to responses. Auto 26 speaks if you ask, "What's an a priori?" to someone asking if you have any a prioris.

Larp: Go for it! I love love love when debaters make it easy with weighing (prob, mag, duration, tf, etc) and also if you weigh between them (Prob vs mag) I will love you and your speaks will notice.

CP: I default condo and I do not judge kick.

Long U/V: Go for it.

Speaker Points Scale (I tend to evaluate this more on strat than how you speak because I would never dock points for a stutter or speech impediment).

30: You'll win the tournament IMO -OR- you did everything I wanted you to and I have no constructive criticism

29.5-29.9: Clear win, my ballot was written in 3 seconds, thank you for your service.

29-29.4: Great strategy, you won, but it wasn't crystal clear at the end of the round.

28.5-28.9: More muddled but I knew what you were going for.

28-28.4: Round was messy and it was hard to evaluate.

27.5-27.9: You really had no idea what your strat was but pulled something together.

27-27.4: I wanted to rip my hair out writing this ballot.

26: You are not nice.

LD Paradigm:

I am a parent judge with a little more than a year of experience in judging LD.

Traditional debate - I'm very comfortable with the traditional style of debate at all levels. If you're a JV debater and/or it's a lay tournament, I prefer not to hear spreading or progressive arguments.

Progressive debate - I am learning progressive debate. So don't run anything too advanced unless you explain it in simpler terms. I know I don't like tricks. Assuming you're going to spread, please put me on the email chain since I'm not the best at flowing progressives. Also, if you're reading new evidence in subsequent speeches, send that out as well.

Regardless of your arguments, explain your warrants and impacts well. Do a good amount of weighing at the end and make it clear why your arguments are better than your opponent's arguments.

Crystallize your points at the end of your rebuttals and ask strategic questions during CX. Speaking clearly and making good use of CX time will help you get better speaker points.

Good luck!

Update 10/1/2020

When I first started five years ago, most local tournaments were doing paper ballots. I can’t believe speech and debate was the first activity that went entirely online since the TOC before the pandemic! It’s a different new world...

I have already encountered various tech issues in the rounds I’ve judged thus far. Please be prepared with multiple devices - a phone and a computer and perhaps even one more back up. We will work it through together!

Good luck!

Update 11/25/2018

I have judged extensively in both LD and PF in the past year, and have grown to dislike the lack of civility in some rounds. Remember - speech and debate is about having fun! If you are the only person in the room having run, then you just lost a round.

Please note the following:

1. Fair warning - If you use language that doesn't belong to the classroom, you will automatically get a 25 in Speaker Points.

2. If you ask a question in rebuttal, please allow your opponents to answer your questions. I need to hear two sides - it wouldn't be a debate otherwise.

3. LD - No spreading. Debate, in any form, is about making a point. To me, that point has to be made with common sense. Please do not try to convince me you are smarter than everybody in the room by speaking too fast. If a smarter-than-average person cannot get your point, you lost the round. Period. If I cannot understand you, I cannot judge. You will get a 25. If you have two "tech" judges and me in the elimination rounds, and if you CHOOSE to spread "strategically", you will be dropped. Again, it wouldn't be a debate if a judge cannot understand you.

Background

I am an Assistant Principal at Princeton High School. I was Head Coach of the PHS Speech and Debate Team in the past five years.

Preferences

I can follow just about all fast speech by now. However, I have a strong preference for convincing arguments over speed or other stylistic elements of debates; I prefer strength and confidence over aggression without substance. I want to clear warrant to your claim, clear impacts and clear weighing. Simply put, convince me with common sense and logical reasoning.

Don't forget - this is about you having fun!

Good luck!

Contact: jack.briody@columbia.edu

Hi -- I did LD for 4 years at Byram Hills, qualifying for TOC my senior year. During my time as a debater, I thoroughly enjoyed framework debate (particularly high theory) and mainly read D&G and Nietzsche. Aside from some private coaching early on in college, I have been out of the activity for a few years. I strongly recommend that you attempt to cater to that hiatus by fully fleshing out any esoteric, "hip" arguments that I may not have heard. From my time debating, I understand that trends shift rapidly from year to year, and while I will strive to maintain impartiality (so long as the arguments you read are not offensive) you should err on the side of caution and refrain from blazing through an argument that has been popularized in the last year or two.

**Given the wifi issues at Stuyvesant, I recommend you bring a flashdrive to share documents if you plan on whipping through a 15-point underview. I have no problem evaluating the arguments you make, but I cannot vote on arguments I do not flow.

General Notes:

- Some defaults: competing interps over reasonability, T and theory on the same layer, meta-theory over theory, truth testing over comparing worlds, no default side for presumption or permissibility. Ideally I will not have to use any defaults, as arguments will be made and contested by both sides (whether in voters, underviews, etc.). If there seems to be agreement on some issue by both debaters, the stance that has been agreed upon will be the one that I take.

- Don't be a prep-schemer. Nothing agitated me more as a debater than opponents that would compile files after stopping time but before emailing/flashing docs, and neither you nor I want to see how much of that resentment I still harbor. If I catch you stealing prep, expect that your speaks will reflect it heavily.

- Don't be offensive. This should go without saying, but any racist/homophobic/sexist/ableist/otherwise problematic language won't be tolerated by me in-round.

- Please frame/number your arguments and signpost effectively. Your job should be to make it easier to vote for you, not harder.

- Weigh. Please dear god, weigh. If comparisons are not explicitly made between arguments, I will have to judge the merits of the warrants myself.

- If your opponent makes an argument that you think is trivially false, you still have to tell me why that is (i.e. provide a warrant). That is to say, I will not do work for you -- if an argument is made that goes against what is "traditionally expected" in terms of the precedence of some layers over others, saying "this obviously makes no sense, as theory comes before substance" is insufficient.

- There are few things more pleasing than an entertaining round. No need to crack jokes if comedy isn't your thing, but a snappy line or two in CX that puts a smile on my face will help your speaks.

- I will say clear/slower/louder, but if I find that I am repeating myself and you are not making adjustments, I will likely stop interjecting. Please be self-aware.

- Slow down on author names.

- Make clear extensions.

-------------

Since I am creating this paradigm solely for the 2020 Columbia Invitational, I have kept it lean for the sake of time. If you have any specific questions, shoot me an email (above) or ask before the round begins. Be efficient, be smart, and have fun.

General Background:

I did S&D for four years in High School. I did PF, Congress, Extemp, Impromptu, and Duet. I competed on the national circuit in Congress my junior and senior years. I am the three-time Arizona Division II State Champion in PF 2016, 2017, 2018. I have coached PF, LD, Parli, and Congress. This paradigm goes in the order of PF, LD, Speaks, Congress. I went to Fordham University for my bachelor's in philosophy. I am now a 1L at the University of Nebraska College of Law.

This paradigm has been updated 11/20/20 to consolidate my preferences (so that LDers aren't looking at the PF section for some things -- they are consolidated to the general section) and present them more clearly. Speaks section added on 12/1/20. Change-log: 3/18/21 edited truth skep section for clarity and emphasis. 1/22/21 added minor tweaks to the LD and speaks section for emphasis and clarity, nothing fundamentally changed in evaluation. Updated 12/12/20 to reflect points I want to emphasize after Stanford. Updated 2/16/22, PF section for minor clarity in advance of Harvard. Update 2/19/22 PF section to emphasize points about impacts half-way through Harvard.

Updated 1/4/23 to reflect updated biographical data; new note on RFD/Ballot construction with arguments on presumption; clarification and organization in LD section.

Debate in general:

-I hesitate to say flat out "debate is a game" but I believe that at its core debate is an intellectual activity. Whether or not education is part of that is something to be established in round. Debate is like chess.

-Include content warnings where appropriate to make debate a safe and accessible space. Avoid sexism and other harms that have cropped up in the debate scene. I will vote off theory on this if its ran.

-I've previously had in this paradigm to try to say a full citation instead of the author's last name and year. This isn't necessary. What I want to stress is that I have a hard time writing down names quickly. The rate at which you say Kowalczyk should be slower than your normal rate (dare I say, 1/2 of your normal rate) so I can figure out how to bastardize the spelling when writing it on my flow. Some teams still are having a hard time doing this - If you need an example of what I expect let me know. I will handle any speed, spreading with a doc (add me to the chain: jcohen83@fordham.edu), I will give a verbal 'clear' if needed.

-I am not timing in the debate round. You cross-time. It is 100% up to the competitors for flex-prep and/or timed-evidence.

-I will give an oral RFD and disclose at the end of the round.

-OTRMs: If you are running something progressive that will require me to get another flow out, please let me know in a roadmap about the off. Otherwise, OTRMs waste time if its "going down one side then back to the other".

-I will not pay attention to crossfire/crossex. Anything that happens needs to be brought up in a speech.

-If you want me to read a piece of evidence, tell me to call for it in a speech. Anytime I ask for evidence I will want to see the cut card first, asking specifically for the full pdf if needed.

PF:

-Bringing LD into PF? Go for it; I like progressive argumentation. Just make sure it actually is justified/be prepared to argue the merits of the progressive debate should it come up.

-Don't extend through ink, and make extensions actually an extension. Extensions should have something new, or at least re-explain what was before. Don't give me "Extend the Worstall card" or "Extend the entirety of our C1" and leave it at that because that isn't extending. If your gonna do that the bare bones is to explain what the cards say. You should use the card names while extending because it helps me flow - but don't only leave it at the card name.

-If you are extending an argument in summary you need to include warrant, link, and impact level extensions where applicable. I can't buy the impact calc if the warrant & impacts aren't extended - even varsity teams have trouble with this.

-every argument has to pass a believability threshold. Even if it’s not refuted, if I am not convinced or I don’t ‘buy’ the argument, I don’t weigh it (See Truth>Tech). I get a lot of questions on this: Basically - you need a warrant. I'm a reactive/visible judge most of the time, you can use this to your advantage to see what arguments I'm nodding towards.

-Don't violate the nsda handbook.

-I most likely won't flow final focus. I never did as a competitor so I don't like to as a judge. I was a first speaker. What I am doing during FF is looking around my existing flow and circling/drawing lines/checking things off, etc. The reason for this is that nothing new should be in FF. Anything you are talking about in your final focus should already be extended through summary (this includes briefly mentioning the impacts while extending the case). Like if something is dropped by both teams I'm not just gonna pick it up in the FF. Most importantly with this, summary speakers needs to extend the defense. Defense is non-sticky.

-I prefer Voter Summaries over two world or line by line (with the rule change to 3 minute summaries this is less important but still helpful for my flow, just make sure to signpost well).

-I will truth>tech in PF, my truth is skep. I will not blindly flow anything you say. If you say the sky is green don't expect me to count it on my flow without any warranting. Similarly, if you don't tell me why an impact matters, i.e. terminalized, then I'm not going to be able to use it for the construction of my ballot. I start from a position where I don't know if war is good or bad and if you don't tell me and say "decrease risk of war" as an impact I'm not going to know how to construct a ballot around that. I'm not Tabula Rasa, I default to dropping every argument in the round. If you drop the warrant or don't terminalize, I drop the argument.

Want to be safe? Every impact chain causes death.

-If I end up dropping every argument in the round, my ballot and RFD will get flukey. Flukey as in I technically don't have any material anymore to construct a decision. This can go one of two ways and I've alternated between both of these approaches depending on how the round goes.

1) I relax a little bit on the flow and take non-terminalized arguments and "risk of advocacy" to make a ballot as in "this team was closer to making my ballot so they get the win"; or

2) Presumption, in which I generally will defer to SQUO unless told otherwise although this is not a guarantee or promise.

Therefore: teams, if you want me to do something specific within my ballot construction, argue for it. If you think (1) is better for you, then say I should do that and tell me why. If you think (2) is better, then give me a presumption argument telling me which way to presume.

LD:

If you're traditional, read the PF paradigm and:

If you are traditional please do not misrepresent philosophies. This is an area I am not tab. at all. If you say Kantian ethics justifies murder I will not weigh it. More progressive philosophies are less subject to this as I haven't studied critical theories as much as I have the basics of moral frameworks. I am very receptive to hearing post-structuralism and post-colonial arguments like if you want to run Baudrillard, CyberFem, Afropess, or something -- I will be more tech on those.

If you are progressive:

I am competent with progressive debate but you should keep in mind adaptation to a PF judge. I would rather have a progressive debate than a bad traditional one (read: please don't let the round have me concluding that PF is a more intellectual form of debate than LD).

I have no predisposition towards PICs. If you want me to drop because PICs are "abusive", you must argue that in round.

If you are running something super LD-y you should be watching my reactions to make sure I understand and explain more if needed, e.g. trix/tricks.

Some things, e.g. performance/performative args/Ks, you will need to clearly explain the path to my ballot and what the role of the ballot in relation to the advocacy is in the round. This includes a hesitancy to vote on theory - you will need to have it be explained as clearly as possible for me to vote on it - if it gets muddied where I don't understand why the theory is being ran I'm liable to not vote on it...

In general with Progressive LD is something where "I will get it and be able to follow along until I suddenly reach a point where I don't". In most rounds I've seen that go progressive I don't have any issues.

I wish I could give you like those rankings of what arguments I prefer like other LD judges, but in my experience, I don't really care as long as its argued well so that I can understand it.

Speaker Points:

I assign speaks in what I assume is a non-traditional (and harsh) way. I will not evaluate speaks based on your speaking ability or performance. Speaks for me are purely reflective of how I assess your technicality in debating relative to a varsity debater championing a tournament. Because of this, I will almost never assign a low point win; if you are technically better on the flow you most likely won the round (unless its a "good at everything but impact calc" vs "average enough to be able to win on strong calc" thing). I do not adjust speaks based on tier of debate I am judging. I do not refrain from giving lower speaks in fear of 4-2 screws. I view 30-25 as an A-F scale. I start from a position that 27 is an average debater who is making various errors in terms of addressing arguments and who is missing a lot of what I think could have been argued. Here is how I think the breakdown goes:

PF: 25-25.9 wow you really did some egregiously bad in the round or have missed so much of the fundamentals of debate that if I were teaching a class I would flunk you. 26-26.9 you missed a lot, you could have done something that was on the flow the opposite of what you should have done. You most likely are missing a lot of components of winning the ballot based on the flow. This is a 'D', my way of saying you aren't at the level of debate you are competing in. 27-27.9 is most likely the most common place for me to put speaks. You did things right enough to consider this an okay debate but I still desired a lot more to come out of it. 28-28.9 is the best I can give to a debater that neither stuns me nor shows something beyond normal technicality. In LD: I will almost never give above a 29/29.5 to someone who isn't running progressive arguments. In PF: above 29.5 means I think you are destined to reach far into elims and should be a contender to win the tournament. If your opponent is a 26.0 and you perform at a 28.5 because you couldn't express the technicality for a 29< due to a lack of substance to wrestle with that is a tough break (and perhaps the biggest flaw with my speaks standards -- but I would rather assign speaks this way [as that scenario is mitigated by power matching] to be as unbiased as possible -- away from any unconscious affects towards things you can't control regarding how you actually speak and sound to me).

Good way to get good speaks with me? Surprise me by doing something on the flow I wouldn't think of or don't see coming. Here is an example of something from a round that blew my socks off: A team got up for their rebuttal (2nd speaking) and read delinks/dewarrants to their own case, then full sent a bunch of turns on the opposing case. On the flow it made perfect sense and was a level of technicality I hadn't seen performed before. They even responded to theory challenging the abusiveness of the tactic. This was a team that was in deep eliminations at a national circuit tournament. It is the kind of of debate on the flow that affords above a 30.

Congress:

This is congressional debate, not mock congress or congressional speaking. Clash is the most important thing to this; without clash, congress isn't debate.

Know where you are in the round. On the topic of clash, nothing is more boring than a rehashed point on the 7th cycle of debate on a bill. Yes I get you want to speak but please follow the life-cycle of debate on a bill. If we're past the first two cycles, I want refutation, if we're getting late into the cycles I want to hear some crystallization.

By all means please caucus and plan motions together for efficiency, but don't exclude people from this activity because a select number of you have clout from the national circuit or camps.

Questions show if you are truly in tune with the debate or not. Asking questions isn't just more speaking time or to show your activity for the ballot. It's about leadership and continuing the clash. Questions are truly an extension of your speech and they will count toward your placement on the top 6 ranking.

For POs: Be quick and efficient. Your job is to get the most debate done in the fixed time we have. If you are fuddling around because you can't remember the process for an amendment that is a problem. Your charisma and leadership of the chamber are important to your efficiency. Don't expect a top 4 ranking just for POing. You earn that top 6 by virtue of how well you do as a PO.

I am a parent judge with considerable experience judging on the circuit. Please do not spread.

Hi! I did LD for 4 years and graduated in 2017, going to TOC twice and clearing there as a senior. I coached Byram Hills for two years. I've also worked at camps every summer since graduating, as Co-Assistant Director of NSD Philly 2019 and as a lab leader at NSD Flagship 2017-2019, TDC 2018, and VBI LA I 2017.

Email: zoeewing99@gmail.com Please put me on email chains!

General

I have no preference as to what you do with your speech time as long as your arguments have warrants and some framing as to why they're relevant. Don't assume I’m familiar with any dense literature and clearly explain the ballot implications of every argument.

I will aim to be as non-interventionist as possible and will vote on almost* any argument as long as it a) is not abhorrent and b) contains a logical warrant. Examples of arguments I would not vote on include "racism/sexism/homophobia good" (because those are abhorrent) or "the sky is blue so affirm" (because that lacks a logical warrant).

*I've added a couple of exceptions, scroll down to the "other notes" section to see them.

Please slow down on interpretations, advocacy/framing mechanism texts, and author names. I don't check speech docs in round, so don't bank on me reading along with your speech. I only check speech docs if some detail is contested or if it's my fault that I miss something.

I also believe strongly in trigger warnings for graphic narratives or discussions of particularly sensitive issues. I am fine stopping rounds in instances where a debater is unable to debate due to triggering material--please let me know if this happens. I expect the debater who failed to give a trigger warning to concede the round in such instances.

Defaults
These should never be relevant because I will never use a default if an argument is made on either side of the issue—the defaults are only here for the (hopefully rare) case when no debater makes a single argument on some important framing issue.

• Truth testing over comparing worlds
• Competing interps over reasonability—I also have no idea how I’d evaluate a “gut check” reasonability brightline so please don’t ask me to gut check. It would probably not work out in your favor.
• Drop the arg on theory, drop the debater on topicality
• No RVIs (and if the RVI is won, I meets do not trigger RVIs)
• Metatheory before theory; T and theory on the same layer
• I don't have a default side for presumption. In the absence of any offense left in the round and no presumption arguments made, I would vote for the person who had better strategy/technical skill/argument quality (in other words, the person I would give higher speaks to).
• I don't think a default for whether Ks or theory should come first in the abstract is possible since they're both just pre-fiat arguments about what debate should look like. I'd default to whichever position indicts the other probably, but these positions frequently indict each other, so weighing really matters here. Just make those meta-level framing arguments and avoid chicken-and-egg debates.

Important note on defaults: If both debaters carry out the debate under some shared framing assumption that was not argued for, I will use that shared assumption as my default rather than these (i.e. if both debaters collapse to theory shells in their 2NR and 2AR but forget to read a voter, I would act as if a voter had been read rather than intervene, cross all theory off the flow, and vote for some random 1AR substance extension).

Other Notes

• Please be ready to debate when you walk into the room – this means pre-flowing during your opponent's prep if you need to and having the AC speech doc ready to send.
• I end up judging a lot of rounds that result in determining the validity of very short arguments made early in rounds that end up mattering much more later in the round (e.g. spikes). These often rely on making judgments on the weight of each argument on a somewhat arbitrary basis. I do everything I can to evaluate the round in a non-interventionist manner, but the burden is on debaters to prevent situations in which intervention could occur. If you plan to muddle rounds to sufficiently confuse your opponent to win, please ensure that you are not also confusing your judge to the point where I cannot easily trace your path to the ballot.
• To be more specific about the previous point, if a round has two contradictory spikes that indict each other and one debater wins one spike and the other debater wins the other, I will default to argument quality/strength of link weighing. There is no way to be absolutely objective about this, so please interact your arguments!
• NEW: I will not vote on "evaluate the theory debate after the [insert speech]" if the argument is made in the speech mentioned in the spike. For example, I won't vote on "evaluate the theory debate after the 2nr" if it's made in the 2nr. This is because any answer to the spike is technically a theory argument, making it unclear if even evaluating answers to the argument is legitimate. I will also not vote on this argument in any speech absent a clear articulation of what constitutes the theory debate and just generally have a low threshold for responses.
• I require theory violations to be verifiable. I’ve seen rounds where people lied about whether a position is broken or whether something was on the wiki. Just provide screenshots please! If someone makes an I meet to an unverifiable shell with no verification (i.e. a disclosure shell without screenshots or a coin flip shell that's just word of mouth), I default to the I meet being true (innocent until proven guilty).
• I won’t go to someone’s wiki to check a disclosure violation myself—that’d be like looking up a definition on T.
• Flash/email everything you read off your computer to your opponent and judges! People often exclude analytics when they flash stuff and those are sometimes hardest to flow.
• If I have met you at previous tournaments or camps, please don't make conversation with me that could make your opponent feel excluded. I promise that reminding me that I have judged you before or that you know students I coach will not have any bearing over whether I will vote for you--I would have marked you as a conflict if that were true, and it just leaves your opponent feeling rattled and unsure of whether I will be impartial. I have been on the opposite end of this enough times to know how much it sucks when it looks like your opponent and judge are friends.

Speaks

I will try to assign speaks based solely on strategic vision, argument quality, and in-round behavior. I will say clear/slow/loud as many times as needed. I do not disclose speaks during the RFD but will if you come to find me individually or email me after the round.

I dock speaks for:

• Being unnecessarily rude/patronizing/condescending (especially when you’re much better than your opponent)
• Lack of framing issues
• Being racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/etc—this is a given
• Stealing prep time/not being ready/delaying the round in any way
• Having gendered language in your pre-written spikes/shells/etc
• Talking about what I did as a debater or making personal appeals to me, talking about my former teammates, the debaters I coach, or well-known people in the activity--this excludes people with less "rep" or fewer connections in debate and makes everyone uncomfortable

Have fun—this is your activity! Make it a good experience for everyone. I am happy to answer questions about my paradigm before the round or about my decision after the round.

I debated for 4 years in LD at Monte Vista High School. I competed as a traditional LD debater achieved a few octos/quarters finishes at CA state, and a top 14 finish at NSDA Nationals my senior year.

Hello! I'm Sudeshna Fisch. I am a traditional parent judge.

1. DO NOT spread. Make sure you make clear persuasive arguments, quality over quantity.

2. Tech over truth but obviously don’t read like crazy arguments and never make personal attacks on an opponent.

3. Don’t read Ks and CPs or any technical arguments.

I am not trying to tell you how and what to debate about, but just trying to make it so I will understand what is happening. FW wise- read basic stuff, offer good cards and explain your POV! Attack FW, weigh, and give your voting issues at the end. Don’t use any jargon.

4. Email me the case prior to start.

5. In my reasons for decision if I ever say I "agree" with your position I don't mean personally or philosophically but in the round you were able to convince me that your argument is true under the value and value criterion.

I'm Jayanne [ JAY - Ann ], a.k.a. Jay.

I debated for Fort Lauderdale HS (FL) for 4 years in LD and Policy. I am a pre-med Columbia University (NY) alumna, with a BA in African American and African Diaspora studies. I currently coach for Lake Highland Preparatory school.

My email is mayjay144@gmail.com. Start an email chain, Speechdrop, or use file share on NSDA Campus. DO NOT share me to a google doc of your case, but feel free to send me a google doc link with view-only access.

quick prefs:

Policy arguments & T - 1

Critical arguments/Ks - 1 [non-topical AFFs: 2, not my fave if they could have been T with same lit base as the framing]

Theory - 3

Frivolous theory/trolling/tricks - 4/5/strike

** note: I get triggered by graphic depictions of anti-black violence (e.g. very graphic examples of police brutality, slavery etc) and sexual assault. If you plan to read afro-pessimism, please read a trigger warning or simply take out horrific examples of gratuitous violence. Black violence is not a spectacle for an audience, these are real people with real experiences.**

LD/POLICY:

- I don't disclose speaker points. I base speaks off the clarity of speech, the quality of arguments, and the strategic choices in the debate.

- I don't want to flow off speech docs, speak clearly and slow down on tags + author names. PLEASE PAUSE BETWEEN CARDS.Internet connection and computer issues do not grant you extra prep time. If debating virtually please locally record your speeches.

- I get annoyed by asking for "marked docs" when there are marginal things cut out (e.g. one card is marked, cards at the end of the doc aren't read, etc.). I think knowing how to flow, and not exclusively flowing off a doc solves this.

- I'm not a big fan of complex theory/skep/tricks or heavily pre-written stuff that you do not understand. I encourage you to do whatever you are passionate about, just take the round seriously.

- I think there are productive ways to engage in critical race theory. I don’t think that non-black debaters should be reading radical Black advocacies (e.g. afropessimism, Black nihilism etc.). Read your social justice positions, but please leave our radical Black authors/groups out of it. If you're not Black and you read aforementioned positions I will not vote on it. If you say any racial slur written by the author (or just on your own whim) I will drop you and give you zero speaker points.

PF:

Hi! I did not do PF in high school but I have coaching experience. You can read anything in front of me, but the onus is still on you to explain your arguments! Collapse and weigh impacts clearly for good speaks and an easy decision.

PSA: If you say anything blatantly anti-black, misogynistic, anti-queer, ableist, etc. and your opponent calls you out, I will drop you. Debate should be a home space for everyone and you are responsible for the things you say because it is a speaking activity.

I'm a parent judge who has judged JVLD locally, and VLD nationally but still consider myself new to VLD judging. Keep cases and arguments focused on the resolution. Keep your arguments and your speech clear, and debate your opponent respectfully.

Overwhelming an opponent (and judge) with reckless speed and an overabundance of arguments is unnecessary. If speed is making you unintelligible, I'll ask you to stop. Number of arguments introduced doesn't decide the winner; thoughtful engagement/clash/rebuttal and whose arguments uphold their side of the resolution best decides. I do not consider technicalities (e.g. dropped argument does not equal concession).

Please add me to your case sharing email chains. manmeetfox@gmail.com

I debated four years LD at Byram and am a first year out rn. hmu on facebook @lukegusty or my email ruprinator@gmail.com if you got questions.

Theory/T: I love theory debates because I read a lot theory, but that doesn't mean you should read it if that's not your thing.

Non Topical Stuff: they’re fine

K's: K>theory debates are fun to watch.

Phil: Some of the stuff you guys are reading can be dense so if it is plz flesh it out in your final speech.

Larp: it’s ight

Tricks: what's an apriori?

bracket theory: :)

edit: if ur reading high theory or super dense phil explain it to me rlly well

EXPERIENCE: I'm the head coach at Harrison High School in New York; I was an assistant coach at Lexington from 1998-2004 (I debated there from 1994-1998), at Sacred Heart from 2004-2008, and at Scarsdale from 2007-2008. I'm not presently affiliated with these programs or their students. I am also the Curriculum Director for NSD's Philadelphia LD institute.

Please just call me Hertzig.

Please include me on the email chain: harrison.debate.team@gmail.com

QUICK NOTE: I would really like it if we could collectively try to be more accommodating in this activity. If your opponent has specific formatting requests, please try to meet those (but also, please don't use this as an opportunity to read frivolous theory if someone forgets to do a tiny part of what you asked). I know that I hear a lot of complaints about "Harrison formatting." Please know that I request that my own debaters format in a particular way because I have difficulty reading typical circuit formatting when I'm trying to edit cards. You don't need to change the formatting of your own docs if I'm judging you - I'm just including this to make people aware that my formatting preferences are an accessibility issue. Let's try to respect one another's needs and make this a more inclusive space. :)

BIG PICTURE:

CLARITY in both delivery and substance is the most important thing for me. If you're clearer than your opponent, I'll probably vote for you.

SHORTCUT:

Ks (not high theory ones) & performance - 1 (just explain why you're non-T if you are)

Trad debate - 1

T, LARP, or phil - 2-3 (don't love wild extinction scenarios or incomprehensible phil)

High theory Ks - 4

Theory - 4 (see below)

Tricks - strike

*I will never vote on "evaluate the round after ____ [X speech]" (unless it's to vote against the person who read it; you aren't telling me to vote for you, just to evaluate the round at that point!).

GENERAL:

If, after the round, I don't feel that I can articulate what you wanted me to vote for, I'm probably not going to vote for it.

I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary.

I don't view theory the way I view other arguments on the flow. I will usually not vote for theory that's clearly unnecessary/frivolous, even if you're winning the line-by-line on it. I will vote for theory that is actually justified (as in, you can show that you couldn't have engaged without it).

I need to hear the claim, warrant, and impact in an extension. Don't just extend names and claims.

For in-person debate: I would prefer that you stand when speaking if you're physically able to (but if you aren't/have a reason you don't want to, I won't hold it against you).

I'd prefer that you not use profanity in round.

Link to a standard, burden, or clear role of the ballot. Signpost. Give me voting issues or a decision calculus of some kind. WEIGH. And be nice.



To research more stuff about life career coaching then visit Life coach.

I debated and coached regularly for 4 years each. I qualified to the Kentucky ToC and coached debaters competing on the ToC circuit. I instructed camp labs, mostly at NSD. I no longer flow speed or follow trends in the activity. I still think flowing speed and following good arguments is fun. My email is wesley.j.hu@gmail.com.

I used to like reading paradigms. If you're similar to me in that regard, here's a longer description of how I think:

I'll vote on anything so long as a I understand a semblance of a warrant. Debate is a game of arguments; my job is not simply to record claims. “The sky is blue thus affirm” is never sufficient, even if conceded. Weigh, and be responsive to your opponent. Absent explicit comparison between two arguments that justify directly contradicting conclusions, who but me remains to decide which is better warranted?

I have a low threshold for extensions of concessions, especially if you’re aff. But, you should mention any argument you want me to evaluate. I won't reward you for a winning strategy that includes an argument you've forgotten until after the round when you’re cordially explaining your disagreement with my decision.

Do what you do best. If you believe your position is one I’ll be unfamiliar with or have a hard time understanding, slow down a tad & emphasize explanation by way of definition, analogy, and examples.

Defaults: Consider this scenario: the aff declares "the standard is maximizing expected well-being," and reads 6 minutes of util advantages. The neg responds with 7 minutes of disadvantages, turns and defense on case, evidence comparison, and impact calc. The entire debate is contention weighing.

I will evaluate which debater won the most offense under util. There are an infinite number of assumptions implicit in any conversation. We agree about some things by virtue of being there and speaking with each other. I'll evaluate whatever you identify and present to me as the essential points of contestation. Ideally you make it explicitly clear to me how I evaluate the debate, but if I must default on any issues, I'll default to whatever both debaters seem to implicitly agree.

Speaks: I assign speaks based on a combination of strategy (understanding how layers in a round interact, and collapsing to the important layer(s)) and efficiency (how effectively you engage in the line by line arguments within said layer(s)), and only those two things. I do not consider how well you speak (not what this activity is about), or how good your arguments are (it would be biased, and debaters shouldn't have to conform to a judge's stylistic preferences).

I'll give you a small bump if you teach me something new - it will be a bigger bump if you teach me something new about a topic in which I had previously held dogmatic or myopic assumptions.

I will dock speaks if and only if you are overtly mean-spirited or exclusionary, and I will do so significantly.

I am a parent and a lay judge​. That being said, I'm only familiar with traditional LD.

If you're a strict circuit debater, please strike me or plan on going lay. ​As far as traditional debate goes:

Things I like:

● Weighing your impacts clearly

● Full extensions - Tell me why what you're extending matters.

● Structured speeches/Signposting

Things I dislike:

● Being abusive in CX/aggressive in general

● Definitions debate - You can go for it, but don't expect to wow me

● Spreading

● Being late to the round

General:

● The obvious: don't be racist, homophobic, etc.

● I will disclose, but will keep it brief.. There'll be more comments in the e-ballot.

● I try to average a 28 in speaker points. I’d say clear rebuttals are the best way to up your speaks.

If you have questions, please ask me before the round starts.

Debated policy in high school and parli at Columbia University

judging for over 4 years

email: cyrusjks10@gmail.com

pronouns: he/him

2/17/24 EDIT:

Quick Prefs:

1) Ks/KAFFS/Performance

2) LARP

3) Phil

4) T/Theory

5) Tricks (unless tied to social advocacy)

IHSA 2022 Update:

Debate Philosophy: Generally, I default to voting for the team that has done the better debating, in terms of proving the merit of the arguments they make against some comparative (opponent's arguments, status quo, etc.). Offense is always appreciated, and I normally vote for the team that has the best warranted / impacted out offense.

UK Digital TOC Speech & Debate #2 Edit:

What debaters should do more of: give roadmaps, sign post, slow down on taglines, do impact calculus/weigh, do line-by-line analyses, compare evidence, collapse on key args in final rebuttal speeches, and say why you are winning/get the ballot (write my ballot for me)

What debaters should avoid doing: spreading through overviews and theory shells (if need to spread please send out a doc), saying they have proved something to be true, bringing up that something was dropped/conceded without explaining why it matters or is a critically important to evaluating/framing the round, jumping all over the flow (please sign post so I can accurately flow/ keep track of your arguments), and sending out speech docs that can't be downloaded or copied from. ALSO please no postrounding and no sending me emails before a round is scheduled to occur nor after a round has occurred, as judges are not allowed to have contact with debaters except during a round.

1/7/22 EDIT:

Quick Prefs:

1) LARP

2) Ks/KAFFS/Performance

3) Phil

4) T/Theory

5) Tricks

Miscellaneous

Kritiks I like to hear (in order): Afropess/antiblackness, afrofuturism, set col, cap,

One year of LD debating experience. Three years of New England Schools Association Parliamentary Debate experience.

I am currently a student at Columbia University in the City of New York.

Notes:

-Came from a small debating school in NJ—little experience with theory, but I shouldn't have trouble evaluating a round based off it if your warranting is clear

-I will dock speaks for making arguments that are insensitive/problematic in the context of cultural/gender/racial/ethnic identity—a good rule of thumb is to think about whether you are making a generalization, and what/who that generalization might disregard

-Sign-posting helps

I'm a mathematics teacher and head coach for Princeton High School's Speech & Debate Team.

Email: jenniferli@princetonk12.org or jennifergraceli@gmail.com

General:

1. I'm a lay judge.

2. Don't be offensive. If you use language that doesn't belong to the classroom, you will automatically get a 25 in Speaker Points.

3. Signpost & be clear.

4. No spreading - If I cannot understand you, I cannot judge. You will get a 25 speaks. If you have two "tech" judges and me in the elimination rounds, and if you CHOOSE to spread "strategically", you will get a 25 as well. Again, it wouldn't be a debate if a judge cannot understand you.

5. LD - set up email chain before the round and I’ll add .5 to your speaks

Remember - Speech & Debate is about having fun! If you’re the only person in the room having fun, then you just lost a round.

Good luck!

*Updated for Scarsdale 2020*

Hunter '18, NYU '22 - I qualled to the TOC my senior year and went to 2 policy tournaments my freshman year of college.

I taught at VBI for two summers and coached a couple of debaters (with several bids/bid rounds) for two years, but I don't coach now. I have not done any topic research, and I don't care what you do as long as you do it well. I've left my old/more detailed paradigm up below if you have any questions/want to know how to get better speaks/want to know my preferences.

**ONLINE DEBATE:

-PLEASE start a little slower for the first couple of seconds of your speech. Also, in general, please slow down a bit if you're not clear. I'll try to call clear but like... it's online debate lol

-If you're recording speeches please record them separately! Sending a recording that's longer than a few minutes will take 10 years and I will never get to hear your speech

-You can still extemp arguments but including analytics in docs is probably helpful in case of potential internet issues

-I always say I'll try to time speeches but I never actually remember so time yourself+your opponent

*Update 3/9/19: I have now taken the hot Cheetos policy off my paradigm. Rest in peace.*

Tl; dr: feel free to read anything. As long as you have warrants, don’t rely on your lingo, slow down on plan/interp/standard/etc. texts, make your links/abuse stories as specific as possible, weigh, and are not blatantly offensive (sexist/racist/ableist/homophobic/etc.), we should be good. I like unique arguments of all "types." It is ultimately is your round, and you should go for your best/most comfortable arguments. I will take the route of least intervention. If you have any questions, feel free to fb message or email me!!

Email: limichelle0809@gmail.com I’ll only flow along with the speech doc for names of cards, but won’t rely on it so that I don’t miss extempted args. Compiling the speech doc is prep but flashing isn’t (unless it takes you a suspiciously long time to flash).

Things (I say "things" because some of you think these are arguments but they really are not) I will not vote on, and will dock your speaks for:

-Sexual assault doesn't matter/rape good/some other version of that -- I will actually stop listening to part of/the rest of the speech if you say this.

-Any version of "oppression doesn't exist/is good" (this is not the same thing as extinction outweighs)

-Unnecessarily bringing up your opponent's private life as a reason to vote for you -- especially if the implications are homophobic/sexist/etc.

Misc. Defaults (very, very loose, and only apply if no one makes any arguments in round) and other stuff:

-Tech>>>truth. I also think the burden is on the debaters to point out misrepresented/powertagged evidence, so I won't interfere

-Text>spirit

-Ethical confidence

-The more creative you are/entertaining the round is, the better your speaks will be

-I think CX is something that can only help and not hurt you. If you're really funny in CX, your speaks may go up, but it's cool too if you need all of it for clarification questions if you don't understand the other debater's position. I also think it's fine if debaters are somewhat sketchy in CX because you should try to avoid exposing your own case's flaws (note: this does not mean lie or not explain things if you get asked to explain a warrant) but I guess this is an unpopular opinion

-I'm fine with debating evidence ethics issues out in round unless both debaters agree to ending the round

-You can ask questions after the round or send me a fb message/email about my RFD, but if you or your 100 coaches grill me aggressively, I will change your speaks to a 0 and walk out of the room

Specifics:

K’s: I’ve realized that I have a higher threshold and more preferences for K’s than other arguments, so don’t just read one in front of me because I used to read them. I really enjoy judging good K debates. I read everything from identity politics to high theory throughout my career, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to explain your K in simple terms. I also want K debates to be more tech.

-Please know your K lit. If you botch it I will be sad :(, and you will also be sad about your speaks.

-I evaluate the ROB similarly to a normative FW debate. You need to be winning your specific ROB+offense linking back to it for me to grant you the K. This does not mean engage in Oppression Olympics — rather, tell me why combatting colonialism controls the internal link to liberating womxn, why analyzing media is key to the res, etc. Also, please don’t read a performance without justifying why that’s important in the ROB/somewhere in the method because I?? Don’t?? Know?? Why?? You’re?? Reading it?????? And will probably ignore it. If there are 2 competing ROB’s and both debaters pretend that that debate’s a wash, I will be frustrated.

-I think methods debate is low key dying. I’m very willing to pull the trigger on presumption. AFF’s need to do something (this can be as vague as utopian politics or be hyper-specific to the topic — just don’t rant about how the world is horrible for 6 minutes.)

-Please have specific dis-ads to the perms (preferably ones that aren’t just generated off the links), and respond to each perm individually.

-I like brief overviews on the K if you’re running one, especially if your lit is really dense

-I've voted on the Cap K multiple times but think the cap good turn is underrated (but it doesn't work in every scenario depending on what you're running so pls don't impact turn cap just because I said this lol)

-I love nuanced K v K debates and don't think they're done enough!!!

Performance: totally cool with it. I read these and I like unique methods. Again, just warrant why it's important in the ROB. Trigger warnings are good.

Non-T AFF’s: go for them. Please have reasons as to why we should reject the res/interpret it differently. More thoughts on these in the “non-T AFF’s/K’s vs T/theory” section.

Theory: I really couldn’t care less about how frivolous the shell is, just slow down on interps and weigh standards

-I won't default any voters; you should be reading them. If you don't, I probably won't vote on the shell.

-Semantic I meet’s are, of course, cool :) but they don't trigger RVI's

-I tend to think disclosure theory is true, and will like you more if you disclose. That being said, if you win why disclosure is bad, I will vote for you. If you’re running disclosure theory, please have a screenshot in the speech doc/ready if I call for it.

T: I like T, I suppose, especially against non-T AFF's that don't do anything/arbitrarily say fuck the topic.

Non-T AFF’s/K’s vs. Theory/T:

-I don’t have a preference/bias as to which comes first; you should be doing this weighing.

-I really dislike generic fairness bad/theory and T are oppressive dumps. I would much prefer you interact with the standards or articulate why that specific shell is oppressive. That being said, if you do win an impact turn on theory/T, I will vote on it.

-The more specific your interp is to the AFF/K, the happier I will be, and the higher your speaks will be. I would also be much happier if you linked some parts of the shell back as offense under the ROB instead of excluding the entire K.

Tricks:

-I like these! I tend to find these to be pretty funny. (Update: I've noticed a trend of debaters throwing random tricks in there because they think I'll like it but they can't explain it or clearly had no intention of going for it. I really dislike that.)

-I don't care if you're sketchy about them in CX.

-Please number your analytics

-I like creative/trolly a priori’s

-I will not be amused if you read these against a K AFF and go “haha! Oppression doesn’t exist!!!” I will give you a L0 (to clarify, I don’t care if you read these against K AFF’s, just don’t be a dick.)

Phil/FW: I’m familiar with the common LD frameworks, but don’t assume that I know your lingo !

-I’m extremely skeptical of epistemic modesty (and honestly not even sure how it really works ngl)

LARP: please please please weigh!!

-I like unique plans/CP's/PIC's/etc.

-I've realized I'm kind of bad at understanding what CP's do (esp. if it's some other policy), so err on the side of more explanation

-Bonus points if your util fw isn’t just Bostrom/Goodin/Woller/Sunstein/Paterson/Sinnott-Armstrong/Bryant/Coverstone/Sinhababu/Yudkowsky

-I like plan flaw

I am a parent judge. My son is writing my paradigm for me.

I have a background in biology and neurology and have judged at multiple local tournaments and Scarsdale in the past.

Please DO NOT SPREAD and give me a convincing ballot story. The best 2NR's and 2AR's are those that write out the ballot for me. I will take notes throughout the round, and have just started fully flowing. I listen for and value good evidence, winning key portions of the flow, perceptual dominance (but not pure aggressiveness/arrogance), eloquent language (no cussing in round), and kindness (but not a suck up). Please be respectful of both me and your opponent, as well as other judges if I am on a panel.

I will likely NOT disclose a decision. This is not because I don't want to, but rather because I do need quite a bit of time after round to decide a winner. I rather not hold you up, or get postrounded (son here I will physically, emotionally, and mentally hurt you if you postround my mom don't you fucking dare do something like that to a parent), so I will likely just tell you "good job" and let you go catch your next round.

Enjoy your round and your tournament, and remember that no matter what, relaxing and having fun/learning should always come first. There's no point in a win if you stress too much. Enjoy the experience, and let's have a fun, chill round!

Ridge ‘19

NYU ‘23

I debated for Ridge HS in LD for 4 years and CX for a couple tournaments. Now I’m a member of the debate team at NYU.

I am pretty familiar with most tech arguments and I am willing to vote on anything as long as it’s not racist/sexist/oppressive in any way.

My email is alansiyuanliu@gmail.com and you can contact me on Facebook (Alan Liu).

I read a bunch of policy and critical arguments as my go-to strategies throughout my debate career but I’m also willing to vote on other positions like T/Theory. I was never really a tricks or phil debater so make sure you explain those arguments to me very clearly.

I debated LD at Stuyvesant High School for four years and graduated in 2019.

Email: claireliu333@gmail.com

Pronouns: she/her

**Updated for Lex 2022**

I have minimal experience judging LD on Zoom so please be clearer & slower than usual.

General:

1. I'm willing to vote on any argument that I understand excluding offensive ones.

2. If it is clear that your opponent is debating at a significantly lower level than you are, you should be able to win in a way that allows them to still understand what's going on and engage with you.

3. Please don't make me judge a messy tricks debate. I don't like debates that are entirely predicated on your opponent missing an argument.

4. I will not vote on "evaluate the theory debate after the [insert speech] if the argument is made in the speech mentioned in the spike. For example, I won't vote on "evaluate the debate after the 1ac" if it's made in the 1ac. This is because any answer to the spike is technically a theory argument, making it unclear if even evaluating answers to the argument are legitimate. I will also not vote on this argument in any speech absent a clear articulation of what constitutes evaluating the debate solely after one speech and will have a low threshold for responses.

Speaks:

1. Generally, good arg gen, topic knowledge, smart CX, and efficiency are what I reward most. Please don't make your entire rebuttal speech prewritten.

2. I don't disclose speaks.

EDIT: I have not debated since high school (it has been 3 years) and have not been in a debate-related setting for over 2 years now. I would really recommend NOT trying to run theory or super debate-specific arguments. At this point, it might be smarter to treat me as a lay judge, but you can make that judgement call.

Hi I’m Vivian! I debated for 4 years at the Kinkaid School (Houston, TX) on the national and local circuit for LD.

Email: vivianliu726@gmail.com

I’d love to be included on an email chain if possible, just in case of evidence calling. If I’m too terrifying for some reason, don’t worry about it.

Speed: It’s been a few hot years since I’ve heard anyone talk above conversational speed, so although speed is fine, please slow down on tags + authors + analytics + interpretations, and don’t sacrifice clarity for more words. I’ll call “clear” and “slow.” Signposting helps.

Extensions: Be sure to weigh and impact back your arguments, especially when you’re extending. Although a conceded argument is a conceded argument, it doesn’t impact the round unless you extend the argument yourself. Generally, I have a lower threshold for extensions in the 1AR, but no matter which speech, an extension must have the author, claim, a summary of the warrant, and WEIGHING. Tell me how I should adjudicate the round and why your arguments matter, I won’t do that work for you.

Policy Arguments: I’ll be honest, as a debater in high school, I always preferred policy arguments so I’d probably be the most comfortable listening to arguments of that nature (plans, counterplans, disads, etc.) That being said, I’m not going to vote on incomplete arguments nor am I going to enjoy your policy backfiles/Bostrom being thrown around.

Ks: I’m open to hearing pretty much anything that isn’t morally reprehensible. I’m less familiar with super phil-heavy Ks, so if you’re reading any of those, be sure to slow down and explain everything to me as if I were a child. If your opponent can’t figure out what your K is, chances are, neither can I. I do enjoy decent kritiks though, so don’t be deterred!

Theory: I’m also less familiar with theory that isn’t topicality, so proceed with caution. On theory, I default to competing interpretations and no RVIs. If it’s disclosure theory, provide screenshots.

Tricks: I really was not a tricks debater, I really wouldn’t recommend this route in front of me.

Speaks: I average between 27-29, and I’ll allocate speaks based on overall strategy, crystallization, weighing, and overall presentation (!!)

TL;DR – I am old and don't understand debate anymore. Please be cautious on what you run.

I hope y’all have fun and don’t stress too much!

I did LD debate when I went to high school (2010-2014). I used to judge consistently but stopped in 2017. Since then, I've only judged once before this tournament.

I prefer the debaters speak slowly. I also prefer if they make arguments through creative thinking rather than just reading prewritten stuff. Weighing is also important because each side invariably wins some arguments, so I need to know which arguments are the most important.

That being said, you should debate however you prefer and I'll do my best to evaluate the round based solely on the arguments made in the round.

I debated for 3 years in high school on the incredibly lay Colorado circuit, so as a judge I'm accustomed to value clash being held as the top priority in rounds and have less experience with kritiks and theory. That said, I encourage unique approaches to the resolution and am willing to vote on almost anything so long as you clearly warrant your argument in a way that can be explained as an rfd. I suggest that for any strategies you may employ that include theory debate or kritiks, you spend ample time on concise explanation.

Overview:

I look for clarity, coherence, logic, and argumentative rigor. I am unable to flow spreading and believe that speech docs defeat the point. I care about comprehensibility. I don't need slow, flowery language, I just need to be able to flow and digest your arguments. Just because I am traditional does not mean I do not appreciate line-by-line. I think if you are able to debate technically as well as persuasively, and at a conversational pace, that is all the more impressive. Signposting and directly responding to arguments are equally as important as giving big-picture framing. I will vote based on the arguments as they are presented and articulated; however, for arguments that strain credulity I have a very low threshold for responses. I would prefer that debate jargon is kept out of the round. A cheat sheet:

Framework - As long as it is justified and provides a clear mechanism for evaluating the contentions. I do not need a value-value criterion structure or to hear "justice vs. morality" debates, a standard text is fine. Your contentions should have clear, logical warranting and provide a clear impact image. On the negative, if you wish to concede your opponents framework and read your contentions as "disadvantages" that is fine, as long as you are debating the topic, or you may read your "NC" and contest your opponents framework. Weighing is important. Implausible impacts like extinction are not persuasive (unless it is something that could reasonably cause extinction, like climate change).

Plans - No. This is Lincoln-Douglas debate, not policy debate. I want to hear arguments about the validity of the resolution. In that same vein, I will not vote on non-topical affirmatives. I am highly sympathetic to topicality in both of these cases.

Counterplans - No. The negative should prove why the topic is not desirable, not present a tangential counter-advocacy.

Theory - No. Debate the topic, unless your opponent is very clearly not and you have no other option.

Kritiks - No. Perhaps if articulated very well and with a very clear link to the topic, but in practice the amount of explanation required makes this not a strategic choice. Stick to substantive debate.

Experience:

I debated from 2012-2016 on the regional and national level for Timothy Christian School. I competed mostly in LD but did do some PF late senior year for fun. That being said, I have not been very involved in debate for a while and thus am not fresh with high-level argumentation.

LD

Argumentation:

I will definitely be able to able to understand generic framework contention level debate.

WARNING: Again, I haven't been involved much with debate since graduating and norms/common arguments change. Therefore, if you decide to run T's, DA's, any kind of critical argument etc. make sure you are explaining yourself clearly and outlining what level of the debate comes first, second, etc. You may have do a little extra work explaining how I should view the round. That said I'll be a little lenient on extensions if you are spending that other time with some round overview/crystallization. Make sure again to do a good job of breaking down under what framework I am evaluating the round and where specifically I am voting.

Sorry if you disagree with my decision.

Spreading:

Please don't spread. I am cool with quicker than normal speaking, but I have not been involved in debate much really since graduating.

I am not going to vote for an argument I don't understand whether it be because of its complexity of said argument/lack of proper explanation or whether it be because it was read/said too fast for me to understand, so let that be a warning.

I would recommend not trying to do anything too "fancy" to avoid all of us being uncomfortable at the end of the round if I give my RFD. If you are used to a specific type of argument I am not saying you cannot run said argument, just understand where I am coming from and explain everything, specifically what I am voting off of very, very clearly.

PF

Argumentation:

I think PF breaks down more simply with a util/consequence based framework. If you disagree make the argument and if it makes sense and is extended ill buy it no problem. I do not think I'll have any issue with any type of argumentation so that should be good. Just make sure you are being clear where on the flow I am voting for you and please please please weigh so its not just both teams extending arguments across the flow with no clear/given relative impact.

Speed:

Fast PF speed is totally ok for me

Coach at Scarsdale with experience judging LD and PF.

Good with anything you want to run—stay clear when spreading.

He/Him/His

I'm a lay judge, so I prefer lay cases, no spreading, and a clear articulation of all arguments. Don't assume I have background knowledge on what you're running, I'd rather you explain arguments in-round. If I can't understand you I'll say “clear” and expect you to slow down. Please read topical cases.

I will not disclose in-round. Please see results in Tabroom.

Put me on the email chain: stuylincolndouglas@gmail.com. Thank you.

Hi! I debated in LD for 4 years at Bronx Science and graduated in 2018; I occasionally judge for them despite being extremely out of the loop with this activity.

Add me on the email chain: rahamas1@bxscience.edu

2021 Edit: I am behind the times when it comes to this activity and the last thing I want to be is an obstacle between debaters and the ballot. I would like to believe that I'm more competent than parent/lay judges but I am definitely not someone who knows everything about debate + my memory is horrendous to the point where I've probably forgotten about 90% of things debate related. Take everything you read after this with a large grain of salt. Rather than completely deleting chunks of my old paradigm I decided to blatantly strike through them and write edits next to them just for you to get an idea of how much my judging ability has deteriorated, so you can be the judge of how you want to pref me.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

As a judge, your quality of arguments and your strategy matters the most to me. Quality of the argument refers to whether you have a claim, warrant, and impact. Once you've both presented your arguments to me, the rest of the time is spent watching what you decide to do with this jumbled situation to prove to me that you are the better debater and that I should write the ballot in your favor.

That being said, I don't particularly care about what you want to run but that doesn't mean I understand everything. I want you to be able to run whatever you're most comfortable with but it becomes your responsibility to articulate your arguments clearly to me (this is especially important if you're running any heavy lit/high theory) 2021 edit: do not run any of that because my brain is too small to get it now sorry! I know for a fact there are things that I never encountered in my own rounds as a debater, but that doesn't mean I'll turn away from them now. No, if I don't really understand whatever it is you're running, I have no reason to vote on it unless you can give me a really good one. I think this all roughly translates to "I'm trying my best to be a tab reasonable, fair judge here."

Simultaneously, I do not want to hinder you due to my limited knowledge. I would advise you to pref me lower if you like tricks/theory a lot because you are better off with a judge that can actually provide you with constructive feedback on how you can improve your skills within this genre. I want you all to become successful debaters but if I can't give you the feedback you're looking for, that becomes a problem. While I want to be a non-interventionist judge, at the end of the day if I don't understand something I simply will not vote for it. Other than that though, I'm fine with handling some shells in your round and whatnot.

I'm fine with evaluating everything else (phil, larp, Ks, or traditional) but err on over-explaining heavy phil. I'm not going to go on a tangent about the importance of clear overviews, extensions, weighing, etc. because those are things you should already find to be essential in addition to being respectful to each other.

COVID Edit: It's a lot more difficult to maintain integrity when rounds aren't in person anymore.

- Please time both yourself and your opponent in the event that one party gets disconnected the other can pause time then and we'll work from there once reconnected.

- I have terrible hearing and everything being virtual doesn't help with that. Please start off slowly (much slower than you would in person) and gradually speed up from there. Slow down on taglines especially. I actually won't tell you to slow down or clear regardless of how your speech sounds because I've found that it's a pretty big interruption to your speech (I'm sure you all know what two people talking over each other in Zoom sounds like) so be careful - if you're being unclear I simply won't flow. I'm pretty expressive with my face so you could probably guess when that starts happening.

- If you're taking an obnoxiously long time to set your doc up or whatever I'm taking points off

Pace adequately and modulate to get your argument heard. Be concise, persuasive, clear, and understandable. Spreading is fine as long as it is not at the expense of being incomprehensible.

I give due credit to the framework and impact analysis they deserve.

I do value contemporary and relevant arguments. Any studies/anecdotes/quotes that very much align with your standpoint are welcome.

If you are referring philosophies, ensure they carry enough relevance. I would scrutinize any esoteric or complex philosophy to ensure they are represented and referenced appropriately to your arguments.

Emphasis is on a hybrid of Flow & Policy. Preferably the case with the most logical, relevant, and pointed arguments both qualitatively and quantitatively.

Hi everyone! My name is Matthew and I’m a sophomore in Columbia College majoring in economics-mathematics. My debate experience primarily consists of undergraduate parliamentary debate, but I did a brief stint at the VBI debate camp and competed off and on in lay debate. Some general rules:

• High school debate has a lot of bells and whistles but I value core debate skills: round vision, weighing, warranting, logic, etc. If you’re going to run a super dense case, be prepared to actually engage with the warranting / arguments.
• I don’t read evidence in round because I’ll probably lose track of the round if I try. That being said, make your taglines and author names clear, and make your rebuttals clear as well. Don’t assume I have read your evidence when you make arguments.
• I have some familiarity with nat-circuit cases, like Ks and theory, but only so much, so if you run those make sure you clearly warrant and weigh points.
• The fastest speaking speed I can parse through is 2X speed on the Economist’s online magazine, so try not to go faster than that. I’ll still flow but you take substantial risk that I miss points.
• I’m partial to some cases more than others aka ECON. If you mention credit derivatives I will be very happy. I also really value creative cases, because that makes the round more fun and engaging.

Debate is meant to be a fun activity so don’t let competition get in the way of that! That being said, some find it more accessible than others, so always be respectful and trigger warn cases.

Charlotte Slovin (she/her/they/them)

If there’s an email chain I’d like to be on it (sasadebate@gmail.com). Absolutely no to PocketBox or whatever other document uploading site.

I did National Circuit Policy for 4 years at Oakwood. I am now a sophomore at Barnard College.

I’ll disclose after the round so please stick around for a verdict and comments.

Conflicts: Oakwood (CA)

Top-Level:

1. Debate is an educational activity but too many times made inaccessible or an unsafe space for students and participants. Please please PLEASE remember that your opponent is a person before they are a competitor. Don’t make this a space that breeds inconsiderate individuals. It is up to YOU to cultivate an activity where everyone can feel safe, have fun, and learn.

2. I generally have no preference for what you read (minus arguments that are offensive, racist, homophobic, etc.), as long as you understand what you’re reading and it clashes within the round.

3. It’s been a good minute since I’ve heard spreading so please be clear. Incoherence because of speed makes debate a useless activity.

4. More nuanced/contextualized debate on fewer positions >>>> your 12 blippy offcase and shadow extensions in the block.

5. LBL is important– doesn’t matter if you’re a traditional policy team or only run k and k affs. It’s incredibly frustrating if you go for a 4 minute overview and then blow through the line-by-line saying, “refer to the O/V”. The most interesting debate comes from clash and specificity of arguments within the context of the round.

Policy:

(a lot of this is stolen from Hannah Ji’s paradigm because we share most of the same brain)

Topicality: The way look at T debates is 1) does the aff meet the neg interp 2) If it doesn’t why should I vote for the neg’s interpretation. It’s not enough for a neg team to say, “aff doesn’t meet”. Tell me what debate looks like in the world of the Aff’s interp vs the world of the neg’s interp and why neg’s interp is better (actually articulate the impacts of the T violation/contextualize it to the world of the aff).

Theory: SLOW DOWN!! If you are giving rapid-fire theory args and not sending analytics, you better make sure that you are speaking with high clarity. Although a 5 minute 2ar on condo is really not my favorite debate, I’ll vote on it as long as you warrant out why the other team should lose because of the argument.

Policy Affs: Ran mostly soft-left policy affs throughout high school with a heavy emphasis on framework. In general, Aff teams should know their case inside and out. I LOVE case debate and think affirmative teams don’t use their case enough to their strategic advantage. Good case debate can be magical— it’s literally an entire 8 minutes of your speaking time so make it count.

Plan vs CP/DA strats: For affirmative teams, use your 1ac to gain strategic leverage against the negative. You should know your case better than anyone else to the point where the neg should be behind on specific solvency/link issues on the CP and DAs. For negative teams, I am sympathetic to teams that run generic politics/topic DAs. I was the only policy team at my high school and understand if your squad isn’t big enough to generate a bunch of new specific DAs for every plan on the topic. However, please try to form specific link and impact scenarios. Even if you don’t have a specific link card for every aff, you should be able to spin and create a persuasive story in the neg block.

On that note, please do impact calc. Like,,, PLEASE.

Plan vs K: This goes for teams on both sides– specificity and contextualization of your arguments will be most rewarded in the round. Affirmative teams need to substantively engage in the literature of the negative team and use their own case strategically to hedge back against the K. This should come in the form of both carded and analytical arguments.

Ks: Can be seriously rewarding and meaningful. That being said, don’t presume I know all the literature of your K and even if I do, I still put the onus on debaters to explain and contextualize the K. It can be incredibly frustrating to listen to high schoolers give shallow and butchered explanations of their lit, so please know what you are talking about (read your authors, please). Please do not throw around buzzwords and K tricks without explaining and warranting out arguments. I think its highly persuasive when neg teams not only flush out the theory of the K, but give empirical examples to prove the thesis of the K.

By the end of the round, as a judge, I should know a specific link story to the aff, not just to the squo. I am much less persuaded by generic USFG/state links and more persuaded by indicts to the aff itself. This goes the same for if you are going for the alt. While I don’t think an alt functions the same as a CP, I’m only going to vote on it if I have a clear understanding of how it works, and how it resolves the k’s links to the aff.

Don’t gloss over the fw debate. First, it sucks to lose to k tricks on fw but also will help you a lot on the alt debate for both neg and aff teams.

Nontraditional/Planless Affs: For the most part, I think these debates are incredibly educational if debated well. Although I never went for planless affs, I think well developed and strategically written affs are incredibly persuasive. That being said, I do think they generally should have some relation to the topic. I generally don’t think that the ballot should be viewed or used as a survival strategy for the team. The ballot should be about arguments, not people, and I think opening this up has more negative implications than people realize.

For T-USFG/FW: I went for this 9/10 in HS against planless affs. When going for it, please 1) engage with the aff and tailor your T blocks to the aff to garner offense on your model of debate. 2) Don’t go for too many impacts in the 2NR - just for one or two with strong internal links 3) Read a TVA 4) please get to the case debate and debate it substantively. Try to make your case arguments work cohesively with your T args.

For the aff team: warrant and flush out clear arguments rather than generic state bad, rez violent, etc. Your aff was probably written with specific strategic advantages in mind so use them! Also, provide a C/I and actually explain what your world of debate looks like in comparison to the neg.

LD:

Most of the Policy stuff applies but email if you have questions. The more Policy-like you make the round the more likely I am to follow. I have substantially less experience in LD but here are my preferences based on things I have witnessed:

- disclosure is good

- fairness is a voting issue

- contextualize!!!

- I will reward you for good and specific link chains

- tricks/spikes/blips/etc. hurt clash, and clash is good

PF:

I continue to be disappointed by the incredibly low standard of what is considered "evidence" in this activity. This is not to say that research is not being done (sometimes...hopefully), but that within a given round the "paraphrasing" of evidence that is accepted along with difficult access to the actual evidence is shameful. I am trying to come up with a system where debaters are held accountable for having their evidence accessible and while I know that this cannot be asked of every Public Forum debater I BEG of you to PLEASE have your evidence/PDFs on hand before the round starts. If it takes an egregious amount of time to find your ev I will run prep.

- Speed is fine but don’t do it just if you think it’s “cool” or you think you’ll get points with me. Incoherence because of speed makes debate a useless activity. Speak the way that is best for you and your strategy.

- The link chains in this form of debate are absolutely ridiculous in terms of how little evidence tends to back up arguments. If you articulate your scenarios and impact them out it will seriously benefit you.

- Please warrant and weigh your claims if you want me to evaluate them.

- Please signpost. It will help both of us.

- Theory is fine but I will take it very seriously. ONLY run it if there is serious and overt abuse but warrant it well if you want it to be a voting issue.

- When applicable please give an offtime roadmap/order

- Minus 0.1 speaks every time you pronounce nuclear as “nuke-you-lar” I am completely serious.

Conflicts: Hunter,Lynbrook, Scarsdale, Princeton DS,Byram Hills LG

Email: vjv2108@columbia.edu

I debated for 4 years in LD at Lynbrook High School in California and graduated in 2017. I qualified to the TOC twice and broke my senior year. The majority of my debates during high school revolved around theory util and kritiks but that doesn’t mean I won’t be effective at evaluating other types of debates, I’ll just have less background knowledge and experience resolving them so you’ll have to do more explanation. Please weigh and impact arguments that'll make the round so much easier for me to make a decision. I don’t know what type of judge I am but I am open to voting on p much any argument as long as it has a warrant that I can articulate in the rfd and explain the function of the argument in the round. This mean go for all your nontopical k affs, frivoulous theory and tricks but you still have to win them like any other argument. I default drop the debater, competing interps and no rvi but that's only if no other argument is made on either side. I still am figuring out speaker points but I tend reward people for being entertaining and creative with their strategies as well as for good execution and clarity of strategic vision in the round. Most importantly just have fun. I enjoyed debate a lot when I did it and hopefully you do too :)

As a research librarian, I value first-hand research and references to authoritative sources. In issues of policy ,I expect fresh research, so the date on the card matters. I respect arguments that use empirical evidence and display background knowledge of a given topic. Logic always beats rhetoric,so don't employ fallacious arguments and make sure that your conclusion follows from your premises. I am receptive to arguments about differences between progressive and traditional debate. If you intent to submerged a debate in ludicrous gobbledegook, it would be unfair to expect your opponent to effectively refute everything you wish to throw at them. When voting on arguments that seek to overwhelm the opponent with jargon specific to any ism's , I have voted on demands for clarity ,examples, solvency and impact, rather than students expected familiarity with specific doctrine. I enjoy rounds with high levels of clash and will reward retorts and spontaneous displays of erudition with speaker points. Experienced in coaching Parli, judging Parli and PF, but first year of judging LD. It is your burden to make sure I can follow and understand your arguments.

Online: In line with many other judges, here are guidelines for how I will deal with connection issues for online rounds.

- Both debaters should record their speeches on a separate device. If this isn't possible for some reason, contact me before the round and we'll work something out. Please don't delete any recordings until AFTER I make a decision.

- You should send this recording if either your opponent or I request it. If you don't have a recording for some reason and we haven't worked out something pre-round, then I will not (and cannot) evaluate any of those arguments.

- If I catch an argument but your opponent doesn't, AND you didn't make a recording, there's no good way of resolving this but I will operate on good faith and be lenient. You should not try to take advantage of this because you have no idea how good my internet connection is.

- In the case where either debater needs to listen to a recording after a speech, I will grant both debaters a total of 1 extra minute of prep time to listen. If this is never an issue then prep time stays as it is.

- Let's be flexible!!! I won't stand for post-rounding over how I handled connection issues.

---------------------

Lynbrook '18 Columbia '22

Conflicts: Lynbrook

cyw2124@columbia.edu

I competed in LD for 4 years in high school and qualified to the TOC twice. I did parli for a year at Columbia.

Basic rule is that you should do whatever you want in front of me. In high school I changed styles all the time -- I've gone for heavy LARPing, framework, theory, phil, high theory, performance, you name it. That being said, I won't necessarily understand the particular argument you're reading, so just assume I don't have any background knowledge of anything.

General guidelines:

- I will stop the round if either debater makes clear that they are uncomfortable

- I will not look at speech docs unless evidence is called into question, take that as you will

- prep time stops when the doc leaves your computer (send the email, flash drive, whatever)

- tech > truth generally, but I will not vote for something that is categorically false (racism good, 1+1=3, etc)

- I will not vote on an argument thats dropped if there is no warrant or if I didn't flow it

- I am not a fan of tricks because I usually miss them, but I will vote for it if it's on the flow and warranted

- card clipping and other evidence ethics violations (including: not indicating where/when you marked a card) are a loss-20; if you believe your opponent has violated evidence ethics, stop the round for an ethics challenge

Specific guidelines:

LARP

Anything is fine, but you should probably lose if your aff doesn't include at least a short util framework. I am more persuaded by a fleshed out impact scenario than a very tenuous disad. The same comments I make below for the K apply here as well. I do not really understand why a "judge kick" makes sense but feel free to explain.

Phil

I would like to say I have a decent grasp on most analytic phil and would like to hear something interesting (something interesting ≠ your logical consequence aff with tricks). In general, I find that "moral repugnance" claims hold water, although I do not enjoy it when debaters make dozens of "independent voter" arguments with this idea (a few are okay).

Ks

Love good Ks but strongly dislike poorly written ones, although I will vote on it if you win. Know your literature. Give concrete examples of what your impact/alt looks like. If you read a ROB/ROJ, explain why it precludes a normal standard. I don't like it when the debate turns into two people claiming opposing things with no real comparison to back it up. I'm most familiar with Marxist, psychoanalytic, and queer/feminist literature.

Theory

I will vote on any theory interp, although your speaker points will suffer and I have a lower threshold for responses if your shell is really silly. Justify why competing interps implies I vote on a risk of offense. I will gut check against bad theory if you win reasonability and have some defense on the shell. Paragraph theory is fine, but you should explicitly state things like fairness/education, competing interps/reasonability, and drop the arg/drop the debater. If no arg is made, I default reasonability, drop the arg, no RVIs.

Tricks

I will not vote for arguments of the form "Evaluate the round/theory/this argument after X speech." At best it's a weighing argument for why 2NR/2AR arguments should be given less leeway. Tricks in general are fine if they are real arguments and fully warranted as such, but I find most tricks to be fundamentally poor logic. I do not enjoy (but will still vote for) tricks-heavy strategies, especially ones that have been recycled many times over the last decade.

Hi, I debated for Syosset High School in Lincoln-Douglas for 4 years and graduated in 2019.

Note: It's been a while since I've debated/heard a round (~ 2 years). What this means is that while I'll try to be as technical and proficient as possible in my judging, I may not be up to date with the way arguments are run and I'll need a while to get used to your speed if you're fast. Please be clear!

General:

- Speed is fine - please ease into it and be CLEAR!!!!

- I’ll vote for any argument I understand that has a warrant that coherently justifies the claim/impact. Again, it's been a while since I've had these debates, but in high school, I was most comfortable with value criterion/framework, theory/T, and LARP debates, so I'd be better at evaluating these arguments (I was less comfortable with K and high theory debates). You can run anything you'd like (as long as it's explained clearly!!!), but just keep this in mind for your prefs.

Speaker Points: I’ll try to average a 28.5 and vary them based on strategy, efficiency, and argument quality. I won't change them based on what debate style you prefer. I’ll say clear/slow/loud as many times as necessary. Don’t be mean or rude, e.g. don’t spread or read tricks/theory/Ks against novices.

Have fun! Debate is a great activity, and it’s better when everyone is relaxed and has a good time. Feel free to ask me questions before the round if I’m missing anything here.

Hi, I'm Ari. I debated LD for 2.5 years for Oxbridge Academy on the National Circuit as well as at local tournaments. I'm currently a freshman at Columbia University.

How I see debate:

Debating during high school, I found the National Circuit to be very exclusionary and inaccessible by nature, so I see it as every debater's obligation to make Debate more inclusive and accessible to all. This means I hate evaluating arguments that are intended to not be understood by debaters who never attended debate camp or by debaters who don't attend schools with coaching staff that can teach them these arguments. I see arguments such as tricks and frivolous theory as definitely falling under this umbrella, and sometimes non-topical advocacies as well. If you do decide to read these arguments, I'm probably not gonna evaluate them and your speaks will suffer.

Spreading:

I haven't debated in over a year so my ear isn't as accustomed as it should be. Make sure to start off slow and then increase in speed as you go. I'll yell "clear" or "slow" to let you know if I can't understand what you're saying.

Specific Types of Arguments:

Ks:

I read these arguments a lot, so as long as they are adequately explained, they're fine. Please provide a clear ballot story with clear links and alternative. Make sure you make clear framing arguments at the Role of the Ballot level.

Theory:

As long as there's legitimate abuse, these arguments are fine, just slow down on the interpretation and violation. Defaults: competing interpretations, drop the argument, no RVIs (reverse voting issues).

Topicality:

Dope. Again please nothing frivolous, use this as a check against non-topical Affs.

Plans, DAs, CPs:

Dope.

Misc.:

I don't care if you sit or stand.Flex prep is fine.Have your timers ready, I will doc speaker points if it is obvious that you're trying to waste time or get more prep time etc. Pretty much just make arguments, and tell me why I should vote for them through some framing mechanism.If you say anything blatantly racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/exclusionary/etc., I will drop you and tank your speaker points. Just ask before the round if you think any of your arguments could be offensive in this manner. If you have any questions about my paradigm, please ask me before the round, I definitely may have forgotten to include something here.

Have fun!

I debated for four years at Mountain View High School in Mountain View, California, qualifying to TOC twice and graduating in 2017.

I ran almost every type of argument in high school, from straight-up util LARPs and Ks to theory to dense phil strategies and tricks, so I understand and will adjudicate almost anything that you run. Just do what you're best at and have fun!

LD Paradigm

Add me to the email chain - catherine_zhu@icloud.com

I’m not super familiar with the differences between LD and policy, so most of this paradigm is telling you things/preferences I had there and you can take that how you will. The TLDR is that I’m probably like 70% policy and 30% lay/parliamentary judge right now.

Don’t make offensive arguments (I will drop you immediately), be nice to your opponents. (This includes overcompensating when you’re hitting a lay kid or being passive aggressive in round. I will dock your speaks.)

If you use a lot of buzzwords, you’re leaving it up to me to interpret what they mean from a policy debater standpoint - since it’s been a while since i’ve debated, I might not have the most clear idea of what those words mean anyways. When in doubt, do a little explaining - I tended to make a lot of arguments when I debated without using the actual buzzwords so I can probably follow. I probably fall on truth over tech, but I’m not lay enough to ignore massive amounts of dropped arguments and such. I don’t weigh arguments based on their existence/quantity, but based on degree of explanation. It’s up to you to point out powertagged args, but I will give ev much less weight if you prove that it doesn’t say what the tag says it does.

General Thoughts

-The end of the debate should be framed in terms of impacts with comparison between the two sides

- CX can be important for persuasiveness of an arg, but please carry any arguments made over into speeches.

-I will not evaluate arguments just because they exist!! If you're like 'they dropped this' and repeat the tagline you leave it up to me what that evidence means.

-I'm straight up not the best evaluator of T debates and theory, and generally have a pretty high threshold. If its your winning strat, go for it. But in close and messy debates, it probably won't go the way you want it to. Update: I will not vote on theory unless there is abuse or you can prove there is significant potential for abuse. I treat theory and T as a-priori, top level issues that come before the substance of the round.

-If you don’t explain your performance, I will just evaluate it as a cool piece of art

-Messy debates are annoying. I’m much less inclined to untangle all the threads and probably going to take an easier way out presented by a debater.

-Framing is where I go to first. Make sure your frameworks/ROBs interact.

-unless you want your k to be evaluated as a DA and you tell me so, the alt needs to actually do something. reasonably high threshold for k's, esp on link work.

-No clue what tricks are. Yikes?

-In the event of graphic descriptions of traumatic/sensitive issues, please inform everyone in the round. If your opponent expresses discomfort before the round, you had best have another strategy. In the event a round becomes uncomfortable for a debater, the round will stop and we will decide what to do.

-I will usually read evidence when its contested. I think that if you read evidence, the burden is on you to know it and have it say what you want to say. I give a good amount of weight to evidence indicts because I think there's a lot of poor quality evidence that internally contradicts.