Yo! Okay so I'm really not sure what I'm supposed to write here, so I'm just gonna try my best.

Debate:

Just off the bat, if you're going to be telling me that not voting for your case would lead to nuclear war, you really better provide some good links, otherwise it's an immediate drop.

I am an IPDA and NPDA debater. That being said, for Parli, my threshold for the technical stuff is pretty low, I am 100% not a fan of K's, but if you want to run a T on a case be absolutely sure that the T is necessary to provide ground for you to present your case, otherwise I'll completely dismiss it. Other than that, any kind of flow or strategy just be clear and concise in all your arguments!!! SIGNPOST clearly. For IPDA, the point of it in my opinion is persuasion not technical arguments. I accept umbrella refutations as long as you make it clear which arguments you're refuting. This is debate, HAVE FUNNNNNNN. Can't stress that enough, be professional but remember not to take it too seriously, otherwise it's going to be a long debate.

The *NUMBER 1* thing that I have with any kind of debate is courtesy and speed. I understand that sometimes there is a lot of material that you have to get through, so if you need to speak fast feel comfortable to do so, but if your opponents call clear, I expect you to slow down and articulate. Spread and you will lose my ballot immediately. The same thing goes for courtesy. In my personal opinion, debate is an arena to engage in discourse about a wide variety of issues respectfully. Any form of behavior that could be taken as rude, distracting, or insulting to your opponents will immediately lose my ballot.

I evaluate debate rounds on evidence, logic of arguments, and impact analysis. It is a good idea for debaters to assess the quality of arguments in round and privilege quality over quantity. I am willing to adapt to students and what kind of round they prefer to have but I ask that students also adapt kindly to each other. My RFD will always be specific to arguments made in the round. I don't mind assertiveness in debate but I think it is equally important to be compassionate. I have been judging and coaching different forms of debate for 5+ years (including parliamentary debate, LD, IPDA, policy, etc.) and I competed in debate prior to that.

Email: cantler.jacee@gmail.com

Hi! My Name is Lizeth Chimal.

When judging, I want a clear reason on why I should be voting for you. (Make it easy for me) I should not have to fill in the holes. Logic in arguments is very important. The more you break down an argument the more enticed I will be to vote for you. Have fun! No spreading.

For IE: Entertain me :) I want to believe what you're saying and that you care about your topic!

I have 5 years of debate experience. I did two years of policy and two years of public forum, and I now do British parliamentary at the University of Laverne. If you make me laugh or smile, I'll be more willing to give you better speaks, but don't fish for votes, make it natural.

I'm good with speed

If you're debating policy try to have some original thoughts, I think the activity becomes boring when all you do is read other people's stuff.

If you have any questions, my email is: colin.coppock@laverne.edu

Hello, hello, and greetings! I hope you're doing well.

As fellow speech and debate enthusiasts, we share a unique connection within a devoted community. I deeply respect the dedication, time, and personal sacrifices you commit to excel in debate. I hold both the Donus D. Roberts Coaching Excellence Award and I am a first time Diamond Award coach. My journey in Policy Debate started in middle school, and today, I coach various debate teams, including the debate squad, moot court team, mock trial teams, and shark tank teams. This commitment has given me valuable insights into the demands of this activity. My background spans the financial world, law, and a strong passion for history. I have been actively involved in debate since 6th grade and coaching since 2012, maintaining my profound love for this distinctive pursuit. I've judge CX, PF, LD, BQ, Moot Court, Mock Trials, and High School Shark Tank Presentations. It's worth acknowledging that you've chosen to embrace a challenging endeavor that many may shy away from.

Nickname: My nickname is Judge Kinshasa, in a round, you can just call me "Judge".

Also, I am not responsible for your feelings. Win graciously, lose graciously. I have no problem giving feedback to ones coach, and my email is in the RFD for your coach to contact me for more information on my RFD. I'll use sharedocs on the NSDA platform so there's no need for any personal email to be exchanged among the rounds participants.

I don't disclose except in elimination rounds.

Let's dive into my judging philosophy by sharing how I look at the components of a debate:

1. Framework (Affirmative and Negative):

- What it is: A set of rules and principles that define the scope of the debate.

- What it is not: A case-specific argument or evidence.

2. Role of the Ballot (ROB):

- What it is: A statement explaining what the judge should prioritize when making their decision.

- What it is not: An argument against the opponent's case.

3. Plan (Affirmative):

- What it is: The proposed policy or action the affirmative team advocates for.

- What it is not: The entirety of the affirmative case; it's just one element.

4. Counterplan (Negative):

- What it is: An alternative proposal presented by the negative team.

- What it is not: A critique or disadvantage argument.

5. Topicality (Negative):

- What it is: An argument challenging the affirmative's compliance with the debate topic.

- What it is not: A critique of the affirmative's content.

6. Disadvantage (Negative):

- What it is: An argument showing the negative consequences of the affirmative's plan.

- What it is not: A counterplan or a critique.

7. Critique/Kritik (Negative):

- What it is: A critical analysis of the assumptions or ideology underlying the affirmative case.

- What it is not: A traditional argument based on evidence and impacts.

8. Cross-Examination (CX):

- What it is: A period during the debate where one team questions the other to gather information and make arguments.

- What it is not: A time for making speeches or presenting new arguments.

9. Rebuttal (Affirmative and Negative):

- What it is: Speeches aimed at refuting the opponent's arguments and reinforcing your own.

- What it is not: A time for introducing entirely new content.

10. Evidence/Contentions (Affirmative and Negative):

- What it is: Factual information and arguments that support your case.

- What it is not: Personal opinions or unsupported assertions.

11. Flowing (Judge's Role):

- What it is: Taking detailed notes of the debate to track arguments and make an informed decision.

- What it is not: Making decisions based on personal biases or emotions.

12. Time Limits:

- What it is: Strictly enforced limits for speeches and cross-examinations.

- What it is not: Flexible or arbitrary timekeeping.

13. Case Overview (Affirmative and Negative):

- What it is: A brief summary of your main arguments at the beginning of your speech.

- What it is not: A replacement for in-depth analysis.

14. Permutation (Affirmative):

- What it is: An argument that combines the affirmative and negative positions to demonstrate compatibility.

- What it is not: A standalone argument; it relies on other contentions.

15. Voting Issues (Judge's Decision):

- What it is: The key points or arguments the judge should consider when rendering a decision.

- What it is not: An exhaustive review of every argument made in the debate.

16. Cap-K (Capitalism Kritik) in Policy Debate:

- What it is: A critical argument challenging the fundamental assumptions and impacts of capitalism as a social and economic system.
- What it is not: A traditional policy argument focused on specific policy proposals or impacts.

17. Settler Colonialism in Policy Debate:

- What it is: An argument that critiques the historical and ongoing processes of colonization and displacement of Indigenous peoples.
- What it is not: A case-specific argument or a traditional policy debate contention.

As your judge, this represents my approach to evaluating debate rounds and how I assess arguments within them. The following offers further insight into my judging philosophy and perspective.

1. Communication Rule:

- Rule: No communication is allowed between teammates or judges during the debate round to maintain fairness and integrity.
- Consequences: Violating this rule results in immediate removal from the room; failure to comply leads to team disqualification.
- Purpose: Strict enforcement deters interference and ensures adherence to fair competition rules and guidelines.

2. Focus During Rounds: I take judging seriously and maintain a laser focus during rounds. No social media or phone distractions for me – I'm all about the debate!

3. Debate Strategy: Also, please look at the judge, not at your opponent. I appreciate well-structured arguments and expect respectful conduct. I don't favor profanity, yelling, or ad hominem attacks. I’ll give one warning, and if the violation continues, I’ll end the round, and have no issue conversing with your coach about the matter. If your strategy relies on divisive or disrespectful arguments, I'm not the right judge for you.

4. Role of the Aff: Remember, the Aff plan isn't the debater; you are. Address your opponents as "Neg" or "Aff" or “Opponent to maintain professionalism.

5. Counterplans and Solvency: I prefer Neg to run a Counterplan (CP) because attacking solvency without addressing the problem isn't convincing, and doesn’t make the CP a better option, and in essence the Neg says that their either isn’t a problem to solve, or the problem isn’t big enough to solve.

6. Flowing: I'm a meticulous judge who highly appreciates well-structured flow sheets as they enhance my ability to assess the round thoroughly. My preference is to manually record my notes on paper because typing on a laptop keyboard can be distracting for debaters. I actively encourage teams to maintain their own flow sheets, not only to enhance their skills but also because I might refer to them to ensure no critical arguments are overlooked.

7. Engagement: Engage with me, the judge, as you present your arguments. Spreading is fine, though I prefer you do not, but clear and effective communication is key. If you’re spreading to get as many arguments as possible in to trick your opponent to drop arguments, you’re just reading, not making an argument in support of your position. I don’t vote based on dropped arguments.

8. Questions in Cross-X: Meaningful questions are more valuable than questions for the sake of it. Avoid open-ended queries and be respectful.

9. Clash:

- Explanation: Clash is the central battleground in policy debate, where debaters engage in direct argumentative confrontation.
- Importance: Effective clash demonstrates your team's skill in challenging your opponent arguments, influencing my decision beyond exploiting dropped points. Please don't debate based on winning by dropped arguments, win the debate utilizing clash.
- Strategy: Strategically use clash by presenting strong arguments, addressing your opponent's contentions, and highlighting weaknesses. It showcases argumentative prowess and critical thinking.
- Outcome: Clash quality significantly impacts my decision, making it a crucial skill for winning policy debates.

10. Defense versus Offence: In policy debate, "defense" challenges the opponent's case, while "offense" advances the negative's position. Winning the debate requires strong defense to undermine the affirmative and effective offense to persuade me. Debaters balance these elements, adapting to my preferences for a strategic advantage.

11. Debating Off-Topic in Policy Debate:

- Warning: Stick to the resolution's scope for meaningful debates. If your strategy is to not debate the topic outside of a K-Aff, I'd advise that you stay on the resolution and or the topic.
- Issue: A problem arises when debaters go off-topic, using unrelated strategies and tactics.
- Concerns: This hinders the educational value of debates, straying from the critical analysis of policy proposals within the resolution.

12. Non-Voting Issues Clarification:

- To provide clarity, my primary focus in evaluating the debate is on the affirmative plan's capacity to effectively address the specific problem outlined in the resolution, rather than on the persuasive aspects of a speech. Therefore, arguments centered on topics such as "the blacks" "white supremacy," "whiteness", "anti-blackness," "anti-women," "anti-white," "anti-religion," "bias arguments," "oppressed communities," "marginalized communities," claims that "America is racist," or assertions that "everything is racist," including the use of racial slurs within a round, are not voting issues to me, essentially, they do not constitute decisive factors in my decision-making process. Racial slurs use din a round will result in a round being ended and a vote against the team that used it.

- For example, when examining the Fracking resolution for the 2022-2023 season, it was common, and understandable for debaters to discuss the impact of fracking on marginalized communities. While the affirmative plan may directly address the issue of fracking, it does not automatically prove how the plan will directly alleviate the marginalization of these communities. Essentially, fracking is banned, yet the marginalized community remained marginalized, and that is a great opportunity to show how the plan could improve the marginalized communities mentioned in the round. Otherwise, such arguments do not significantly influence my judgment in the debate.

It's essential to note that my perspective is not rooted in censorship yet know that what I listed are not voting issues. I vote on what's and desire to maintain relevance to the resolution's specific context. Behind the numbers are real people, treat them as such, not a prop used to win a round. If you require further clarification on this matter, please feel free to ask me before the round.

I don't like theory arguments as it's a theory, not a fact, and facts are what I vote on, not theory.

Essentially, it comes down to which solves the problem that the resolution addresses; the Aff Plan or the Status Quo.

13. Perm Do Both: "Perm Do Both" must be supported by a clear, persuasive explanation of how the affirmative plan and negative counterplan can work together effectively to solve the issue without conflicts. Mere mention of "Perm do both" without a well-reasoned narrative won't be enough. It should demonstrate how these actions complement each other and why this integrated approach is the best way to address the problem in the debate, presenting a compelling case for choosing both proposals over separate considerations.

14. Evidence and Warrants: In debate, assessing an author's credibility extends beyond qualifications. It's about ensuring their expertise aligns with the specific argument being made, as even experts can make unsupported claims. Debaters must evaluate qualifications, relevance, and argument consistency to ensure evidence is credible and directly supports the warrant. Showing how the author supports your teams position increases your chances of winning a round.

15. Falsifying information: Request: Debaters should refrain from fabricating information during a round, particularly when it involves inventing financial figures, historical facts, law, or other details. I'll know it.

16. Prep Time: I don't allow prep time for cross-X. If an tournament has stated to judges that there is an allotment of time for tech issues, that will be kept to the second.

17. Selling Your Position: Persuasion is key. Convince me; speed isn't everything.

18. Speakers' Points: I base these on coherent arguments, strong rebuttals, good clash, and respectful conduct.

20. A Respectful Environment: I maintain a respectful environment and expect respect from all participants. No profanity, ad hominem attacks, or disrespect is tolerated. I'll give one warning, if it continues, it's an automatic disqualification, and I'll convey the reason in my RFD, and with the disqualified team's coach.

21. No Direct Messaging During Rounds: If I suspect messaging, I'll ask to see your computer screen. Messaging during rounds is grounds for an immediate disqualification.

22. No Bias: I judge impartially.

23. Reason for Decision (RFD): I provide constructive feedback to help debaters improve. I’ll share what debaters did well, and what each debater should work on to improve as debaters. I've seen instances where my feedback was applied in subsequent rounds. Remember, I'm available for questions and discussions during the tournament, and it's a good idea to take notes during feedback sessions to make the most of them.

Thank you for the privilege of judging your round. I want to remind you that as debaters, you are an integral part of a truly exceptional and dedicated community. As we embark on this tournament together, let's keep in mind the essence of our shared purpose: to engage in meaningful and thought-provoking debates. So, let's make this tournament memorable and engaging for all involved because, at the end of the day, we are here to debate and celebrate the art of discourse. And best of luck to you in the future on your journey in speech and debate.

Thank you very kindly,

Mr. Dibinga - Chota

I have NPDA and IPDA experience so I am familiar with jargon, speed, and all types of arguments. Please sign post and be organized. Only run top of case arguments if necessary. I vote on impact calc and critiques if they are well explained.

email (yes, include both): lpgarcia19@damien-hs.edu; damiendebate47@gmail.com

LD: policy pls (below should still be applicable)

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

TL;DR Go for what you're most prepared for and can execute the best because that's what really makes debate fun and productive. I'm not very familiar with the topic.

My Beliefs:

Debate is good

Tech > Truth

Clarity above all else

Clipping is bad

My leanings:

Util good

I, as the judge, am a policymaker

Fiat is a good thing

A couple Great cards + explanation always beats 10 pieces of mediocre ev

There's not an excuse to avoid line by line

Topicality

I don't think fairness isn't an intrinsic impact, same as education. It can be an internal link to other things but simply ending your impact calculus with "They KILLED FAIRNESS" won't do it for me. Just treat your extensions and impact work like you would any DA. (I WON'T EVALUATE T AS A DA. TOPICALITY IS A YES OR NO QUESTION. RISK ANALYSIS FOR T IS ABSURD). I also lean heavily towards competing interpretations; the quality of your ev does matter.

Kritiks

If your entire strategy solely centers around the K, I'm not a great judge for you. I can certainly understand your generic Cap and Security K but any high theory requires a whole lot of explanation for me. Just because I might understand what you're saying doesn't mean you can weasel your way around with generic links if it's even somewhat contested. If you're aff I'd down to see an impact turn (obvious exceptions, of course, are: racism good, sexism good, homophobia good, etc.) I really do not want to hear Death Good, please do not do that in front of me.

K-Affs (Includes Framework)

I have written my disdain for K-Affs before. I am not going to just dismiss it; even as I maintain a reluctance to vote on them, I am not one you should just breeze through your blocks and force me to do work for you. I will be the first to admit that I need a lot of explanation as noted above in "Kritiks". Given all this said, framework is an uphill battle for the aff. I am not very sympathetic to generic "fairness bad/your education bad" impact turns; I think policy education is generally a good thing.

Theory

The only theory I feel even remotely comfortable voting aff (TO REJECT THE ARGUMENT) on are utopian fiat bad, object fiat bad, riders DA bad, delay cps bad, and floating piks bad. Condo is generally a good thing and I personally think you're better off not reading that 30 second shell if the neg is running just a single conditional advocacy but I understand time skew. Also, in principle, I judge-kick. I think that as I default to Condo being a good thing, and the status quo always being a logical option, it would be illogical for me to choose a plan of action when doing nothing would be better.

Also, I doubt I'll ever vote for Word Piks. This certainly doesn't excuse excessively disrespectful behavior.

Disads

I like politics a lot and I like engagement and clash at the link level even more so. Turns case analysis (vice versa for the aff) is always a good thing and should be a must have. Straight turns are fun.

Impacts

I love impact turns and my personal favorites are: Heg Good, Warming Good, Cap Good, Dedev, and CWG. It will take a lot for me to evaluate 0 risk of an impact. It can happen but your cards need to be far better.

I judge off who makes the better argument. This does not mean I think all arguments are created equal, they aren't. Say for example you were to argue the sky is purple, you and I both know the sky is not purple, thus I am not inclined to vote on that argument. However, if you can make a compelling case that the sky is purple, and your opponent does not sufficiently refute, or refute at all the point you made, then I will vote on it. Don't make hyperbolic impact calculus, like how not giving some country foreign aid or cutting minimum wage leads to nuclear war. In fact, outside of a direct resolutional link to the nuclear war, it's best not to even mention nuclear war as an impact. It's hyper unrealistic, it's never happened before, and I highly doubt you will be the one to convince me that it's gonna happen as one of your impacts. Same goes with human extinction, just don't. You don't gotta promise me the sky or tell me we'll be at world's end for you to have a compelling case. Be realistic, make good arguments, and just be reasonable. Nuanced debaters with nuanced arguments tend to get my ballot more often than not.

Debate Experience:

4 years at Greenhill

1 year at USC

Please put me on the email chain. My email is gracekuang3@gmail.com.

I went for' policy' arguments in high school. In terms of categories of negative arguments (i.e. k,cp,da,etc.), I have no overlying ideologies or overt preference to what categories of negative arguments you must make.

However, there are debates that i've noticed that i personally enjoy judging and are interesting to me, and debates that i've noticed i do not enjoy judging and are not interesting to me. so if you are at all interested in my enjoyment:

examples of debates i have enjoyed judging: counterplans and disads, occasionally security, psychoanalysis one time

examples of debates i did not enjoy judging: baudrillard, death good, identity arguments, no fiat/fiat bad

if you plan to do anything from the latter category, please spend more time explaining your arguments because im not as smart as you!

The rest of this paradigm is mostly biases I've noticed about myself when I judge.

Condo - its good. Unless condo is dropped, not really worth going for if I'm judging you. Generally I err neg on theory - states cps, process cps, international fiat and pics/word pics are all okay with me. Private actor fiat, floating piks and multi-actor fiat are the exceptions where I err aff on theory.

judge kick - i won't kick the counterplan for you if you don't tell me to in the 2nr. if you tell me to kick it and/or read it conditionally i will. if you are aff and want me to not kick the counterplan, you should start that debate in the 1ar at the very least. ***if the aff reads and does not extend condo after the block, or at least a reason why conditionality being good does not necessitate that judge kick is also good, i will not be persuaded by judge kick bad in the 2ar.

Offense/defense - I think you can mitigate the risk of something to the point where it is inconsequential in my decision.

Framework/Topicality - I generally think of fairness as an internal link not a terminal impact but could be persuaded otherwise.

tag teaming in cx - its annoying to me but you do you

k affs – you shouldn't pref me. i don't like and don't often vote for these types of affirmatives.

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

Background: Spent several years competing in Parli in high school and then went on to compete in both Policy and British Parli in the collegiate circuit. Have since been coaching and judging in SoCal.

Policy:

I am not terribly against K's in the format and think they play a crucial role in the circuit, however should you choose to run a K and have no true understanding of it nature or function I believe that's a strategic error.

Framework arguments are a solid answer in a lot of rounds but should be more organic than scripted if you value speaker points in the round.

It pertains less to Policy but it is worth mentioning that I don't believe in the separation of the trichotomy in debate, all policy has value and fact in it, so don't excluded certain conversations from being had.

I don't count time spent emailing the chain as prep unless i suspect that to be abused.

I believe it is bad practice to cut cards verbally as you speak, if it happens it happens but at the point where you have to verbally cut multiple cards in a speech you should have taken more prep time.

If you are going to tag team in your speech make sure the speaker echos their partners words, I only flow what is said by the speaker.

LD:

Lincoln Douglass in my view is one of the most interactive forms of debate purely based on the way the format is set up. Moreover, that means that the round needs to have some level of cooperative disagreement between the two debaters. If you cannot be at some level cordial to your opponent I think that this event gets much much worse.

As stated above I don't believe in the separation of the trichotomy in debate, though this may be a value debate, do not excluded questions of fact or application in policy as that narrows the scope of the argument and hurts the supposed "value" argument.

A debate more focused on reoccurring central questions of value is likely to shine when I look at my flow and decide speaker points.

CAHS '19

UCLA '23

Hi I'm Chris! Nice to meet you

online debate - If the internet lags momentarily and I'm unable to catch an argument, nothing I can really do about it. I'll try and let you know where in the speech the wifi cut out (but hopefully this isn't a problem in the first place). Also, please slow down. If you are wondering whether you're going too fast, you probably are, so take it down a notch. Thanks!

Top Level:

- email chain: christopherctai@gmail.com

- Tech > Truth

- run and go for the arguments that you are good at

- arguments must have a claim and warrant (and evidence if applicable)

- spreading is a-ok BUT do NOT sacrifice clarity please

- offense-defense

- will default to util/consequentialism as a framework for making decisions if no one tells me otherwise

- blocks are fine but contextualized arguments are better

- good things: debate, condo, line by line

- bad things: death, sexism, racism

There are probabilities in the game of debate, so no argument really has a 0% or 100% risk. Rather, some arguments, through warranted analysis and evidence can build a more robust case for a more probable scenario. If an argument is conceded it's not necessarily game over, but the risk that that warrants of the said argument are true increases significantly.

Debate is a game. Treat your opponents with respect and have fun! Please don't make racist, sexist, etc. arguments or personal attacks, they really skirt the educational value of debate.

How to increase speaker points: puns or give me food or something

Policy Paradigm

Topicality - Go for it, especially if the Aff justifies a limitless topic. This necessitates that you have some form of caselist. Limits usually outweighs. I don’t have much technical knowledge of the current policy topic, so please explain acronyms and other terms of art on this topic that the average human doesn't know

Theory - have some kind of interpretation, slow down, do line by line, thanks

Disadvantages - Politics is great. Impact calculus/comparison is a must. Using words like "magnitude" and "time frame" are fine but should be contextualized to the impact that the Aff has. Smart turns case arguments are excellent. Uniqueness frames the direction of the link, but the specificity of the link is likely to be more valuable than the uniqueness itself. Aff teams should not forget about their case - case outweighs is far too underused/underrated. Coupled with some smart defensive arguments on the disad, case outweighs is usually enough.

Counterplans - Counterplans that are contextualized to the Aff will probably be substantively better than counterplans that work through a process. However, process/cheaty/uniform fiat cps are still totally fine and I'll lean neg on the theory debate (with the exception of object fiat). Of course, I can be swayed to adopt the opposite viewpoint of this theory debate. Advantage counterplans, smart PICs, and topic counterplans are fantastic. Won't judge kick unless you tell me to

Kritiks - I'll have a higher threshold for link specificity to the Affirmative, but if you can show a clear story, go for it. Familiar with biopower (agamben/foucault), cap, security, all the super basic stuff. Please explain buzzwords. I'm not a huge fan of long overviews, just put it on the line by line. If your main strat is to rant about how the 1ar dropped fiat is illusory or some other random trick, I'm not the judge for you. I need a clear explanation of what the alternative IS and what the world of the alternative looks like to feel remotely comfortable voting negative.

Non Traditional Affirmatives - I think the aff should defend hypothetical/instrumental/fiated action performed by the USfg. But! I'd be legitimately happy to hear your K Aff as long as you articulate clear pieces of offense, have a solid explanation of what the aff actually does, and maintain clean line by line. If argued well, fairness can certainly be an intrinsic impact, though it's probably better to have impacts that interact with the truth claims of the 1AC. Fairness as an internal link intuitively makes sense to me, I often went for impacts like deliberation/research/competition as a 2N

Case Debate - Is significantly underrated. Extra speaker points for those who can thoroughly and efficiently dismantle the case through smart case defense and flushed out case turns.