I am Joshua a 3rd year LD Varsity debater. I have no specific preferences for arguments and will listen to anything as long as its explained well.

Tech > Truth

jb44330@wdmcs.org is my email I would appreciate it if both the aff and neg could send their cases before the round so I could read over them quickly becauseI have a processing disorder.

Feel free to email me with any questions

my name is Sam Ebinger

i will evaluate tricks if they are properly extended (ie don’t just say it once in the first speech and never go back to it)

run whatever

Also I value attaching your contentions to framework in my final ballot

not a parent judge

Yea that’s about it.

have a good round ig

Email is se51061@wdmcs.org

Hello my name is Elle

Personally I would prefer if you don't spread as I am unable to keep up with it.

Tech over Truth

Just don't be racist, able-ist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc, etc. If you have anything that could be triggering please give a warning!!

jn41099@wdmcs.org---my email

varsity at valley high school (better than ic west)

+ a gajillion speaks if you make fun of landon stull in speech (or gwen from ic west)

please weigh and extend

quick prefs

1-phil

2- theory

2/3-tricks, k v larp/phil

4- k v k

5-larp/stock, identity k

strike- silence pik

phil-- yes. my favorite part of ld is philosophy and i try to run it as much as possible. I have no clue why so many people on the circuit are so openly hostile to it. Ill impact offense to winning fw, meaning if a kantian fw is against a larp aff and kant debater wins framing, sans turns permissilbity or uplayer, kant will win 100% of the time

theory- yes, i like it as much as phil, i just cant keep up with spreading theory out and ton of shells and a messy flow. please make it easy for me. no thoery is friv

tricks- neutral opinions, can be fun but also annoying.favorite tricks gotta be floating piks, least favorite gotta be ext o/w. skep, skep triggers, and permissiblity are not tricks imo, i dont know why people think they are. will NOT vote on eval after x or speech time stuff.

K- dont like ks too much, but dont hate them, have kinda mixed feeling. try to give warrants for rob instead of it being impact justified. least favorite parts of ks are a) not responding to case and just linking them more into the k, b) being sketchy, if i cant tell what the hell the alt isI WILL NOT VOTE ON IT.like, what the hell is refusal?

identity- i just straight up dont know if i can evaluate them lol

larp- boooooooooo

silence pik- please dont run this god awful pik

sn51804@wdmcs.org

for novices

You can debate however you want, just don't be racist, sexist, etc.

I'll vote off whoever is winning the flow.

framework debates are always fun, make sure to actually engage in the framework debate. Why should we use your framework, and stuff like that.

Make sure to weigh your arguments.

Give me some voters, why should you win?

Signpost, it's a good skill.

Have good clash, give good rebuttals, and all the good stuff.

Don't forget to extend arguments, also important.

Be funny and you could get higher speaker points.

Hi, I'm Lucy, I'm a 2nd-year debater at Valley

Pronouns are She/Her

Email: lr44452@wdmcs.org

Novices:

I will vote on any argument with a claim, warrant, impact

Please weigh your arguments

Try your best to come up with creative arguments in rebuttals

IF YOU ARE CONFUSED/HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT MY DECISION PLEASE ASK ME. I've only debated for two years, so it's very possible I missed something or just didn't articulate my thoughts clearly enough in the rfd.

The most important thing is to learn and have fun. Debate competitions can be super stressful, especially if it's your first one, so just remember to slow down and enjoy the experience. I think a lot of times people get caught up in the competition aspect of debate and forget that it's a really fun activity.

I will flow the whole round - decided to include this in here bc when I was a novice a ton of judges didn't flow and it was super annoying

On framework: Actually interact with your opponent's framework, and tell me why to evaluate under yours in the round. Framework is like the seasoning that keeps debate from being bland

Speed is fine, just make sure I can understand you

Read whatever makes you happy

Obviously don't read anything discriminatory. Judges shouldn't even have to put this in their paradigms

If you tell me a joke I might consider giving you better speaks

If you want to HEAR a joke I have several good ones up my sleeve

If you have questions, email me or ask during the round

Valley HS '14, University of Chicago BA '18, JD '21

I was a national circuit debater and later a coach at West Des Moines Valley. Since 2018, my involvement in debate has been limited to semi-regular judging. I am now a lawyer practicing in Des Moines.

I am fine with almost any warranted argument, run what you want to run. However, I won't vote for an argument that I don't understand. I don't pretend to understand stuff that doesn't make sense. You should thus think hard before reading "high theory" or bad tricks. In general, I probably judge like a rustier version of my former students and colleagues at Valley.

If you are one of the faster (or less clear) debaters on the national circuit, it is probably a good idea to be a touch slower than your top speed, especially online. Slow down a lot on theory interps and plan texts. I'll let you know if I can't understand you. I don't flow off speech docs, and I don't vote on arguments that I don't understand, so clarity is in your self-interest and hiding gimmicks is not.

I like: (1) Analytic philosophy. (2) Creative arguments of any style. Read your weird stuff. (3) NC-AC and straight ref 1NCs. (4) Weighing on all layers, including framework. (5) Good traditional rounds.

I don't like: (1) Reading for a full rebuttal, especially a late one. Your speaks are inversely correlated to your time spent reading. (2) Being mean, rude or exclusionary. Don't frivolously uplayer or spread versus inexperienced or traditional debaters. Generally be the sort of person in round that you want to be out of round. (3) Blippy, purportedly game over arguments, including most tricks and independent voters. I need to actually understand the arg, why it means you win, and the warrants for both. (4) Unreasonable disclosure theory. If you think your interp might be unreasonable, either because of your opponent or the violation (no new affs bad please), read something else.

call me “chat” + 0.5 speaks

im going to keep things simple; run wtvr you want idrc js as long as you understand it and make it understandable AND as long as you explain it to where not only i understand it, but so does your opponent. i will NOT vote on sexism, racism, ableism, ect. NO SPREADING

i love framework debates ngl - meaning that usually if there isn’t SOME sort of fwrk debate i get a little sad. if there isn’t a fwrk response on the opposing side, notice that, take it into account and WEIGH your arguments AND their arguments (easy w)

i LOVE self ownership.

I DO NOT LIKE EXTINCTION AND NUCLEAR/NUKE WAR ARGUMENTS. this being said, i would hope that novices from past tournaments have figured out other arguments that are FAR more interesting.

i agree w sam and jimmy regarding tricks - js extend it fully

i understand that since you guys are first-years you will try to spread, but if you’re not being CLEAR then neither of us (me and your opponent) will understand and will get frustrated. THIS BEING SAID AND EXPLAINED PRIOR TO ROUND; i don’t understand spreading, i can’t fully grasp the arguments and it makes me upset. i do have attention and focusing problems so please don’t spread.

if you include "999" in your debate round (that's LOGICAL and MAKES SENSE), then you get +1 speaks.

i may have gone to a decent amount of tournaments in the past year and a half, but that doesn’t mean that i know what you’re talking abt. i go into these debate like i don’t have a brain lol — ALSO some cases like carceral geo or some argument that NEEDS to be fully researched before debating makes me confused. if you don’t have a good explanation, how can i understand? much less judge?

btw i went 2-4 at a local big questions tournament and got 27.1 speaks, so you can say im pretty intelligible at debate

if you have any questions you can ask me in person!

if you're stalking my history in judging there is one round with a bunch of random letters and words - don't worry abt it

Hi! Im Brie! Warning: I cobbled together a repaired paradigm as the last time I had edited it was TWO YEARS AGO! Apologies. Have been judging a lot of competitions mostly at our school so I didn't worry as much about paradigm. If stuff sounds dumb or out-of-date thats cause it... is. Some are updated, ex. my preference for K's

1 - K's

2 - Theory, Tricks, Phil v Util Topicality

3 - phil v phil

4 - Larp

5 - nothing, will decently evaluate most things

I have been doing debate for 6 years, consistently LD with a little bit of Policy and PF experience, but like mostly LD stuff.

In terms of general debate etiquette, please send cases to both ME and your OPPONENT before the first speech. Preferably before round start, but before speech will not annoy me either.

And I swear to gosh if u read an argument that is blatantly homophobic or transphobic I will probably still evaluate it if goes COMPLETELY dropped but ANY semblance of a mini-kritik or response and that argument is gone.

Extinction first is annoying, lightly extended security K's will flow easy

Be respectful of pronouns, please :) Mine for rounds are she/her! :D

in terms of valued extensions, make them clear for me to flow them, and if you flow a good chunk of the tagline and a part of the card it will flow the whole contention, extending every card and tag is unnecessary.

Email: bt43083@wdmcs.org

Here are some deeper paradigm bits

Theory:

Love a good theory debate. If you get a good competing interps battle I will be a happy judge. But if you read really abusive or a bajillion shells it wont be as fun. Friv theory is fine, just don't read 10 shells in the 1A or 10 shells in the 1N- flowing that kind of debate is very very unfortunate. Extensions of these- please go down the list, interp, violation, standards, voters. Dont just read the interp and hope its extended. Give me WHY this makes your opponent drop.

Tricks:

tricks r fine, will evaluate if you do a good job at them! but explain them good thanks

Phil:

Phil is ok as long as you do it well, i dont have much preference for specifics but i used to use Kant a lot

K:

i love K's im a K debater and i will vote on good K's very easily. ks on top

Topicality:

Just do it good. getting a little more lazy on these points, but really topicality is just not the most interesting thing, if you use it correctly I will vote. There.

Substance Deont:

For example just using Kant and winning on case. Happens during rounds with 2 similar phil frameworks. I love evaluating these debates but will disregard substance when any K, Topicality, Theory, Phil fwk clash or tricks come up, and are extended to the end of the round.

Larpolicy:

I dislike Larp, probably because I'm a Valley Varsity, but Larp is not my jam. If both debaters are using Larp or policy cases I will have a basically break debate, where I just flow and evaluate normally, but when its a phil case user with theory vs a larp case user, it gets messy quick. Don't try and say "debate is consequentialist has to defend an effect on squo" without reading a must defend advocacy Theory shell. cause that will not flow. cause its just not strong argument.

As a student judge, I value clarity and persuasion. Make sure I as a judge can hear and understand you, especially if you spread. Voters and frameworks are very important, along with general persuasive and well backed and articulated arguments.

Tech>Truth (Unless morally abhorrent)

TLDR:I like fun clash based around well-thought out arguments. I love phil debate; especially less commonly read authors. Theory and Ks are great too. LARP is sometimes ok but I generally don't like it,

LARP-4/S-If u don't justify consequences and just say u outweigh I WILL DROP YOU. I find the inability of LARP debaters to understand and debate against phil and K's to be madding. Outside of that, I am fine voting on this, so long as you have clearly explained why ur framing is better, but I will have a bias against any phil arguments owing to my personal belief that util is morally abhorrent.

K's-1/2-K's can be fun if they make sense. I do tend to buy anti-K theory against K's with really abusive alts, but can obviously be convinced otherwise.

Theory-2

Phil-1-Phil is the reason LD is different from policy. PLEASE ACTUALLY READ WARRANTS, THO. Especially if u reading some obscure author.

Tricks-2-So long as you have unique, well explained and sense-making arguments, you're golden to read these. Need warrants or else I am much less likely to vote. TRICKS ARE ONE PART OF THE ROUND I WILL DO MINIMAL TRUTH>TECH IF UR ARGUMENTS ARE ILLOGICAL OR POORLY EXPLAINED.