Email: Ccbezemek25@mail.strakejesuit.org

Prefs (Arguments)

Favorite - Policy or Larp and Religious arguments

Don’t likes - Dense Ks, Dense Frameworks, and Cap K

I won't vote on ad homs or unproven out of round violations

Overall, run what you want. I will evaluate what you tell me to (within reason).

Please do -

Weigh

Signpost

Speak Clearly

Extend arguments

Link arguments to framework

Explain arguments - presume I know nothing

Weighing (if you don’t give it to me it is very hard to make a decision) - (Ballot order is)

Theory, Framework (K, ROB, and ROJ go here), Case (In that order)

Magnitude (extinction) > every other argument (probability, K args, any other args besides theory) (If no weighing)

Concessions > Args in round (If you weigh your case first I will presume it first or explain why the concession doesn’t matter, but if I am left with a few concessions and a few arguments the concessions will probably influence the ballot) (Spin is still ok though)

No way to tell who wins I will vote Neg (Unless presumption and permissibility affirms)

Speed/Flowing

Send the doc - I may not look at it

I prefer to not look at doc and follow by ear

I will say clear/slow three times and stop flowing

I will flow whatever you say, but if I miss something and you bring it up later I will think it is new and won’t buy it.

I am a really slow flower (my wpm is like 60 so understand that I will miss stuff if you go too fast)

I think debate needs to be focused on how well you speak, so speed and clarity is important

Do nots -

Clip - You will either get an auto lose or terrible speaks

Say arguments that aren’t in your case that you say are/power tag (IE if you claim only 1% of all rocks can be mined, but the evidence says NASA is mining one percent then this is power tagged) (Latter if pointed out unless its egregious)

Bring up new args in late speeches - I won’t buy them, and your speaks will drop. Weighing is ok though

Don’t yell at the opponent in CX

Cuss - You get one cuss word after that I will give you a cap at 26 speaks.

Thoughts

I hate disclosure theory. I will vote on it, but I strongly dislike it.

Defense/I meets is sufficient on theory shells especially if multiple are read.

Tricks are ok, they will probably get you less speaks. I do dislike hidden indexicals or tricks in random tags though.

If someone does something that is bad, then it is their opponents job to explain why it is bad and what the judge should do.

CX is binding. If you lie in CX or dodge questions and bring it up later as a voting issue I will be very skeptical.

Overall, run what you want and I will try to judge it fairly. Presume that I know nothing about the topic or framework you are reading or I can’t evaluate it. If I can’t understand it, then I can’t vote for you.

If both sides agree to a separate activity to decide the round, then they can do that (like a chess game or something)

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

For PF - I have never judged this before. I will just judged off persuasion and argumentation. Being clear, weighing, and explaining will be important. Don’t presume I know the norms for pf like what evidence looks like, extending arguments, or theory.

I have coached LD at Strake Jesuit in Houston, Tx since 2009. I judge a lot and do a decent amount of topic research. Mostly on the national/toc circuit but also locally. Feel free to ask questions before the round. Add me to email chains. Jchriscastillo@gmail.com.

I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. The best debaters will 1. Focus on argument explanation over argument quantity. 2. Provide clear judge instruction.

I do not flow off the doc.

Evidence:

1. I rarely read evidence after debates.
2. Evidence should be highlighted so it's grammatically coherent and makes a complete argument.
3. Smart analytics can beat bad evidence
4. Compare and talk about evidence, don't just read more cards

Theory:

1. I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types.
2. I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness.
3. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.

Non-T/Planless affs: I'm good with these. I'm most compelled by affirmatives that 1. Can explain what the role of the neg is 2. Explain why the ballot is key.

Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".

Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity. I do not disclose speaks.

Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. I will not vote on "evaluate after X speech" arguments.

Strake Jesuit ‘26

Rohan Chimata

For the email chain: rrchimata2008@gmail.com

Tech over Truth. I will vote for anything with a claim, warrant, and impact.

You should aim to explain your arguments as well as possible and why that results in a winning ballot.

The more complex/unintuitive an argument is the more explanation is required. I'm willing to vote for most arguments or positions, but it's your job to make it as easy as possible for me to vote on whatever argument you're reading.

I will vote on tricks like eval after x speech but I do prefer more substantive tricky arguments.

I reserve the right to the end round due to ableism or any other form of violence.

kelvinmeng07@gmail.com

1 - Policy, Theory
2 - K
3 - Tricks, Phil

Bad flower. Slow down on pre-written analytics.

Overexplain unintuitive arguments. Concessions aren't a substitute for lack of explanation. Scenarios start at 0.

Bad tricks debate is difficult to sit through. Logic aprioris are fine, "no neg arguments" are not. Extempting tricks is egregious.

I reserve the right to end rounds due to ableism.

Strake Jesuit '26

michael.meng43@gmail.com

Judging Philosophy

Tech over truth, but conceded arguments must still be explained and implicated sufficiently. Arguments outweigh and interact with other arguments based on the context of the round. Furthermore, contextual and specific explanation, weighing, and comparison are necessary to make rounds clear.

I don't have an intrinsic bias for arguments, but I think certain arguments are better and require more robust answers to beat back. Whereas certain arguments may be sillier and require less robust answers.

Scenarios start at 0. Sweeping explanations of the world are rare.

Strake Jesuit '25

Email: shahqdebate@gmail.com

Please set up email chain before round

I'll vote on literally anything. That being said, all I ask of you is to be clear when you extend stuff and extend a warrant. I really don't want to have to not buy a good argument just because you never extended a warrant, so please don't put me in that position. Conceded arguments have lower thresholds for extension and I will not vote on arguments that do not have warrants or arguments I do not understand. This should go without saying, but weigh, signpost, and slow down on analytics.

Explain arguments as if I didn't know the topic. Be explicit with why I should vote for you and write my ballot for me.

In Depth:

Tech > Truth, 99.9% of the time.

Pref Shortcut:

Theory/Policy - 1

Tricks - 2

Phil - 3

K - 4

Speaks:

Probably not gonna go under 28.

I evaluate speaks on strategy.

Defaults:

These can be changed.

-DTD

-Competing Interps

-No RVIs

-Fairness/Education Are Voters

-Comparative Worlds

-Permissibility/Presumption Negate (Presumption goes to the side of least change if the 2NR does not defend the squo)

-Util

Non negotiables

• I won't evaluate arguments that tell me to change the times of speeches
• I won't "evaluate after x speech" if you are reading it in "x" speech unless it's conceded entirely, just saying no is sufficient defense.
• I won't evaluate ad-homs or out of round practices that don't pertain to the round.
• Poorly ran tricks will lower speaks.
• Compiling the doc is prep, sending is not.
• Warrants for spikes must be extended even if conceded.
• Answer cx questions.

Strake Jesuit ‘26

My role is to avoid intervention and evaluate the debate in front of me. Do not try and over-adapt, do what you do best. And, most importantly, have fun and be nice and respectful to each other!

SBRubinstein26@mail.strakejesuit.org - add me to the email chain. Speechdrop or file share is cool too, just agree with your opponent.

Quick Prefs -

Policy - 1

K - 2

Phil - 2

Theory/T - 2/3

Tricks - 3

Misc -

Tech>Truth, but truth/intuitiveness of an argument makes it easier to win.

Every argument needs a claim, warrant, and impact.

Won’t vote on anything that is racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

You need some sort of overview to explain the position, but it can never substitute for good line-by-line.

Judge instruction>>>> - Don’t leave me to decide how I should frame and evaluate the debate, tell me how you are winning and how I should view the debate.

Extend the aff properly - 1AR extensions have become extremely blippy which doesn’t really make sense since that’s usually where most of your offense comes from.

Please signpost.

I’m okay at flowing, so make sure to clearly differentiate between taglines and cards.

Not voting on anything that occurred outside of the round except disclosure. (No ad homs)

I’ll give the 2AR a lot of leeway given many new 2NR claims/evidence that isn’t directly responsive to the 1AR. Similarly, a 2AR that makes a 1 line, usually underwarranted, response into 2 minutes of in depth analysis probably doesn’t get these completely new extrapolations.

I reserve the right to not evaluate any argument that either a] isn’t on my flow or b] I don’t understand as per the debater’s explanation.

Split 2NRs/2ARs make the debate super messy and it’ll be much harder for me to vote for you.

I’ll read evidence if you flag it, and I need it to evaluate a key part of the round.

Haven’t really thought about evidence ethics, so I’ll directly refer to NSDA/tournament policy if the round is staked, but I really prefer you don’t.

Most things below this are opinions and can be changed through the correct arguments.

Policy -

Most importantly, weigh - whoever’s impacts come prior usually wins the round.

Assume I don’t know the acronyms and terms for each topic - even if I do, this is a good practice to follow.

Impact turns are cool.

A disad 2nr needs some sort of case defense and/or reasons why the disad turns and outweighs the case.

I default functional and textual competition.

I default to no judgekick because it probably isn’t great due to the nature of LD speech times but it's cool if you justify it.

Creative perms are underutilized against cheaty CPs.

K -

On the neg -

Framework, floating PIKs, alt solves case, etc. cannot appear out of nowhere in the 2NR, and justifies new 2AR responses if it is.

Don’t assume I know the literature base that you are reading from - just explain it.

Slow down on extensions of complicated theories - too many debaters get away with quickly spreading through their extension of their thesis claim with no time for anyone to process or understand how it interacts with the rest of the debate.

Kicking the alt is fine, just explain how I should evaluate the debate.

Love examples to support the thesis.

On the aff -

I’d prefer if you give a role for negation and why debate/the ballot/competition matters for your position, and potentially a counter-model of debate that doesn’t rely on impact turning everything.

Have some sort of identifying plan text if you don’t defend the topic. I’ve seen affs that just hint at an issue or discuss some sort of course of action/advocacy without defending it or else it’ll be really easy to justify presumption.

Phil -

Presumption and permissibility negate unless argued otherwise.

I’ll be very happy in an in-depth comparative debate between two different frameworks, conversely spamming independent justifications will make me annoyed and make the debate irresolvable.

Probably somewhat familiar with whatever you read, but that shouldn’t substitute explanation.

A lot of offense people read is pretty bad. (Take advantage of that)

Default epistemic confidence - modesty doesn’t seem to make very much sense, but please explain how I should evaluate and weigh the round if you do read it.

Theory/T -

Default competing interps, dta unless incoherent, and no RVIs.

Norm setting vs in round abuse is underrated.

Weighing is the best way to get my ballot in these debates. Weighing between different shells is extremely underutilized beyond the generic “1AR theory first because 4-6-3” such as why the abuse affects every round and the entire debate like disclosure over things like CP theory. Fairness vs education and weighing between standards is great and useful also.

No such thing as frivolous theory - the worse the shell, the more intuitive the responses should be.

Caselists are awesome to prove real abuse.

Tricks -

I can evaluate these just fine, I just won’t be very happy judging a bad tricks round with floating a prioris with little interaction or understanding of what's going on.

Be upfront about them please.

Make the round clean by the end of the debate and clearly layer arguments.

Speaks -

I’ll try to average around a high 28 to a 29.

Speaks are based on strategy, technical ability, and clarity.

If I have to clear you more than twice within a minute, slow down so I at least catch something.

Please be nice to novices or someone who you are clearly better than i.e., no more than 3 offs, make the round educational, etc. I’ll reward with better speaks.

Hey goofballs,

---Free 30 speaks of you show me your favorite lego build

Extra props to you if its a custom build!

Please don't spread--I believe debate is a verbal activity—spreading is a dishonor to those who have worked hard to preserve the activity and is frankly disrespectful to your opponent and judge. Come on now! Keep the Public in Lincoln Douglas!

Policy:

While these arguments are closer to the style debated back then and are more traditional to all, I still believe that the style of “LARP” debate these days have turned way to progressive and fanatical. I purely believe that debating the topic requires good evidence and weighing. With that said, I still believe that truth value is required for you to win the debate. I am not a fan of AFFs that choose the actor of the plan as an actor that is not the United States or situated in the United States. Lincoln-Douglas implies talking about what is best for the United States and thus topical debates should be focused in that parameter of arguments.

Theory:
No, Just No. Do you genuinely believe that Lincoln and Douglas were debating over the rules of the debate? obviously not. I believe students joining the Lincoln-Douglas Debate event should model those who created the event in the first place. Thus, theory has no place for the debate space. Only people who can decide the rules of the event are committee members and me! Those who impress me are those who represent the best and very brightest of what Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas offered: strong communication skills and logical and excellent ideas regarding the future of this beautiful nation.

Kritiks Negating:

I firmly believe that Ks are a bad model for debate. I believe that any objection to the representations or stance of the 1AC can be argued against using simple, non-radical traditional positions. Although Kritiks were seen by myself as strategic back when I competed, I now see Ks as a waste of time and frankly a distraction from core topic controversies. If a K is read, I will lean heavily AFF when it comes to my ballot. I believe, after watching a lot of K rounds in my day, that the AFF should be allowed to weigh the case and Extinction outweighs no matter what. Along with that, I view Kritiks through the lens of truth. That means no matter who is actually winning on the flow, I won’t vote for the argument if it’s objectively a false statement, i.e. capitalism is bad.

Kritiks Affirming:

A lot of my opinions regarding Ks negating apply here. For affirming, I especially believe reading Ks affirming is too extremist and exclusionary. Those who have built this wonderful event that have passed away did not want their event to be turned into a model where anyone can read anything they want. We should honor their vision and only stick to the topic assigned. Any leaving the assigned topic by any debater will be disrespectful and will result in you being dropped. I also believe that strictly sticking to the topic through traditional arguments that are objectively true in some sense is a good model because it helps us young adults follow directions and become better people in general. This behavior of following directions can be incredibly useful in the classroom or any other daily job. Just lookin out for y’all kids! Y’all are the future you know!

Timing:

It’s not that I don’t trust you goofs but I will be timing your speeches myself. I’ve had too many events where kids have rigged the timers to give themselves extra time. I will be counting down in my head while I am comprehending your arguments. My head is the only thing I trust in that debate room, thus, I will rely on it to count down your speech and prep time. It’s a dangerous world out there kiddos!

Speaker Points:

NO matter what other judges or committees tell me, speaks are assigned 1-30, not 25-30. Cmon now. If it was assigned 25-30, where did 1-24 come from? That being said I am quite a speaks fairy if I say so myself. Speaks start in the halfway line and go up and down from there.

I’m excited to be judging y’all goofballs! Don’t forget to have fun!

PF PARADIGM*****

Not gon lie, Im a BIG PF guy

lay judge

speaks are from 1-10 non negotiable. I do not inflate speaks. On average, I give a 2.3. My voting stats are as follows- From a sample of 3094857, I voted aff 3084984 times and neg 9873 times.

Graduating from the Bloomingdale Insane Asylum 2026' PhD program from Overbrook Insane Asylum, meaning YOU DO NOT try TO Lie AbOut StUfF in ROUnd. I will Call youR BS, as I AM EDUcAteD.

On a serious note tho

I do policy for strake

so the prefs r as follows

policy - 1

T-1

Theory - 2

Phil -3

Tricks - 3

K v Policy - 3

K v K- I hate this so strike

debate is a game so you should have fun and dont take stuff to personally.

Err on the side of over explanation and explain warrants. just saying someone conceded something doesnt matter. Give implications

You can talk as fast as you want

debate is kinda cool

I reserve the right to end the round due to ableism.

15 Bids in LD

Won Emory, Texas, and TFA State. Broke at TOC 3x.

2 Gold Bids in PF

nwei24@mail.strakejesuit.org

Read mostly pseudo-topical Asian K affs, Set Col, Theory, Phil, Impact Turns, and Process CPs.

I reward innovative strategies and positions.

I consider myself to be a flex debater.

K debaters should pref me if they are highly technical.

Probably a quarter of my K Aff rounds ended up being a 1AR restart.

In policy debates, risk starts at 0 and goes up. My bar for warrants are high.

Comfortable with advanced counterplan competition.

No such thing as friv theory.

I'm a parent judge but here is the quick layout.

1 - T/Theory

1 - Policy

2 - Tricks

3/4 - Phil (depending on density)

Strike - K

the easier you make the round for me to judge the better your speaks will be.