I will actively try to vote as objectively as possible regardless of the arguments in the round - I've experienced the frustration of dealing with what I felt were biased judges - There is a difference between judge adaptation, and debaters having to completely throw away their main strategies due to judges saying they won't vote from them - if you debate it well, I will vote for it

That being said, no judge is truly tabula rasa, so here is my history and preferences - again, these are not hard rules, just where I personally lean

History

I debated for four years at Saint Vincent de Paul High School and qualified to the TOC my senior year.

During my time in high school, I almost exclusively went for the K on both the Aff and the Neg. I've run Bifo (semiocapitalism), Cap, Focault, Settler Colonialism, Psychoanalysis (Stavrakakis, Lundberg, etc.), Baudrillard, and a few others. I do have some experience with more policy arguments as I ran those frequently during camp.

Going against K affs, I almost exclusively went for framework.

Preferences

Tech > Truth

Unless what you are saying is sexist, racist, homophobic, etc., I look very heavily to the flow for my decision. I enjoy arguments that are counter-intuitive but are argued well. If an argument is dropped, push it through even if it isn't necessarily your strongest argument in terms of truth.

However, if the argument is attached to a card, you must explain the necessary warrants in your speeches, especially in the 2NR/2AR. I will not read cards you extend for the warrants to then give to you for free.

K on Neg

*Reference my history*

The most important thing is knowing how your K functions. If your K is an explicit critique of the aff plan (E.g. a cap K critiquing the affs plan to revitalize the economy) then you need links to the plan, and then explain the internal links to your impact.

However, if your k is more a critique of debate, then you should explain that clearly and then spend most of your time on the FW portion of the debate for your links and analysis. Many judges will fault you for "lacking specific links to the aff". If your K is a meta-level critique of something like the debate space, then I believe you don't need specific links, becuase you are critiquing that assumptions the reading of the Aff rests on, which is prior to the content of the aff. Put simply, if you win that debate is bad, it doesn't matter if they win the plan is good, because the reading of the plan is bad in the first place.

Please do not use buzz words - I probably understand a good amount of what you are talking about, but you still have to do the explaining.

K AFF vs FW

For the AFF - I think turning FW is a better strategy than going for a C/I, unless you really spend time explaining how the C/I functions and resolves the Neg's offense.

For the Neg - You will likely need to negate certain theories of the aff in order to win framework. This doesn't mean you need to go for getting me to vote neg on presumption, but rather just push back on the core assertions they are using to turn FW. Answer their ticky tacky DAs on FW, and how they are trying to apply their aff to the flow. I have found in my experience that arguments made by the Aff against FW are often argument by analogy -- point this out and explain how whatever version of debate you are defending is not the horrible hell they are trying to make it look like. Analytical arguments are fine for this kind of debate

K v K

I think this can be a good strategy as most teams that read a K Aff are mostly used to framework. However, you will have to put a lot of time into the link as the Aff team will probably go hard for the perm. Alternatively, I'm open to theory on why the Aff shouldn't get a perm.

DAs

Good with me - give some good impact analysis

CP

There are definitely abusive CPs, but probably not an abusive number of CPs

I will let the debaters settle CP theory in the round and settle it depending on who did better. If the neg runs a blatantly utopian CP, but the aff says nothing, neg is going to win.

C_boreczky75413@berkeley.edu

Brief update for Stanford LD competitors - I primarily judge circuit and CA-circuit policy debate, but much of the below should apply. I'm not primed for any category of LD arguments over another, and don't have an inherent preference for circuit arguments and styles, but I'm very open to them.

Four years of policy competition, at a solid mix of circuit and regional tournaments. I generally do enough judging these days to be pretty up-to-date on circuit args.

Generally comfortable with speed but I tend to have issues comprehending overly breathy spreading. And please, for everyone's sake, make sure your tags are clear and don't try to give theory analytics at full speed. You can do whatever feels right, of course, but I can only decide based on what I catch.

Broadly, I default to an offense-defense paradigm and a strict technical focus. It's not exactly hard to get me to depart from those defaults, however. I'll vote for anything, and it doesn't take any 'extra' work to get me to endorse performance advocacies, critical affirmative advocacies, etc - just win your offense, and framework if applicable.

I'd love to be a truth over tech judge, but I just don't believe that's an acceptable default orientation for my ballot. That said, engaging with that preference and doing it well is a pretty convincing approach with me. This most often comes across in impact calc.

Evidence quality is extremely important to me. I tend to grant much more weight to card texts and warrants than to tags, and I'm perfectly happy to drop ev that doesn't have warrants matching the tag, if you articulate why I should do so. That said, I don't discount evidence just because I perceive it to be low-quality, and if it gets conceded, well, it might as well be true.

My bar for framework and T/theory tends to depend on what you're asking me to do. Convincing me to drop a states CP on multiple actor fiat bad requires fairly little offense. Convincing me to drop a team on A-Spec is going to be an uphill battle, usually.

Occupation: Technical Product Management, Telecommunications

School Affiliations: Dougherty Valley High School

Years of Judging/Event Types: 4

Do you take a lot of notes or flow the debate? - Yes

Use of Evidence: 8

Real World Impacts: 10

Cross Examination: 6

Debate skill over truthful arguments: 10

Occupation: Director Technical Product Management/Marketing at VMware

School Affiliations: Dougherty Valley High School

Years of Judging/Event Types: First year, LD/Policy

How I will award speaker points to the debaters: Clarity, Eye-Contact, Don't speak too fast, Polite during Cross-ex.

What helps me make a decision at the end of the debate: Strong voters, best impacts, most organized structure, most logical rebuttals.

Notes/Flow: I will flow as much as I can.

Clothing/Appearance: An easy way to get speaker points is by dressing appropriately.

Use of Evidence: Please use logical evidence that corresponds to the main point that is being made. Also, please do not read cards that are not on the email chain.

Real World Impacts: I need to see the logic and the links to how a series of events lead to the impacts. In other words, the impacts should be well explained.

Cross Examination: Do not be rude during cross examination. I understand that sometimes we like to use strategy and come off as confident during these cross examination periods, but please do make sure you are polite.

Debate skill over truthful arguments: Both of these aspects matter, but I will mainly be looking for the overall debate skill.

I am a parent judge affiliated with Dougherty Valley High School, and I have about 1 year of judging experience in LD. I will award speaker points in the round based on your speed, clarity, and politeness. I will try to make fair decisions based on my flow taken from the round. Here's how I'll weigh the round (on a scale of 1-10).

- I don't really care about your appearance, but any inappropriate clothing will be reflected in your speaker points. (1)

- As for arguments, I prefer traditional arguments over progressive ones; try to restrict yourselves to advantages on aff and disads and counterplans on neg. I do not prefer theory or kritiks. (10)

- I value carded evidence over any analytics made in round. (9)

- Application of impacts are very important, the round will be weighed heavily on your ability to do impact calculus against your opponents. (10)

- Cross examination is an important part of the round, and performance in it as well as any references or concessions made in it will affect my decision. (7)

- I prefer your skill in debate over the truthful arguments that you may make. Although the truth in your contentions will play a role in determining the outcome of the debate, you should strike a balance in the two areas. (5)

Lastly, I will go over speaker points. I prefer slow to moderate speed in speaking, enunciation of your case, and politeness to the other speaker. Remember that although debate may be a highly competitive activity, it is an educational environment and it should be treated in that manner.

I am a lay judge: 1st Tournament: GGSA2/Nov 2018; 2nd T: GGSA3/Jan 2019

Not a fan of Spreading -- it is difficult to follow and understand; the gag reflex breathing is distracting ...

I had to view this to comprehend: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=murvOaHB66A

Do not personally disrespect your opponents - keep it civil

Have fun!

Lay judge so please adapt, I am NOT comfortable with spreading. I am okay with Ks but please explain it well, don't give me some vague alt. and throw a bunch of buzzwords in my face and expect me to understand. If you are racist, homophobic, etc. 0 speaks and an auto L....only be sassy if you have decent args to back it up... debate is a game, may the odds be ever in your favor.

Hi!

I debated policy at St. Vincent de Paul for three years. I've judged a couple of times since then, but Cal Invitational '24 will be the first time I'll be judging PF.

A couple of notes:

• I'm not up to date with current debate topics and lingo (abbreviations, technical terms etc.) related to the resolution. So, if you find a certain term key to your argument that I should know, your best bet is to take that extra 5-7 seconds to flesh it out a tiny bit more (unless you think I'd be able to catch on from the context it's being used in, of course).
• As the judge, I'll try to be a clean slate as much as possible. So, feel free to throw in some framework, and other spices into the mix!
• That being said, please debate and speak kindly. I have zero tolerance for discrimination or any sort of dialogue that is disrespectful and unkind.
• If there is going to be an email chain please add me (chisato.v.ruo@berkeley.edu).

I look forward to hearing your teams debate! :)

I don't profess to be a professional debate judge or coach. Unlikely do I understand many of the specific arguments (K or "kritik", for example). Please don't assume I understand any of your abbreviations or shortcuts. If you speak like an auctioneer, you will not help with my understanding - in real life, getting one or two points across is much more persuasive than exhaling 25 points which are incomprehensible.

There are no incompetent judges, only misinformed debate students who presume that the judges are unimportant to their success. I can only suggest that if you are pompous and humiliate your opponent, you will not go far in your round. Charm and intelligence are rewarded much more handsomely in this world than condescension towards others, especially judges. Please address your debate opponents, judges don't like being told how to vote as this is a sign of an attempt to break the fourth wall and shows weakness in the round, in my humble opinion. Attacking your opponent (ad hominem) is also a losing strategy. Judges are asked not to discuss winners or losers in the round directly with the students - if you wish to learn how you fared, read about it in the results as described by the judge.

If you hyperventilate, yell or scream, I may have to presume you need medical attention and will be tempted to dial 911. Please don't waste my time. I am volunteering my time to help your education and am typically not paid to be at your tournament. My child, probably like you, is a rising star 🌟 debate student in Northern California. Please be respectful of these things (as explained) and you will go far in the tournament and in your life. I do not need to be added to the chain of emails, as this is confusing to me and I want to be available to listen more to your presentation that get caught up in the details of the arguments. Last but not least, I prefer teams to time one another and agree upon using tag in cross-x before the debate has begun.

About me: She/Her, I debated for Sonoma Academy 4 years in policy, 1 in parli. I was a 2A/1N for most of my debate career. GGSA 1 is my first tournament judging this topic, and I didn't work at a camp, so keep that in mind during the round (I won't know your acronyms or topic specific jargon)

please let me know if there is anything I can do to make the debate more accessible for you.

ask me as many questions before/after the round as you want.

I want to be on the email chain: clairestep23@gmail.com

At the end of the day I think debate has tremendous value and is not just a game (however you choose to interpret that value is debatable.) I want you to read what you like to read and have fun in the round. Don't waste time adapting to me as a judge if it means sacrificing your performance in the round or fun.

This format is whacky! Be patient with me and I'll be patient with you. Because all of this is over zoom, if you decide to spread, please go 80% your regular speed. Getting good speaks is also about being adaptive!

Etiquette: Please be nice to the other team. I know debate is a competitive activity but that doesn’t mean you can be a jerk. Don’t clip. Don’t steal prep. If flashing takes more than 2 mins it will start coming out of prep. Tag team is okay.

Speaks: I base your speaks on attitude, CX, clarity, how well you know your arguments, and rebuttals. I think that ethos is super important and I like voting for teams that really CONVINCE me they won the round. I would prefer a nuanced explanation in your own words over a bad piece of evidence.

I’m fine with speed but only if it’s clear. BE WARNED! Do NOT attempt to spread if you are unable to do so with clarity! If you see that I’m not flowing and staring blankly at you, you need to be clearer. Any arguments I miss are on you. Especially over zoom, there is a high risk that I will miss some of what you say if you are going max speed.

Tech > truth but truth is easier to win. Even if the argument is morally repugnant I think the other team should answer it. That being said I hold the answers to those arguments to an EXTREMELY low threshold so if you make a sexist/homophobic/racist/transphobic/etc. argument there is a 99.9% chance you are losing the round.

CX: I think CX is underrated and it’s one of the best places to earn speaks. Please don’t speak over each other in CX excessively. If someone is being rude in CX my face will show it. I think CX is binding.

Affirmatives: Please know your affirmative. You should shine in CX of the 1AC. If you don’t know your aff, your speaks will reflect it. I’m down for performance affs/K affs. Do what you do best!

Case: Case! Debate! Matters! I get super excited about a good case debate.

Kritiks: I'm studying literary theory in college, so I will most likely be familiar with your lit, but if you're misinterpreting the lit you will make me sad. During my debate career I was fairly policy oriented so keep that in mind if you decide to read your high theory debate-specific K in front of me though. I believe that debate is a unique space that allows for broader discussion of social issues and justice and I believe that in round/community solvency exists. The perm debate is very important, and you should treat it as such. Grouping all of the perms puts you in a vulnerable spot if the other team calls you on it. You need to be able to articulate what the alt does in order for me to vote for it. The role of the ballot should be one of the most important aspects of the round in these debates. Only read kritiks that you know. Bad K debate is worse than bad policy debate.

CP: I’m a fan of specific DA/CP combos and I will reward you for specific links. I know this is league and it tends to be full of generics and it’s fine if you read those, but I’d rather not have every 2nr be a generic DA/CP combo. I err aff slightly on CP theory. I think that CPs that result in the whole aff incentivize bad debate so if the aff makes the argument you’re going to have to do some work on the theory front (but if you have actually have a solvency advocate for your consult/delay/agent CP this doesn't apply nearly as much). I have an intense appreciation for a good specific politics DA and an intense hatred for bad ones.

Topicality: Debate it well. I think too often T is used as a time suck but I also think these debates are fun to judge when done well so do with that what you will. If the team is genuinely untopical I will definitely lean towards you. Good T debaters don’t rely on blocks and can contextualize the standards/violation to the specific aff/round. That said, I don't really think that fairness is an impact but that shouldn't preclude you from trying to persuade me that it is. Otherwise I am pretty neutral on topicality and will evaluate it based on however the debaters present it.

Framework: pretty much the same as T but I think this is less of a time suck. Really sell me on the standards and why your interpretation of debate is better for the activity and you will win. Coming from a small school I recognize that a lot of the time straight up policy affs are more accessible to teams with limited resources and I think it’s a legit argument against kritikal teams. At the end of the day make sure you're still being respectful though, it gets dicey when read against AFFs focused on identity and in round/community solvency.

Theory: I have a high threshold for theory and will most likely default to reject the argument not the team

he/him/his

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

Policy Coach at Lowell High School, San Francisco

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Water

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

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

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

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

Lifetime

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

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

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

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

Online Debate:

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

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

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

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

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

29.5+ — the top speaker at the tournament.

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

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

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

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

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

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

K Affs and Framework:

1. I have coached all sides of this debate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kritiks:

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

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

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

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

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

Topicality:

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

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

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

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

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

Theory:

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

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

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

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

Counterplans:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disadvantages:

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

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

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

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

Ethics:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miscellaneous:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4th year of HS policy.

Hi,

I'm a parent judge who hasn't judged many rounds. Please don't spread because I won't be able to hear what you are saying. Make sure you explain things well, and be clear. Don't be disrespectful.

Thank you.

our team email is lowelldebatedocs@gmail.com