UPDATE: FEBRUARY 2024

Include me on the email chain: Irvinalvarado@outlook.com

It’s been over a decade since I was last active in this activity. To put this into context it means that if you’re currently a high school senior, the last time I judged a debate round you were in second grade (and you weren’t even old enough to enroll in school if you are a freshmen). This has certain implications for you:

First, I am verbally/vocally out of practice – this means i may have trouble with understanding spreading and/or remembering the meaning of certain debatery jargon right off the top of my head,

And Second, technically/tactically—I have not flowed any debates in a very long time and I am old. This means I might not write as fast as you might be able to speak. NOTE: this does *not* mean you need to go slow In front of me or that you can’t spread at all – you can –what it *does* mean is that if you notice my hands are starting to cramp while I am trying to flow your speech, maybe slow it down just a little.

*Background*

I debated for two years in high school and three in college and coached/judged high school (as well as a few rounds of college) debate on and off for three years. I started debating in high school for the Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League where I learned how to debate and argue “traditionally” or “straight up”. I finished my high school debate career in the Octas of the NAUDL Championship Tournament. Once graduating high school, I began my college debate career debating for CSU, Fullerton where I transitioned into more “critical” modes of debate, mainly focusing on criticisms based on sex/gender, race, as well as performance based arguments. I also debated for Weber State University in Ogden, UT where my research and argumentation interests gravitated towards both high theory post-modern critical analysis as well as stand-point location race and whiteness arguments. I ended my career at Fresno State University where I focused largely on critique largely based on radical queer theory (particularly queer negativity – odds are you’ve probably heard about me if you’ve heard about that one college debater reading the AIDS Good AFF).

NOTE:

While it is no secret the debate community is more polarized now than it has ever been, don’t for one second let my debate careers argumentative evolution trick you into thinking that I am some critical debate hack who you can file away in your “check in” folder – doing so is a disservice to you as a debater and to me as a critic; I don’t think one style of debate is better than the other. You won’t get my ballot just because you read a K in front of me if you debate poorly. Put simply:

· If you’re a project/performance/k debater – I’m with you.

· If you’re a traditional/roleplaying/policy debater – I’m with you.

I’ll enjoy a good politix/xo debate as much as a one-off K debate any day.

What I’m trying to say is that you shouldn’t feel obligated to change or Taylor your strategy because of me. I loathe the way judges and coaches who’s days as debaters have long since been over continue to try and make the activity continue to revolve around them; debate shouldn’t be about me and what I like but about the current debaters themselves; read what you want, argue how you want – I’ll do my best to judge you to the best of my ability.

*SPECIFICS*

AFFIRMATIVES:

Traditional AFF’s: Run em. Love big economy/hege impacts. Have solid link/internal link chains and come decked out with overviews for each speech that extend/explain your case.

Critical AFF’S: Love em. One thing I will say, though, is I usually prefer a critical affirmative which has at least some relation to the resolution, meaning: if you’re going to run a critical AFF (whatever variation of), try not to just get up and read something completely random. Instead, read critical affirmatives that criticize the topic, have specific topic links, as well as solid reasons which merit justifying a critical affirmative.

FRAMEWORK:

Framework: I’m a little iffy about framework debates. On one hand, I like clash of civ showdowns, on the other, I dislike how dry and boring they can be. If you’re going to go for a framework debate, try not to rely on overused framework backfiles.

OFFCASE:

Disadvantages: Run em. Make sure you have a central overview for each speech and can keep up with the line-by-line. I have a special place in my heart for good politics debates or debates where the DA in question accompanies a good CP.

Counterplans: CP’s are pretty great. I’m down with Agent Cps, Timeframe CPs, Advantage CPs, but love a good word PIC or solvency PIC. As a competitor, I made learning how to debate PIC’s and Text/Funct comp theory a part of my overall staple as a debater.

Kritiks: Make sure you have clear links/impacts and an alt for your K. Overviews can’t hurt you, either. Something I’ve noticed about high school debaters running the K is that they often have a hard time in big k debates like cap k debates where the 2AC pummels the k flow with perms and impact turns. My advice is as follows: if they K is going to be the argument you’re going for in the 2NR (if you’re a one off K team), split the block strategically. That is, the 2N reads an overview and handles the link/impact debate while the 1NR handles the alt/perm debate. My coach always said “the 2NC is the beat down and the 1NR is the kill shot” so make it count and make sure that coming out of the block, you’re winning most of the offense on the flow. (Note: Please see Paragraph 2 of Final Thoughts for specific K information).

Theory: It breaks my heart with the first c-x of the 1N isn’t what the status of 1n off cases are. If you’re gonna debate theory, debate it well. Keep up with the line by line, impact out the theory flow. I tend to err neg on conditionality but should the neg drop theory, don’t be afraid to go all in – I’ll def sign the ballot your way.

PAPERLESS DEBATE:

I transitioned to paperless debate while debating at Fullerton after debating strictly on paper up to that point. While it was hard to transition to at first, I found that I quickly fell in love with the financial benefits and the efficiency in evidence production/sharing/transportation both at and on the way to tournaments. However, I have found that as a judge, I get extremely annoyed with bad paperless debate, and as a result I’ve established a few paperless guidelines:

If you need to flash, then you need prep: Prep time does not stop when you’re ready to start flashing evidence, it stops when the other team has the flash drive in their hands.

Don’t be a jerk, format your evidence with Verbatim: Compatibility issues are annoying for all involved. If you’re paperless, you should be using verbatim anyway.

Paperless/Paperless debates: in the event of a paperless team debating a paper team, I defer the responsibility of having a viewing computer to the paper team. If the other team carries around tubs full of tangible paper evidence for you to hold and see, the least you could do is make sure they can see the evidence you use against them.

Failure to adhere to the above paperless debate guidelines will result in the docking of your speaker points beginning from a tenth and increasing after the failure of adhering to the first warning. Nobody wants to sit and waste time they could possibly be judging an amazing and engaging debate round staring at a debater struggle to open a file you didn’t save in the correct format.

SPEAKER POINT SCALE:

I disperse speaker points based on a normative scale and try to shy away from low point wins. The most I can tell you regarding speaker points goes as follows:

Policy teams debating the line by line: The highest speaker points go to the winning team. If you are going too fast or I don’t catch an argument/don’t speak clearly, the burden is not on me to figure it out but rather for you to make sure I am following the debate. I don’t have my laptop open and am online during your speeches for a reason – take advantage of that. I refuse to do work for you. Speaker points will be dispersed anywhere between the scale of 27-28.5. On rare occasions I have been known to give a 29-29.4 but nothing higher than that. Don’t expect higher than that for me.

Critical/Pefromance teams: I’m all about the performance and the critical debate but that does not mean I will inflate your speaker points. Don’t think that just because you rapped a bit or spoke from a personal experience that you deserve the highest speaks – at best I might give you a higher ranking (see “Note” section above).

ETHICS CHALLENGES:

It seems as though ethics challenges are becoming more prevalent now both in the high school and college debate circles. I’m generally not a fan of them and have been taught to debate cheaters and beat them. However, if you feel like the team you are debating has an unfair advantage (such as in round discussions with coaches over an online medium, card clipping, etc) feel free to voice them. The round will stop and I will proceed to go to tab and proceed from whatever directions they give me from there.

Note: Be sure you are making a legitimate ethics claim, there is nothing more annoying than a debater who makes an ethics claim for something silly like “they gave us the cards in the doc out of order” – the purpose of the document is so that you can see the cards. Keeping a proper flow resolves most of the offense of that argument.

FINAL THOUGHTS:

Unlike other judges, i'm comfortable with admitting my limitations and embracing my shortcoming. That being said, i should probably mention that while i don't often run into this problem, i have judged rounds where i had a very hard time flowing arguments being delivered at a very high speed. This by no means is me telling you you can't spread; instead, spread but be conscious that if you are going TOO fast, i might not catch some of what your saying (a clear sign of this is when you jump from one flow to another and it takes me a little while to finish writing the argument on the current flow before jumping onto the new flow).

Another thing i should include is that while i love the K and could probably be considered a "critical debater" based on my time at Fullerton, i'm not as well versed on all of the rez-to-rez debate philosophers (aside from Nietzsche, Foucault, Heidegger, Spanos, Said) but that doesn't mean i won't be able to judge them. If you think i'm struggling with your argument, include an overview with a clear summarization of the argument and do extra detailed link and impact work on the line by line.

All in all, Debate and debate well. Have clear and accessible overviews for your central positions. Respect your opponents and their property, make eye contact with me and not your opponents. Impact out your claims, extend your evidence properly (claim/warrant), and give me reasons why you deserve the ballot. At the end we’re all here to have fun and win, let’s make sure its enjoyable for everyone involved.

he/him/his

email: jchoe001 at gmail

Notre Dame 2012 - 2016
Northwestern 2016 - 2020

Judging/coaching for: Notre Dame, New Trier
Overall experience: ~100 varsity policy debates judged including a dozen or so elim rounds

ETHS note: ***I've judged a single tournament on the 2019-2020 topic*** so pls try to avoid acronyms and spend a bit more time than usual on t if you want me to understand your arguments (goes for both aff and neg). This also means that I will be reading more cards after the round than usual - this is only bad news for you if 1. your ev is bad, or 2. your ev says something different than what you/the tag says

The information you came here for:

More Policy than K.

Other things:

Topicality

Neg should provide a caselist and impact out their standards (ground is not an impact it's an internal link to terminal, portable impacts like research skills). Likewise, the aff should impact out their offense i.e. overlimiting and reasonability.

I like card-heavy techy T-debates.

Disads

Sure.

Politics DA's are ok. I love it when they're innovative/tricky, but not in the way that people usually define those terms. I don't really like riders, time/focus tradeoff links, and other versions that link off of fiat rather than the substance of the aff

I like reading cards - please have good ev.

Impact calc is my favorite part of disad debate so do that well and you will be rewarded

Counterplans

Anything goes if you can win that your counterplan is legitimate. With that being said, I'm a bit tougher on the neg with counterplan theory than others, so treat the theory debate like a T debate and define your standards, impact it out, explain your model of competition, etc.

I'm often persuaded by sufficiency framing but am not super persuaded by 1% risk of net benefit.

I don't default to judge-kick but I'm more than willing to hear a debate on whether that's a thing I should do.

Kritiks

K debates have been very hit-and-miss in my experience judging. The tend to be either really lackluster or really good. If Ks are your thing and has always been your thing then do your thing don't change anything for me. But also even if you're just experimenting with Ks you can still read it in front of me anyways and I'll make sure to give you lots of feedback. tl;dr not a "k hack"

"Non-traditional" affs

They're fine. They should probably have something to do with the topic but the meaning of that statement is up for debate. I think that k on k debates are fun and should probably include a discussion of whether aff gets perm. If you're neg, don't throw shit at the wall and see what sticks (I don't have a strict criterion for this but I'll know it when I see it).

I don't think framework is a "generic" vs. k affs. I think with the right nuances, it's probably the best substantive argument. Usually I find the impact debate very lacking from the neg, while it is way too heavily focused on by the aff. I think my judging record on framework vs. k aff is about 60/40.

Theory

As a default, I consider conditionality to be the only worthy theory argument to be a voting issue. Doesn't mean I won't vote on other theory arguments - just means that you have to explicitly impact them out more.

I also don't reward gotcha-type theory args that teams extend for 10 seconds every speech. Don't expect me to vote on them.

I don't like performative contradictions but I love perf con debates. I am making this position very explicit in my paradigm to discourage people from reading things like cap k + a politics DA with econ impact and legalism k + agent CP. But this doesn't mean I'll automatically vote aff if the neg reads performatively contradicting positions, it's actually somewhat opposite - affs have a good chance of winning on perf con in front of me but has to actually invest time developing and extending it.

I debated at Notre Dame High School for a year and a half. I'm a little rusty on debate lingo but I'll catch on quick. I usually favour the kritik, but don't be discouraged from running policy args. My philosophy is: if you can run it well, do it. Spreading is not only okay, but encouraged as long as you are clear. 

ryanleigh25@gmail.com

La Costa Canyon '16
UCSB '20 (English and Philosophy)
I debated in LD for 4 years at La Costa Canyon High School (aka Leucadia Independent), and have judged 3-5 circuit tournaments per year since I've been in college.

1 - phil

2 - K

3 - tricks and larp

4 - theory/T

Debate in the style you feel most comfortable, however I prefer philosophy and high theory oriented rounds. I was a very positional debater and prefer grander framework debates to very technical ones. I can keep up with tech and speed, but at a certain point blazing through analytics in the 1ar will work against you.

I will vote for any argument that you can fully impact back to a ballot. Every round I will vote using the same mechanism. I will determine what the most viable framework/standard is and vote for whoever has more offense under that framework. If the debate lacks any discussion of framework I will decide based on what standard seems most relevant to the impacts each debater has gone for; this is usually some sort of consequentialism. Essentially, I default against epistemic modesty and evaluate the round according to whatever mechanisms for voting are presented. Of course, this means that if you win arguments for epistemic modesty I will adjudicate the round under that standard, but it will likely be messy.

About Me: Debated for Notre Dame HS (Sherman Oaks, CA) 2012-2016. Quarterfinals of the TOC in 2015. Top Speaker at NDCA Championships 2015

Favorite Debaters and Coaches: Christina Tallungan, Andres Gannon, Andrew Markoff, Hemanth Sanjeev, Elsa Givan, Ryan Wash, Harry Aaronson, Aron Berger, Alex Miles, Natalie Knez, John Spurlock

General Notes: Down for whatever, just do your thing and do it well. Haven't judged in a while (Berkeley will be my first tournament of the 2018-2019 school year) so go a tad slow and assume I know nothing about the topic. I generally was policy in high school but also went for k's (mostly security) a lot. Generally tech over truth. Went for almost everything in high school at least once, including t, politics, security, heidegger, wilderson, anthro, and framework.

In high school I debated for two years at Stern Math and Science School. In college I debated for three years at California State University, Fullerton. 

My Evaluation

I find debate is an educational activity. What that looks like is up to the competitors, I will try and insert myself as best I can. My role as a judge is to be an educator and mediate between competing interests.

Judging 

I may have not heard of your Kritik/Affirmative/Disadvantage/Counterplan/ etc. Don’t be offended. Don’t assume. In general it is best to err on the safe side and explain the plan function, the thesis of the disadvantage, and how counterplans avoid net benefits. 

Framing debates- An easy way to ensure higher speaks and tell me how and what to evaluate in 2nr/2ar is to have an ethos moment. An ethos moment tells me how to filter/view the debate.  

Explanations over cards. I usually award my ballot to debaters who create a story and have good analysis of their arguments. Like a lot of judges, smart arguments can beat carded evidence. 

I perhaps am considered a "K hack". This by no means suggests I do not/prefer not to judge policy rounds. I find that there are good things from the policy side as well as the critical side. 

Things I like to see in a round

Courtesy. Be nice to your partner and opponents.

Be prepared to defend everything you say, do, or justify.

Time your own prep and your opponents.

Prep ends when flash is handed to opponents, otherwise I will deduct speaker points at my discretion.

Ethics

Cheaters! You will lose. No clipping. No power tagging. No plagiarizing. No exceptions.

*The opposing team must prove without a doubt that such instances occurred. Video recordings resolve this for me. Punishment for stopping a debate and failing to prove dishonesty will result in an automatic loss or some consequence at the discretion of tournament officials. 

Argument prefs

Counterplans- Read the plan text slowly, also extending the plan mechanism in later speeches is not a bad idea. Explain how the counterplan solves the net benefit.

Kritiks- Good plan and advantage links are very appreciated, as is alternative explanations. Avoid lengthy overviews as much as possible. Because of the complexity of Kritik debates, I suggest you read the Miscellaenous section and the Framing section of my philosophy. 

Disadvantages- Explain the story. I want to know very specifically what the affirmative does to uniquely trigger the link. The neg fares better chance at winning a disadvantage in front of me if I am clear on what the aff is or does.

Topicality- Slow down. I want to hear the interpretation and standards. Explicit extension of the interpretation(s) is most crucial here. 

*On issues of Kritik affirmatives, I do evaluate impact turns to arguments such as Topicality.

Theory- Mostly a nonstarter. I do not like this trend of two second voting issue theories. I consider theory to be a legitimate argument to ensure fairness, and when applied in situations that merit theory I can vote on it. Ridiculous or excessive theories will result in lower speaker points. That being said, I will vote for conceded theory arguments.

Permutation- Make it clear in 2ac when they are made. Also please explicitly extend the perm you go for in later speeches. I don't like guessing which perm you go for.

Independent Voters- I do not like the idea of evaluating issues independent of arguments that you go for. If you really want me to vote on one specific argument, I expect the whole 2nr/2ar to be just that. 

Miscellaneous

I've noticed that when evaluating kritik debates, a clear articulation of links/link turns has been lacking:

1) I am not usually persuaded by links of ommission/deliberate exclusions of ....

2) Links that indict knowledge/logic and/or representations must show exactly how those representations manifest into something bad. (Historical analysis helps do this). 

Ask me any questions before the round starts. 

Peninsula ‘17

Dartmouth ‘21

raamtambe@gmail.com

UPDATE: 2022-2023 season 

I am no longer deeply involved with topic research. I most likely won’t know what’s going on (not sure if I ever did). 
Be like el Greco and give me a bigggg picture. 

UPDATE: 2021-2022 season 

Imagine yuppie John Turner and begin.

***Paradigm – updated as of 4/13/20****

General:

1. Please do line by line. If you do not, I will not just “flow straight down.” If your speech does not follow any order, I will consider arguments that are not directly addressed as dropped. If you number your arguments, all the better.

2. I care more than most about the academic validity of your argument. I find that smart analytics can overcome unqualified or generally weak evidence (whether too old, out of context etc.). A general rule of thumb here is “don’t be preposterous.”

For plan/counterplan/disad/case debates:

1. Plan (and counterplan) texts must be specific. The aff does NOT get to "define what their own plan means," the plan text means only what evidence supports it to mean. Similarly, the aff does not get to make arguments regarding what they will defend "for the purpose of disads." If you read a plan that's vague, you do not get to say "no link - we only do x version of the plan," unless of course you read evidence that says the only or overwhelmingly likely way for the plan to occur would be through that mechanism. Negs should take advantage of slippery plans by making solvency arguments, and, in rather egregious circumstances, read a specification theory argument. This does not apply to agent specification unless the agent of the plan seems highly relevant to the topic, such as for example on the executive power topic.

2. Link > Uniqueness.

3. Not a great judge for politics DA/process CP: see #2 in the general section.

4. Theory: I’m hard to sell on international fiat good. I think that is my only atypical theory opinion.

For critiques:

1. I’m a tough sell on any totalizing framework argument: I don’t think I’ll ever vote on “aff doesn’t get a plan,” “alternatives must be counterplans,” or “ROB/ROJ: aff impact only thing that matters,” unless they are dropped.

2. Specificity matters (in most cases). If your 1NC shell and 2NC link blocks don’t vary based on the 1AC, don’t take me. Equally, if you read the same set of 2AC cards against every critique, don’t take me.

For T/neg theory:

1.T v affs with a plan:

a. I’m hard to persuade on “overlimiting” because I find it hard to believe the community would exhaust the possible arguments for a given case. Barring a few circumstances, the aff should go for “arbitrariness” as their primary piece of offense.

b. “Reasonability” does not mean auto-vote aff.

2. Specification arguments/other procedurals:

a. Fine but must be developed and supported by evidence.

b. I will allow either side to make reasonable cross applications to answer shallow theory arguments like a dropped 1 sentence aspec shell.

3. T v planless: Please pay attention to your opponent’s arguments. I often find myself making decisions in these debates simply because one side has dropped a series of arguments made by other. I believe that is because teams tend to go on “autopilot” in these debates. Like #2 in the critiques section, your argumentation should make clear that you recognized your opponent’s arguments and accordingly tailored your explanation.

5 years of policy

Northwood High 2013-2014

Santa Margarita 2017

University of Chicago 2022 (not debating)

Currently on a gap year, haven’t judged any rounds on this topic/worked at a camp so I’m not familiar with the topic lit/abbreviations. Might be rusty w/ processing speed, will let you know if I can’t understand what you’re saying. If there’s an email chain, please include me-nataliewang@uchicago.edu

My partner and I ran both policy and critical arguments in HS. I’m not very familiar with high theory, but I’m willing to evaluate it as long as you explain it/why it matters, just like any other argument. K affs and FW are both fine, but if the aff isn’t related to debate and/or the topic or the neg makes a good argument about predictability/ground/education etc. , I’m likely leaning towards FW.

Re: DAs/Ks, generic is fine but I love specific links. Make sure you’re doing impact calc.

I love a good case debate.

Although I had strong opinions about issues like competing interps vs reasonability or certain theory args in HS, I feel that the debate should be about the debaters, so I’ll try to ignore my predispositions when deciding. I’ll vote based on the args in the round. I do have some general thoughts though:

Detailed explanations > bad cards. Flashing isn’t prep unless you’re taking a really long time. Judge kick is fine. Zero risk usually isn’t a thing. Condo is usually good especially if it’s only 1 or 2 CPs. If you say dispo good, make sure you have a good definition of dispo and why dispo is better for debate. Tag team CX is fine but don’t overdo it. Dropped args still need to be explained. Specifics are good. Abhorrent arguments/slurs/insults are bad and your speaker points will reflect that.

Be nice, have fun, make good args. Feel free to email me if you have questions.