TLDR:

ex-LD debater. I really care about signposting and impacts. If you flow a card across, tell me why it matters!

--------

I love cross examination and tend to give high speaker points when someone does great in them. I will keep track of what is said in CX, but bring it up in your speeches to drive home the impact of a line of questioning.

I see a clear distinction between LD and policy debate, and in an LD round, I want to see an LD debate. I judge things through the value and v/c, and expect to see them engaged with substantially.

PLEASE SIGNPOST! I consider myself a flow judge and if you don't signpost, I won't know where you are on the flow. Dropped arguments matter -- if you don't extend an argument through a speech, I can't vote on it at the end.

Impacts for your arguments are critical, as is weighing arguments. I'd love to not just vote based on the number of dropped arguments, or the number of warrants one debater wins versus the other. If you're fighting for an argument, tell me why that argument is important and how it impacts the dialogue of the round.

You'll make my life easier (and reduce the chance of unexpected ballot results) if you give clear voting issues in your last speech. Talk me through the flow and lay out why you're the winner.

Hey my name's Sophie and I used to debate LD for The Meadows School and now I do IEs. 

I judge according to how well you speak and how clearly you present your arguments. Clearly indicate when you are switching points, otherwise you will be marked down.

I judge based on quality of arguments, not quantity. Make sure to thorougly explain each of your arguments rather than briefly mentioning things without a warrant.

Make sure to annunciate and speak at a reasonable pace. 

I also prefer NO THEORY. I favor stock cases but you can run other cases as long as you make everything clear. 

Good Luck!

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.

she/they, lay-uh, not lee-uh

leah.clarkvilla@gmail.com

[Judge Info]

A) I've competed and coached high school and college policy debate since 2008.

B) I've taught new novice students and instructed K-12 teachers about Parli, PuFo, LD, and Policy

C) I am an educator and curriculum developer, so that is how I view my role as a judge and approach feedback in debate. I type my RFDs, please ask your coaches (if you have an experienced coach) to explain strategic concepts I referenced. Otherwise you can email me.

D) I am very aware of the differences in strategy and structure when comparing Policy Debate and Lincoln-Douglas debate.

d)) which means I can tell when evidence from one format of debate [ex: policy -> ld] is merely read in a different format of debate for strategic choices rather than educational engagement.

heads up: i can tell when you are (sp)reading policy cards at me, vs communicating persuasive and functionally strategic arguments. please read and write your speeches, don't just read blocks of evidence without doing the persuasive work of storytelling impacts.

Parts of an Argument:

Claim - your argument

Warrant - analytical reasoning or evidence

Impact - why the judge should care, why it's important

Impact Calculus:

Probability - how likely is it the impact will happen

Magnitude - how large is the harm/who will be negatively affected

Timeframe - when this impact will occur

Reversibility - can the harms be undone

prewritten analytics should be included in the doc. we are online. transparency, clarity, and communication is integral in debate. if you are unclear and i miss an argument, then i missed your argument because you were unclear

for policy and/or ld:

1) AFFs should present solutions, pass a Plan, or try to solve something

2) K AFFs that do not present a plan text must: 1. Be resolutional - 1ac should generally mention or talk about the topic even if you're not defending it, 2. Prove the 1AC/AFF is a prereq to policy, why does the AFF come before policy, why does policy fail without the aff? 3. Provide sufficient defense to TVAs - if NEG proves the AFF (or solvency for AFF's harms) can happen with a plan text, I am very persuaded by TVAs. K teams must have a strong defense to this.

3) Link to the squo/"Truth Claims" as an impact is not enough. These are generic and I am less persuaded by generic truth claims arguments without sufficient impacts

4) Critique of the resolution > Critique of the squo

5) NEG K alts do not have to solve the entirety of the AFF, but must prove a disadvantage or explain why a rejection of the AFF is better than the alt, or the squo solves.

6) Debate is a [policy or LD] game, if it is a survival strategy I need more warrants and impacts other than "the aff/alt is a survival strategy" with no explanation of how you are winning in-round impacts

7) Framing is FUNctional, the team that gives me the best guide on how/why I should vote for X typically wins the round. What's the ROB, ROJ, the purpose of this round, impact calc, how should I evaluate the debate?

8) Edu is important. Persuasive communication is part of edu. when the debate is messy or close I tend to evaluate the round in terms of 1. who did the better debating, 2. who best explained arguments and impacts and made me more clearly understand the debate, 3. who understood their evidence/case the most.

9) Dropped arguments are not always necessarily true - I will vote on dropped arguments if it was impacted out and explained why it's a voter, but not if the only warrant is "they conceded _____it so it's a voter"

10) I flow arguments, not authors. It will be helpful to clarify which authors are important by summarizing/impacting their arguments instead of name dropping them without context or explanation.

Hey debaters!

I'm Braxton! I go to The Meadows and I used to do LD but now do IE events. 

I judge based off of the quality of your arguments. If you make good arguments against your opponent then you're good. If you make good arguments against ALL of your opponents points, then you're great! Clearly indicate when you are changing your contentions/points or you'll get lower speaks.

0/10 would recommend running theory with me as your judge, as I have very strong negative feelings towards it. So NO THEORY.

Also, no spreading. Speaking faster than normal is of course acceptable, but if you get to the point where either I or your opponent can't easily understand you, speaker points are down.

Sassiness is appreciated but don't take it too far as to be condescending or rude. Respect your opponent! If your sass makes me laugh, bonus speaking points!

And don't forget, have fun!!

:)

UCLA '21

Email: cruzchristian.007@gmail.com

Background: 4 years in Policy, PD, and LD.

Current profession: Program Manager in Public Education.

General Preferences:

• Open to all styles: tricks, theory, K’s, policy. Prioritize well-warranted, weighted, and intriguing arguments.
• Avoid enforcing dress code-based arguments; it's an instant loss.
• I appreciate judge guidance, clarity, and clear round framing.
• Tech over truth. Vote based on clear round progression.
• Spreading is okay. Respect is paramount.
• Speak ratings: Humor, unique arguments, and clarity boost scores. Offensive behavior will lower them.
• Provide trigger/content warnings.
• I won't usually comb through evidence unless prompted.

Preferences by Style:

1. K's/performance/planless aff's, T, policy: I'm your judge.
2. Normative phil/framework, tricks, fringe theory: Slow down and consolidate arguments for clarity.
3. Traditional/LD debate styles: Perhaps consider another judge.

In Essence: Your round clarity is key. Give me structure, weigh impacts, and simplify your arguments for me. Be passionate, well-researched, and strategic. Presenting arguments I need to labor over less is advantageous. Avoid jargon without explanation. Make your round memorable, not mundane.

Specific Preferences:

1. Policy/LARP:

• Foundation rooted in defending plan aff's, DA's; familiar with west coast debates and policy strategies.
• Keen on thorough weighing and warrant comparison.
• Advocate for defending policy aff's against k's or philosophy. Justify your stance coherently and develop strong link-turn strategies.
• Have a predilection for specific politics scenarios, from Congress bills to international relations.
• 2 conditional CP's are the limit; answer potential theory arguments.

2. Philosophy:

• Acquainted with Kantian Ethics, Virtue Ethics, Pragmatism, Particularism, Agonism, Butler, and Social Contract Theories.
• Phil vs. K interactions intrigue me, but specific warranting is key.
• Skeptical about author indicts but can be swayed with strong arguments.
• Default to epistemic confidence; open to epistemic modesty if justified.

3. Tricks:

• Open to trick arguments if well-warranted and impactful.
• Emphasize creative approaches and clear ballot stories.
• Advocates for inventive strategies, seeking fresh perspectives.

4. Theory:

• Experience ranges from solvency advocate theory to body politics.
• Ensure arguments aren't overtly violent or excessively frivolous.
• Default preferences: competing interpretations, drop the debater, no RVI's. However, open to changes if justified.
• Emphasize impact turns aren't RVIs, recommending thorough engagement with the flow rather than outright dismissals.

Counterplans:

I appreciate a well-thought-out counterplan. I'm very familiar with process, agent, and advantage counterplans. If you're running a PIC (plan-inclusive counterplan), be ready to defend its theoretical legitimacy. Solvency advocates are crucial. The more specific your counterplan is to the aff, the better.

I generally believe that the aff should get some form of permutation to test the competition of the counterplan. If you’re going for a perm, have a clear explanation of what the perm does and why it resolves the net benefit. I'm not automatically against conditionality, but excessive or abusive condo might be problematic.

Disads:

Clear link stories are a must. Generic links can be okay, but specific link evidence will always be more persuasive. Make sure to weigh impacts and do comparison throughout the debate. It's crucial to have a clear internal link story, and I appreciate teams that take the time to break it down and explain. Impact calculus should happen early and often, not just in the 2NR/2AR.

Miscellaneous:

Cross-ex: I view cross-ex as binding and an essential part of the debate. It's not just a time to clarify positions but also an opportunity to set traps, build your own case, or break down your opponent's arguments. Be strategic.

Style/Speed: Speed is okay, but clarity is paramount. If I can't understand you, I can't flow you. Be especially clear when reading tags, authors, and theory arguments.

Prep time: I'm pretty traditional when it comes to prep time. Once you've called for a card or piece of evidence, the clock should stop, but frequent or long evidence exchanges can be disruptive. Be efficient.

Notes on Decorum: I believe in respect in the round. You can be passionate, assertive, even aggressive in making your points, but there's a line. Personal attacks, discrimination, or any form of harassment has no place in debate.

Final Thoughts:

Debate is an educational activity and a game. Play hard, have fun, and learn something along the way. I'm here to adjudicate rounds to the best of my ability, and I want all debaters to feel like they had a fair shot when they debated in front of me. Always feel free to ask questions before or after the round to clarify my thoughts or decision. Good luck!

LAMDL Program Director (2015 - Present)
UC Berkeley Undergrad (non-debating) & BAUDL Policy Debate Coach (2011-2015)
LAMDL Policy Debater (2008 - 2011)

Speech Docs: Include me on the email chain: jfloresdebate@gmail.com*

-------------------------

*I only check the above email during tournaments, if you're trying to get in touch with me for anything outside of speech doc email chains, my main work email is joseph@lamdl.org.

-------------------------

TL;DR Do what you do best. I evaluate you on how well you execute your arguments, not on your choice of argument.

-------------------------

I believe debate is a space that is shaped and defined by the debaters, and as a judge my only role to evaluate what you put in front of me. There is generally no argument I won't consider, with the exception of arguments that are intentionally educationally bankrupt. I generally lean in favor of more inclusive frameworks, but do still believe the debate should be focused on debatable issues. Regardless of the framework you provide, I need offensive reasons to vote for you.

Most of my work nowadays is in the back end of tournaments, and this implicates how I judge somewhat. I might not be privy to your trickier strategies. Feel free to use them, but know if I do not catch it on my flow, it will not count.

I'm a better judge for rounds with fewer and more in-depth arguments compared to rounds where you throw out a lot of small blippy arguments that you blow up late in the debate. My issue with the latter isn't the speed (speed is fine), rather I'm less likely to vote for underdeveloped arguments. Generally, the team that takes the time to provide better explanations, applications, and warrants will win the debate for me. The team with more complete arguments (claim, warrant, evidence) will will get ahead for me more often than not as long as you also instruct me on the significance of those arguments to the round.

This includes dropped arguments. I still need these to be explained, applied, and weighed for you to get anything out of it - I won't do the work for you when it comes to weighing anything.

-------------------------

Feel free to read your non traditional Aff, but be prepared to defend why it is relevant to the topic (either in the direction of it or in response/criticism of it), and why it is a debatable issue. Feel free to read your procedurals, but be prepared to weigh and sequence your standards against the specifics of the case in the round. Either way, I'll evaluate it and whether or not I vote in your direction will come down to execution in the round. I've voted for and against both K Affs and Framework. Articulate the internal links to your impacts for them to be weighed as heavily as you want.

-------------------------

Speaker Points: I don't disclose speaker points. I don't give 30s because you tell me to for an argument.

-------------------------

Engage your opponents. Avoid being rude and/or disrespectful.

If you have specific questions about specific arguments let me know.

I'm a freshman at Wesleyan University and I debated LD for four years at Brentwood School in Los Angeles. Facebook message or email me (carsonahorky@gmail.com) with questions
I HAVEN'T THOUGHT ABOUT DEBATE IN LIKE A YEAR PLEASE SLOW DOWN AND EXPLAIN STUFF K THANKS.
PLEASE PREFLOW EITHER BEFORE THE ROUND OR DURING YOUR OPPONENT'S PREP TIME I HATE WAITING FOR THIS

Short version: be smart and nice.    Automatic sub-25 speaker points/ likely loss for any of the following:  -disclosure theory. Just don't.  -if you are aff and don't affirm in some way  -skep triggers-- if you're gonna run something as blatantly bad for debate as skep, at least have the courage to be up front about it -running skep clearly as an avoidance of substance or anything that might resemble quality debate -arguments that implicate that racism, sexism, genocide, homophobia, etc are good.  -being a dick    Defaults  -Comparative worlds* -Theory is drop the arg  -Fairness is a voter -No RVIs -Competing interps** -Theory before T  -Theory on the K before K; K before unrelated theory -Presume aff or whoever is being nicer*   *Things I probably won't budge on. I'll most likely evaluate the round this way    **Note about reasonability: I have no idea what a reasonability brightline could possibly be. My "gut check" usually tells me that most arguments in debate are dumb anyways, so why would my gut check go in your favor? For me, reasonability is a cop out for people who know they violated theory and don't know what to do about it. If you ask me to use reasonability, I'll just default to competing interps because I think the more reasonable argument is one that links offense into an interp.    I'm probably flowing by hand and therefore going slower than most judges. I'll say slow and clear, but if I'm losing you, I'll just stop flowing. I won't vote on arguments that I don't have on my flow, so be careful about this.    For some reason I'm really bad at flowing theory implications-- I don't know why. But go slower for theory voters, drop the debater/arg, and RVIs    Just some things: -Merely being more leftist will not win you a K debate. I don't know why debaters think that K args are so special that they can go unwarranted and unexplained and then call their judges racist and evil for dropping them. Bad K debate will max your speaks at a 27  -I will not vote for arguments that I do not understand  -Risk of offense if not a compelling reason to vote for you. Obviously there's a risk of offense. Literally everything has a risk of offense. -if you're a privileged white kid, please for the love of God don't read anything that implicates that you're black. You're not black. Stop.  -don't read purposely confusing positions. It's no fun for anyone involved. -if you're gonna read a PIC, you might as well look at me and say " I don't know how to respond!!"  -if this is a lay tournament, I will judge with a lay paradigm -Politics/Election DAs make me sad    -you might get a little speaker point bonus for making jokes regarding any of the following: West Wing, Game of Thrones, anyone from the Class of 2015 or 2016 at Brentwood, or Achal Srinivasan. DEBATE PHRASES THAT MAKE ME SAD: 1.  "That's an empirical claim without an empirical warrant" (@greenhill Wtf does this mean) 2.  "Infinite regress" without explaining  3.  Anything Bostrom says.

Hello everyone,
I have debated policy for two years with LACC and continue to be involved with the debate community for about three years (assisting teams and judging tournaments). This paradigm should be applied to any round I judge, whether it is LD, PoFo, Parli, Policy and anything else debate related. 

I am open to any type of debate as long as it make sense, so that means you as a debater should tell me how your aff response the resolution (or not). If you are the neg, tell me why the aff is wrong. simple, right?!

Speed: I can flow it, but I do not like when i cannot understand the words that are being uttered. So please ENUNCIATE! 

I am good with T's, K's, and theory, but be advise that I do not want to hear pre written blocks that have no clash. This makes the debate boring and less educational for everyone in the room. I would also like to say, if you are running a K that you are running in the aff and the neg, i expect you as a debater to make CLEAR connections. 

If you have a straight up debate, that will make my day because we will be doing what this activity is set out to do. haha

CX: I do pay attention, so I might flow it I might not. So I hope this sways you to use your CX usefully. Be polite, I do not enjoy yelling and I bet your opponent does not either. I will dock you speaker points if you are just  being rude (you might get the round, but not the speaker award). 


I expect from all debaters to paint me the BIG PICTURE!!!!!! By the time we get to the rebuttals, start collapsing to your strongest points to justify your position. Give me the impact calculus, turns, net benefit, and/or anything that makes your case.   
Please do not read evidence in the rebuttals or just sight your cards, but instead tell me how your evidence should give you the win.

dropped arguments I do weigh heavy in the round, if used correctly. Extend the dropped argument and tell me how that drop argument works in your benefit. This brings me to my last point, please do not use only debate jargon and expect me to do the work for you. I expect you to tell me how it works in your favor. 


I am also open for questions before round, so please ask for clarity if there is something you need answer. Let these long debates begin! 

I am a flow judge. I believe a student should respond to every argument, thus if a student drops arguments they would most likely drop my ballot. I also believe that link analysis is one of the most important parts of the debate, so the student that would be able to link best and turn their opponents links the best; that student would win my ballot. Lastly I’m a big fan of Impact calculus, thus explain to me your impact, paint me a picture, and tell me why your impacts outweigh your opponents.

Hi my name is Naba and I used to do LD debate for The Meadows School and now I do IEs.

I judge based on clarity and quality of your arguments. You need to speak clearly and artiulate your words. Please DO NOT SPREAD. You can still talk fast but if I cannot understand you, you wil get low speaker points. Talk loud enough but do not scream at me. 

Also, I prefer if you DO NOT RUN THEORY. Just so you know, stock cases are my favorite- AKA a framework, value, and contentions. 

Make sure you argue framework well and do not drop contentions. 

Good luck!

I like persuasive arguments that clash.  Lots of weighing yay!! 

I do not like theory that much but will look to it if you weigh it to the importance of the round.  

I am fine with speed as long as you slow down for tag lines and speak clearly.  

If you're actually reading this--let me know you've read this!

My name is Rummel but I go by Mel. I am a former varsity LD debater for the Meadows School.

Speed is not an issue but slow down for tag lines and author names, please. Quality overquantity, if you are unclear, I won't tell you, I'll just dock speaker points. 

I hate theory. If your opponent is being abusive, call them out on it as a coherent argument, you do not need to write an entire offcase about it. 

I love Kritiks! As long as you know what you're talking about!  

Be assertive and have confidence. Your arguments should be convincing but don't be rude, I do not tolerate it. Be kind to your opponent and be kind to me.
 
I live for bad puns and corny jokes. Try me, maybe you'll get higher speaks. Or make an Alderete joke and you'll probably get higher speaks, too.
 

Can't wait to judge you!