I've been judging for 3 years now and enjoy it a lot. One of my biggest pet peeves is spreading. I am arguably the most anti-spreader judge on the circuit :') I want to learn the topics that are being debated and be able to discern who does a better job of articulating their case. If I can't understand what is being said, it's difficult for me to be able to do that.

Loyola Blakefield HS, University of Maryland, Howard Community College


I competed for Loyola Blakefield in Towson, MD between 2009 and 2013. Currently, I am a Junior in College. While I am no longer a debater, I currently help judge/mentor for Loyola Blakefield's forensics team. Moreover, I keep myself in the loop by looking at topics and researching them. 

Judge Paradigm 

I did Lincoln Douglas Debate at various competitive levels between 2009 and 2013 for Loyola Blakefield as well as doing Impromptu in 2013. As of January 2017 I have judged for Lincoln Douglas, Policy, Improptu, Student Congress, Public Forum, Original Oratory, OI,DP, and Dec. My studies and experiences have covered a variety of topics ranging from local politics, health, trading regulation, taxes, etc. at the local and national level.

I believe that, between my experiences as a debater and level of activity within the Forensics scene as a whole, my expertise as a judge covers a rather vast range of topics and styles. To me, there is no set way that a debate should go. Debates are won by the better debater not necessarily by some random argument that one person or another happens to put in their case. It is their job to properly present and defend their arguments. It is not my job to debate for you. Debaters are responsible for connecting their own dots, not spitting information and expecting me to deal with it.

Presentation: I expect there to be a level of decorum and civility upheld throughout the round. I will not tolerate blatant disrespect from or between the debaters in round. While I will not drop a competitor if he or she exhibits improprieties in round, such factors weigh heavily in my distribution of speaker points. If debate is meant to be an educational exercise, then it does not include vulgarities, screaming, or rudeness. 

Speed: Personally, I have no predisposition to speed so long as you are clear and articulate with what you say. I will say "clearer" once if I cannot discern what a debater is saying. If enunciation or speed shows no alteration, then I will not flow what I cannot understand. That being said, I do have a high tolerance for speed- just show common sense and annucaition with how fast you deliver.

Theory/Off Case Arguments: I am fine with theory and other Off Case Arguments in round; I have no predispositions as to how I think a debater should approach a round. While the purpose of any rhetorical exercise is to discuss and discern the implications of the matter at hand, the argumentative parameters of the debate are set by the participants. Tell me how and why your position at the end of the round is superior. As to how one crystallizes the elements in round or presents their arguments, that is completely up to the framework and lens gleaned from the interaction between the two debaters. In addition, cases of abuse must be substantiated and proven; one cannot merely claim abuse and let it lie.

In essence: Give me clear IMPACT ANALYSIS AND thorough DECISION CALCULUS. 

Additional Considerations: No matter how a debate ends up being crafted in round, I do expect one thing: substantive clash. If the two debaters are not engaging each other, then the round is effectively useless, like two ships passing in the night. No judge wants to be left without a clear, definitive picture of how the round went or how each debater formulates his or her position. Even if the final RFD is hard to decide, a round of direct clashing is worth a thousand indirect rounds with specious reasoning and obtrusive argumentation.

Pet Peeves: I swear if my competitors have similar or overtly general values and proceed to debate which value is more preferable, I will give them both low speaks. Value debate at that level is practically useless and I almost never evaluate it.

Oral Critiques and Disclosure: If there is time for me to deliver an Oral Critique after the round, then I will. Otherwise, debaters are welcome to come and track me down for an oral critique. My disposition to Disclosure is slightly different. I will ask the debaters if they want me to disclose at the end of the debate. If both agree then I will proceed to do so. However, keep in mind that (at least in my experience), disclosure can be one of the most damning or amazing feelings in debate. If you want that risk, then go for it.

Avoid logical fallacies and personal attacks. You can be aggressive in your argumentation as long as you remain respectful.

Evidence should be well sourced. If there’s a bias in your source, I will probably notice.

A good case is dynamic and able to respond to your opponent’s contentions. If you just talk fast and try to make as many points as possible in the allotted time, I will stop listening.

Consider the real world implications of the things that you suggest. If you argue about these things as if they matter, and try to actually convince me that the world you present is better than your opponent’s, you have a strong chance at winning.

I am a traditional judge who coached the Marriott's Ridge High School debate team for four years and I now also coach middle school debate. I have judged over 50 tournaments and I have extensive college debating experience. I judge both on value criterions and contention level arguments. I am willing to hear and consider progressive arguments but I do not prefer them. I do not like excessive speed. I prefer quality over quantity.

· Speed: "Whatever you think you can do, I can handle". That being said, there is some element of communication that gets lost with speed, especially if your opponent can't handle the same pace. If you go too fast and I cannot flow then you DROP those contentions and evidence, plain and simple. So if you going fast detracts from the quality of clash, then that's your fault, not your opponent's. Also, if you're spreading for the sake of speed, and I can't understand the words that are coming out of your mouth, then there's nothing I can flow. You'll know you're being unclear if my pen hits the desk, I take up knitting, and I give you the death stare.

· Jargon: I'm not a fan of it, as it detracts from the ability for people not well versed in the activity to follow it, but I've gotten used to it.

· Argumentation: LD is a theoretical debate, and if you expect to pick up my ballot, you'll keep it that way. For example, you can talk about Gardasil, but if you don't impact it back to why it justifies compulsory immunizations, you just wasted my time. Also, you're not solving for anything (that's policy). Because it's a theoretical debate, you can't even assume that the problems you want to solve for exist in the first place.

· Kritiks: Cute? Yep. Amusing? You bet. Don't try to skirt the resolution. The debate is supposed to be a battle of competing values on a nationwide topic. When your value is something based around the expanding the education of debate, then you're avoiding the fundamentals of the event.

· Make sure you are somewhat comprehensible when reading cards. I don't need to hear every single word in a piece of evidence but I need to know that you are actually saying something coherent.

· Speaker Points will reflect how well you debated and how well you conducted yourself during speeches and throughout the entirety of our interaction and that with your opponent. My mother used to tell me "if you are really good at something, you will never have to tell people that you are, they will know." In other words, no need to bring your opponent to their knees. You can win with grace and kindness.

Brief Summary:

I went to La Salle and debated in LD for three years and debated in Policy when I was a senior. When I did LD I started out as a more traditional debater but became a bit more progressive through my career. And my time in Policy sorta desensitized me to atypical debate forms, meaning I will judge pretty much anything. I know that's not super helpful. 

Policy background means I love, and I mean love, good impact calc. Mainly, just focus on making well-warranted and impacted arguments, and proving why your impacts are more important than your opponent's. Also, don't be offensive. Any sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, generally discriminatory, etc. rhetoric will probably make me vote you down. We're all here to enjoy debate and the education we're supposed to get from it. Don't ruin it with offensive shit. 

Also. I judge with the mindset of tech over truth. I only judge the arguments that are made in round. I won't infer arguments on behalf of you or your opponent, no matter how intuitive. If your opponent doesn't address an argument of yours, regardless of how ridiculous, I will assume that argument is true. That said, I hate voting for dumb things. So please, please, please address your opponent's arguments. 

Speed is fine. Clarity is more important than slowing down. If you spread, make sure you spread clearly and still sorta enunciate. If your spreading becomes a hum, I'll probably be irritated. Also, slow down for taglines. That shouldn't really need to be said. I'll say clear if you're being unclear. 

I don't flow cross-ex, but if you reference part of cross-ex in a subsequent speech it'll get you hella ethos in my book, so def use that. I prefer when cx is used strategically to undermine your opponent's position, but if you need to ask clarification questions that's fine too. Don't be rude though. You may disagree with your opponent's argument, but I don't wanna see ad hominem stuff. I'd rather see you dismantle the argument. Also, I'm cool with flex prep. 

A little more info:

So I did LD for three years and I saw a lot of weird atypical frameworks and a lot of completely "normal" traditional-style frameworks. I will vote for either so long as they are well justified. This means that you prove why x-weighing system is better than y-weighing system. If you just say that x-weighing system does z-good thing, that isn't really a justification. You need to directly compare to your opponent's framework (unless they drop FW but that would be dumb so don't rely on it). Counterplans are fine, but you're gonna have to prove that they're mutually exclusive. Same with K's. (See policy background above.) Read a Disad if you want...but a DA is basically just a neg contention, so reading it with a separate DA format in LD would be kinda weird. 

The Framework debate should be handled as a weighing system in a way and a moral lens in the other way. I'm not crazy about deon if it's not well-warranted and I find util to be a lot more intuitive and easy to justify...but if you justify a deontological framework well, and defend it well against your opponent, I will probably pick you up on framework. Justifications and warrants and impacts are key. Also. Framework is how your impacts have to be evaluated and weighed against your opponent. Which means if you lose framework and you can't link your impacts into your opponent's framework you're probably SOL. Which is why framework clash is so, so important. Like, even if your values are both Morality you both probably have different conceptualizations of morality, so just because you say your values are the same doesn't mean framework is a wash. Clash. Or you'll probably lose. 

Contention level stuff is gonna be really dependent on your warrants. Policy has conditioned me to care more about cards than about analytics, but if you have a killer analytic and it dismantles your opponent's warrants, I'll probably notice and be impressed. So long as the logic and warrants are clear I probably won't have any issues with your contentions. In terms of impact calc, just be sure to link into the framework that won the framework debate and prove how you can achieve the value in the round better than your opponent. 

K's and critical arguments are fine. Just make sure you clearly articulate what the world of the alternative looks like and contextualize it with relation to the weighing system of the round. If you don't articulate an alternative, I'm going to flow the "kritik" as a disad. Because a K without an alt is really just a disad. Make sure you clearly articulate the alternative and explain why the mindset shift to that of the alt is preferable to SQuo. 

TL;DR weigh your impacts well and make sure your arguments are warranted and don't say offensive shit. Do these things better than your opponent and I'll probably pick you up. 

What used to exist in this text box was a principled stand on my beliefs about what debate ought and ought not to be, what good argumentation looks like, and how the value of this activity as an educational exercise is of paramount importance. Then, after fourteen years involved in debate, I finally learned - debaters will do what they want regardless of my paradigm. So now, rather than list the intricacies of how to win my ballot, I have finally reached a position where I grudgingly accept the fact that debate has changed - I'm not sure for the better - but it's changed nonetheless. As a result, I am open to nearly any and all forms of argumentation, but I will die on the following three hills:

1) Do not spread. Seriously, don't do it. I refuse to move off the concept of debate as an educational activity which develops the rhetorical skills of students. At no point in your life will you need to employ the skill of cramming as many words as possible into a scarce amount of time in order to obfuscate the truth and confuse your listener - unless of course you plan to run for a major elected office. The day I judge a tournament and run into spreading in every single round is the day I leave the speech and debate world forever.

2) The round is won on the strength of your arguments as opposed to the strength of your evidence. Anyone can find any information out there to confirm a perspective. I will not vote for you because your evidence is three months more recent or because your survey sampled ten more people than your opponent's. Please don't get bogged down in the evidence clash - it's boring.

3) Give me specific reasons to vote for you. Literally number them. At the end of a round, judges are expected to render a quick decision with reasons for that decision and turn that reasoning over to Tab to keep the proverbial trains moving. It's a lot easier to do my job when you isolate the key issues in a round and explain why you've won them. Crystallize the debate down to its most essential elements and narrow my view of the round to what matters.

Other than that - it's 2020. In a weird year, feel free to run some weird arguments.

Hi. I debated at Glenbrook North HS in Northbrook for 4 years, 1.5 in policy and 2.5 in LD. I was the LD coach at Loyola Blakefield HS in Baltimore for 3 years followed by being the debate coach for Chicagoland Jewish HS in Deerfield, IL, New Trier HS in Winnetka/Northfield, IL, Bronx Science, Beacon HS in Manhattan, the director of debate at Mamaroneck HS in Mamaroneck, NY and currently the director of debate at South Shore International College Prep in Chicago. I've also worked at multiple debate camps and have been a private coach for multiple debaters. Trust me, I've seen it all.

Last updated 4/9/24. Changed some words and added my judge kick stance.

I'm fine being on email chains but I'm not posting my email publicly. Just ask before the round.

General stuff:

I will vote on any argument, in any weighing mechanism provided. I do not discriminate, I'm find with speed (though sometimes my flowing can be bad), fine with theory, fine with kritiks, whatever you want to do. It's your round, not mine have fun with it.

-Extensions are key! Every extension needs to have the word extend/pull through the flow/or similar wording attached to it. Then it needs to have a warrant for what is being extended, finally the extension needs an impact back to the weighing calculus. If that is the value/value criterion mechanism then it needs to impact back to the VC that is being used for the round. If that is some other mechanism, it needs to be impacted to that weighing mechanism (theory means voters I guess). That weighing mechanism and the warrants for the mechanism should be extended (In a v/vc model the vc should be extended along with the argument). If these things are not done then the arguments will not be evaluated in the same depth and I might not give you credit, or as much credit, for an argument that you may have clearly won on the flow. I guess in simpler terms I have a high threshold for extensions. Also, when extending please extend along with the warrant please compare your arguments to other arguments. The best extensions are not just argument extensions but have comparative weighing along with the arguments.

-Evidence is not inherently preferable for analytics absent some argument for why I should prefer that specific piece of evidence over a generic analytic. Debaters are smart and well researched on the topic (usually) and so should be able to have a command of what is going on equal to/greater than a lot of experts. Trust yourself and talk about why you are correct instead of some rando newspaper writer who has probably done less research than what goes into the typical 1AC.

- WEIGH! One of the things I'm almost always unsure of after a round is which argument to evaluate first. Do I look to the Disad, the spike, the contention 1? Most debate rounds involve multiple arguments that could "come first" and people telling me the order in which to evaluate arguments and which arguments are more important makes my life easier. It also means you'll be more likely to win because the argument that you're saying is most important/comes first is probably also the one that you're winning the most. WEIGH! Seriously WEIGH!

On Non-T affs:

You ought pretend to be topical. Topicality means different things to different people and I think that the topic and what topicality means can change in debate and in different debates. However, the aff should claim that they are talking about the topic. What the topic means to you and how it functions might be different than the "traditional" method and that's fine! How you make that claim or whether that claim is true can be (and should be!) contested in the round.

- Other thing: It has become very clear since 10/7/23 that settler-colonialism justifies mass atrocities. I will vote against it much as I vote against people who say or uphold racist/sexist/homophobic or other harmful ideologies.

- Feel free to come up to me at any tournament and ask me questions about anything, I can't guarantee you a great answer but I can guarantee that I will try to respond.

LD Paradigm:

Things I've noticed about my preferences for debate: (This is just a list of things I like, none of these are necessary to win a round but they do affect my judging)

- I tend to prefer debaters who debated similarly to how I debated. What does this mean? I debated in an old school national circuit LD style. On the aff that meant a very broad criterion with mutually exclusive contentions that I tried to kick out of as much as possible (usually at the end of the 2AR, I had one contention and maybe framework). On the neg, it meant a short NC, no more than 2 minutes, with extensive analytical responses to the aff. While it might not help you win the round, debate has changed a lot, it will help your speaker points.

- I like a 2AR that isn't on the flow. What does this mean? The 2AR should be more of a story speech that merely references the flow. A lot of weighing/crystallizing or time on voting issues.

-I like even/if stories. They tend to make the round clearer and make my life easier.

-LD debaters need to stop saying "we" when referring to themselves. You are a singular human being and not one half of a partnership. If you say "we" while referring to yourself you will lose 0.1 speaker points. I will also interrupt your speeches to ask "who is we?" Be prepared.

-I'm a leftist politically. Property rights arguments and other capitalist arguments are not particularly persuasive to me and I don't like hearing them. That doesn't mean I won't vote on them, it just means if you have something else it's probably a good idea to run it.

-I presume coinflip. That means if I can't find any offense or way to vote I will flip a coin to decide the round. I have done this quite a few times and never want to do it again but I'm not afraid to do it and if I think your round warrants it, a coinflip will happen. (That said the only times I've done it has been in rounds where there have been on offense by either side so as long as offense exists I will not flip a coin).

-I like philosophy, I am a philosophy major. That said I'm not good at flowing it, especially when spread at the beginning of the speech. So if you do read philosophy slow down a little bit so that I can catch your arguments.

-Going off that last point, my major is in continental philosophy; which means I take classes on all those critical authors you've wanted to use in rounds. Kritiks are wonderful! If you know what are you talking about, please run them in front of me. Ks do not need an alt, though it is preferable. Make sure to understand the interactions between your position and the position of what your opponent is running.

- Please start the AC/NC with I affirm/I negate. It doesn't take away from your word economy and it gives me a second to "catch up" and get used to your spreading/debating voice so that I don't miss your first argument. You don't need to re-state the resolution though, that's unnecessary.

-Something most debaters forget is that as a judge I do not look to see what you are reading while you are reading it. I don't read the cards on the email chain until after the round. Therefore, be more specific in signposting then off the Martin card 1..2..3 etc. Don't just say Martin, say what Martin said as well, because I might not have gotten the author name Martin but I got the argument they made. Also, be clear about where Martin is on the flow. If Martin is a contention 1 card, say that she is in contention 1. Virtual/Computer debate note: I do ask to be on the email chain but I don't read the cards on the chain until after the round so this still applies.

- Policy style arguments have started to come more and more into LD and people like running them in front of me. That's fine, I really like them. However, if you are running them you also take on policy-style burdens. For example, if you read a plan then you have to fulfill the 4 criteria of the HITS (if you don't know what that is, you shouldn't be running a plan. Also, considering the last person to lose on significance was Tom Durkin in the 1978 NDT, significance doesn't matter anymore). Most importantly, is that policy has a status quo whereas LD does not. That means that you need to orally give me the dates of evidence! If you're running a DA I need to know that the uniqueness is actually unique, if it's a plan that the inherency is actually inherent etc. Evidence without dates on it means that I won't give you credit for uniqueness or inherency claims that you need in the debate round. If your opponent points out that you didn't read those dates then I will give zero credit for any uniqueness/inherency claim and assume that your evidence is from 1784 and take away any offense that is based off of that plan/DA (I will also give said opponent at least a 29). So make sure to tell me those dates!

- I've recently read A LOT of social movement theory and have also been actively been involved in crafting strategy for a social movement. This has made me significantly more wary of most kritik alternatives. Kritik alts either make no sense, are not realistic, would never be adopted by wide ranging social movements, or are actively harmful to spreading social movements. It won't change how I vote, if the alt is won, but it does mean that common sense arguments against K alts will be considered more important. But if you look at my earlier stuff from Ks you'll see that I don't even think an alt needs to be read, so, you know, think about that risk.

- A priori/pre-standards arguments/other tricky-esque nibs. If you are losing everything else on the flow I need a reason to uniquely prefer your 3 sentences over the rest of the flow. If that does not happen I will find it very hard to vote for you over somebody else who is winning the rest of the round. Not that I won't evaluate the argument at all it will just be weighed against the rest of the round and if someone else is winning the rest of the round I will vote for the person winning the majority of the round. In simpler words if you go for an a priori, go for it hard. I'm not going to buy it simply because it is dropped.

- Metaethics. Basically, meta-ethics cannot be used as a "magic wand" to get out of framework debate. You still need to provide an ethic to meet your meta-ethic. Just saying my meta-ethical util comes before your ethical deont haha! is not enough. Language might be indeterminate but that doesn't mean we default to util (or deont) unless it's justified.

Since everybody asks me about how I evaluate theory here it is:

I don't mind theory, I will vote on it and I will vote on it in cases where I think no actual abuse has occurred or even times where the argument itself is patently non-abusive. But before you rush to pull out your three theory shells, I really don't like voting on it. Moreover, of all the decisions where people have argued with me after the round, 2/3 of them are because of theory. My paradigm seems to be different than other judges so I would say run theory at your risk. Now of course you're asking why is my paradigm different? Simple because I don't default to a monolithic competing interpretations framework, you don't need a counter-interp/RVI/etc. to win theory (though it is helpful and in a case of offense vs. no offense I'm going to default to offense). I'm not as technical on theory as other judges, simply saying my argument is not abusive, drop the argument not the debater, or even talking about reasonability will probably be enough to convince me to not vote on theory. In other words, I default to reasonability, though will be persuaded otherwise. Also, in a round between two equal theory debaters or even a round where both debaters have competent theory blocks, theory turns into a crapshoot (which, by the way, is most theory rounds) so while I will do my best to sort through it that doesn't mean my decision won't be somewhat random.

Also, I guess most LD judges don't evaluate theory this way so I should point this out. If you only go for theory in the NR/2NR or 2AR then the affirmative/negative does not need a RVI to win the theory debate because the only offense at the end of the round is on theory which means that I am merely evaluating who did the better theory debating and not worrying about substance at all. The RVI only comes into play if there is a contestation of substance AND theory at the end of the debate.

Policy Paradigm:

I will vote on any argument, in any weighing mechanism provided. My main philosophy is it's your round not mine so do what you want. I think a lot of how I judge policy is probably transferred from LD so look there for good stuff. One caveat to that, if there is something that seems very specific to LD (like saying "we" for example) do not bring that into a policy context.

Obviously I have some caveats for that:

First and foremost is that LD is most of what I've debated and coached. Though policy kids have this outdated version of what LD is, there is now every argument in policy in LD also with extra stuff too! I am fine with speed etc. Don't worry about that but I'm still a LDer at heart so be prepared. I've been mostly coaching policy since 2018 or so meaning that I've caught on to a lot more of the nuances of policy debate. At this point I coach more policy than LD so this is changing.

The other important take away is that social conventions of what you can and cannot do in LD and policy are slightly different. For example, RVIs in LD are not joke arguments but made in almost any theory round (though I don't like RVIs in policy). LD does not have the concept of overviews in the same way as policy and what is considered "line by line" is very different. I've been able to figure out most of these biases but occasionally I'll mess up. Just be aware.

I default to reasonability on T and theory issues.

I don't know why this has become a thing but apparently people don't say AND or NEXT after finishing cards in the 1AC or 1NC. You still need to do that so that I know when to flow.

I just learned what this term means but apparently I judge kick if that matters to you (and I think I'm understanding the term correctly)

Utilitarianism is moral philosophy that evaluates the morality of actions based on the consequences. This means that small scale/structural violence impacts are utilitarian because we care about the consequence of structural violence. Stop saying these arguments are not utilitarian or answering them as if they are not utilitarian. They are.

Background: I was a Lincoln-Douglas debater for three years at South Anchorage HS in Anchorage, AK. My circuit was mostly traditional, but I have attended national tournaments such as NCFL and Arizona State. As a result, I have a working knowledge of certain national circuit concepts. I'm currently a student at the University of Pennsylvania that occasionally judges LD and PF.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

How I Evaluate the Round: I start by looking at the framework debate and seeing who wins that debate. Then, I evaluate the contention-level debate through the winning framework and determine a winner from there. I tend to focus on the issues that both debaters focus on in their final speech. I'll buy anything as long as it's well-explained and properly warranted and impacted and whatnot. You can expect good speaks from me if you do a good job of debating the framework. If you prefer the contention-level debate, that's cool too. Just make sure that you do a good job of weighing arguments for me. Also, when you extend arguments, make sure to reexplain the warrant and the impact when you do so. Blippy extensions and arguments are not your friends.

Definitional Debates: Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope. Please try and avoid these at all costs.

Cross-ex: I pay attention to cross-examination pretty closely, but I won't take CX into account when making my decision unless you bring it up in your speech later.

Speed: I'm not the greatest at handling extremely high speaking speeds, to be completely honest. You can definitely talk quickly (I usually talked around 250-260 wpm in high school), but I probably won't be able to properly flow a full-on spread. I will yell "clear" if I think that you are either going too fast or are just unclear. Please slow down for taglines and author names at the very least. Also, please don't use speed to exclude your opponent from the round. If you do it, I'll nuke your speaks because the debate should be accessible to everyone who's involved in the round.

Kritiks: I'm more than willing to buy them, but please don't go overly fast if you're going to run one. I need to be able to actually understand the argument that you're making, and it can be kind of tough to do that if you're going extremely fast. I'm not really well-versed in K literature, so please do me a favor and slow down so that I can actually understand your argument. I won't vote for a K if I don't understand it.

DAs/CPs: I'll buy them as long as you explain them well.

Theory: I'll buy it as long as it's not frivolous theory. Only run it if there's an actual abuse that's occurring in the round. Make sure that you have voting issues when you run theory!

Speaker Points: I tend to be pretty generous with speaker points. My general range is anywhere from 25-30 speaker points. I tend to average between 28 and 29 speaker points. Generally, I calculate speaker points depending on how good of a speaker you were, how smart/clever you were in round, your use of CX, and your organization/use of voting issues in round.

Above all else, have fun! If you have other questions, ask me before the round!

Sheryl Kaczmarek Lexington High School -- SherylKaz@gmail.com

General Thoughts

I expect debaters to treat one another, their judges and any observers, with respect. If you plan to accuse your opponent(s) of being intellectually dishonest or of cheating, please be prepared to stake the round on that claim. Accusations of that sort are round ending claims for me, one way or the other. I believe debate is an oral and aural experience, which means that while I want to be included on the email chain, I will NOT be reading along with you, and I will not give you credit for arguments I cannot hear/understand, especially if you do not change your speaking after I shout clearer or louder, even in the virtual world. I take the flow very seriously and prior to the pandemic judged a lot, across the disciplines, but I still need ALL debaters to explain their arguments because I don't "know" the tiniest details for every topic in every event. I am pretty open-minded about arguments, but I will NOT vote for arguments that are racist, sexist or in any other way biased against a group based on gender identity, religion or any other characteristic. Additionally, I will NOT vote for suicide/self harm alternatives. None of those are things I can endorse as a long time high school teacher and decent human.

Policy Paradigm

The Resolution -- I would prefer that debaters actually address the resolution, but I do vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often. That is because it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question, in the context of the rest of the round.

Framework -- I often find that these debates get messy fast. Debaters make too many arguments and fail to answer the arguments of the opposition directly. I would prefer more clash, and fewer arguments overall. While I don't think framework arguments are as interesting as some other arguments in debate, I will vote for the team that best promotes their vision of debate, or look at the rest of the arguments in the round through that lens.

Links -- I would really like to know what the affirmative has done to cause the impacts referenced in a Disad, and I think there has to be something the affirmative does (or thinks) which triggers a Kritik. I don't care how big the impact/implication is if the affirmative does not cause it in the first place.

Solvency -- I expect actual solvency advocates for both plans and counterplans. If you are going to have multi-plank plans or counterplans, make sure you have solvency advocates for those combinations of actions, and even if you are advocating a single action, I still expect some source that suggests this action as a solution for the problems you have identified with the Status Quo, or with the Affirmative.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part of the card you read needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards after a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot make enough sense of it to write it down, I will not be able to vote for it. If you don't have the time to explain a complicated argument to me, and to link it to the opposition, you might want to try a different strategy.

Old/Traditional Arguments -- I have been judging long enough that I have a full range of experiences with inherency, case specific disads, theoretical arguments against politics disads and many other arguments from policy debate's past, and I also understand the stock issues and traditional policy-making. If you really want to confuse your opponents, and amuse me, you'll kick it old school as opposed to going post-modern.


LD Paradigm

The Resolution -- The thing that originally attracted me to LD was that debaters actually addressed the whole resolution. These days, that happens far less often in LD than it used to. I like hearing the resolution debated, but I also vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often in LD. That is because I believe it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question.

Framework -- I think LDers are better at framework debates than policy debaters, as a general rule, but I have noticed a trend to lazy framework debates in LD in recent years. How often should debaters recycle Winter and Leighton, for example, before looking for something new? If you want to stake the round on the framework you can, or you can allow it to be the lens through which I will look at the rest of the arguments.

Policy Arguments in LD -- I understand all of the policy arguments that have migrated to LD quite well, and I remember when many of them were first developed in Policy. The biggest mistake LDers make with policy arguments -- Counterplans, Perm Theory, Topicality, Disads, Solvency, etc. -- is making the assumption that your particular interpretation of any of those arguments is the same as mine. Don't do that! If you don't explain something, I have no choice but to default to my understanding of that thing. For example, if you say, "Perm do Both," with no other words, I will interpret that to mean, "let's see if it is possible to do the Aff Plan and the Neg Counterplan at the same time, and if it is, the Counterplan goes away." If you mean something different, you need to tell me. That is true for all judges, but especially true for someone with over 40 years of policy experience. I try to keep what I think out of the round, but absent your thoughts, I have no choice but to use my own.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part if the card you read really needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot understand enough to write it down, I won't vote for it. If you don't think you have the time to explain some complicated philosophical position to me, and to link it to the opposition, you should try a different strategy.

Traditional Arguments -- I would still be pleased to listen to cases with a Value Premise and a Criterion. I probably prefer traditional arguments to new arguments that are not explained.

Theory -- Theory arguments are not magical, and theory arguments which are not fully explained, as they are being presented, are unlikely to be persuasive, particularly if presented in a paragraph, or three word blips, since there is no way of knowing which ones I won't hear or write down, and no one can write down all of the arguments when each only merits a tiny handful of words. I also don't like theory arguments that are crafted for one particular debate, or theory arguments that lack even a tangential link to debate or the current topic. If it is not an argument that can be used in multiple debates (like topicality, conditionality, etc) then it probably ought not be run in front of me. New 1AR theory is risky, because the NR typically has more than enough time to answer it. I dislike disclosure theory arguments because I can't know what was done or said before a round, and because I don't think I ought to be voting on things that happened before the AC begins. All of that being said, I will vote on theory, even new 1AR theory, or disclosure theory, if a debater WINS that argument, but it does not make me smile.

PF Paradigm

The Resolution -- PFers should debate the resolution. It would be best if the Final Focus on each side attempted to guide me to either endorse or reject the resolution.

Framework -- Frameworks are OK in PF, although not required, but given the time limits, please keep your framework simple and focused, should you use one.

Policy or LD Behaviors/Arguments in PF -- I personally believe each form of debate ought to be its own thing. I DO NOT want you to talk quickly in PF, just because I also judge LD and Policy, and I really don't want to see theory arguments, plans, counterplans or kritiks in PF. I will definitely flow, and will judge the debate based on the flow, but I want PF to be PF. That being said, I will not automatically vote against a team that brings Policy/LD arguments/stylistic approaches into PF. It is still a debate and the opposition needs to answer the arguments that are presented in order to win my ballot, even if they are arguments I don't want to see in PF.

Paraphrasing -- I have a HUGE problem with inaccurate paraphrasing. I expect debaters to be able to IMMEDIATELY access the text of the cards they have paraphrased -- there should be NO NEED for an off time search for the article, or for the exact place in the article where an argument was made. Making a claim based on a 150 page article is NOT paraphrasing -- that is summarizing (and is not allowed). If you can't instantly point to the place your evidence came from, I am virtually certain NOT to consider that evidence in my decision.

Evidence -- If you are using evidence, I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Pretending your cards include warrants (when they do not) is unacceptable. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part you card you read MUST say extinction will happen. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

Theory -- This has begun to be a thing in PF in some places, especially with respect to disclosure theory, and I am not a fan. As previously noted, I want PF to be PF. While I do think that PFers can be too secretive (Policy and LD both started that way), I don't think PFers ought to be expending their very limited time in rounds talking about whether they ought to have disclosed their case to their opponents before the round. Like everything else I would prefer were not true, I can see myself voting on theory in PF because I do vote based on the flow, but I'd prefer you debate the case in front of you, instead of inventing new arguments you don't really have time to discuss.

I was a Lincoln Douglas debater as a student, and have about ten years of experience judging. I prefer traditional Lincoln Douglas debate, however, I can follow spreading and have become fairly familiar with progressive LD. I tend to vote on framework.

Delivery does not weigh heavily in my decision-making, unless your speed/style becomes an impediment to understanding.

Good communication is a part of LD. Give vocal emphasis to the parts of your speech your want me to pay attention to. Tag your contentions clearly. It is YOUR burden to be clear, not my burden to untangle your lack of clarity. If you want to go fast and read card after card with no analysis, you may do that--but accept the fact that you are not a model of good communication, and I will almost certainly miss important parts of your argument, which is your fault.

LD conventions and decorum matter. Expect to stand during speeches and cross-examinations. Dress appropriately. Wait until everyone is ready before speaking. Address the judge during cross-examination. Be respectful and attentive to your opponent. If you have scorn for their arguments, choke it down. Ignoring LD conventions shows a lack of respect for everyone in the room, and the activity itself.

I expect good coverage, though I will not vote on unrefuted arguments if they don't come up in the round.

I am wary of intimidation techniques used on opponents. You should win the round on the strength of your arguments, not how much you are able to freak out your opponent.

I prefer to vote on which value structure is better upheld. 

I don't respond well to quizzes about how much LD jargon I know. Be clear, be nice, be respectful.

Reading a card/evidence is not an argument. Saying "cross-apply" is not an argument. I will not fill in analysis for you.

I expect crystallization (clear voters) at the end of a round.

I appreciate your speaking slowly and clearly (no spreading).  I believe this is an important skill to develop for all public speaking.  Also, if I miss what you are saying I won't be able to judge it.

 

If you introduce a concept (e.g. social contract) please be sure to provide a clear definition.

 

I appreciate debaters who make full use of the purposes of each stage of the debate.  For example, during negative constructive,  state your case and then argue against the Aff.  In the final phases, make sure you summarize/crystallize your argument, etc. Think about what you want to accomplish in each stage.

 

I choose to judge debate because I find it very stimulating and thought-provoking.  I enjoy seeing different debaters' styles and ways of approaching topics.

 

My hope is that you enjoy the challenge of debate and see everything that happens as an opportunity to learn and improve.

 

Best wishes!

Email for speech docs: alyssastokes19@gmail.com

I am a 6th-year lay judge, former parent from a very traditional circuit. I do have some experience on the national circuit, almost exclusively in lay rounds. I prefer a topical debate on the substance of the resolution. I like a value and criterion, but I don’t make my decision based solely on framework. I expect empirical evidence but don’t want a policy debate. If you are a progressive debater and aren’t willing/able to adapt, you’ll want to use a strike. While I wouldn’t drop you just for being progressive, I probably wouldn’t comprehend enough of your case to make a good decision.

I am comfortable with a lively conversational speed; do not spread. I am a flow judge, and if I can’t understand you due to excessive speed, I will put down my pen. (And you definitely don’t want me to rely on memory.)

Give me voters. If you can integrate them into your final speech, even better.

I suffer from social anxiety and therefore generally do not not disclose in-round unless the tournament requires it, but I will publish the results after I make my decision; my RFD and feedback will be on your ballot. I appreciate your understanding.

Be nice and have fun!

Aimee Sann Paradigm

Policy is a fascinating debate format! I love it, and I am still learning it. If I am your judge and you are sending emails, please include me: sanna@notredameprep.com.

1. Be organized. I prefer claims numbered, deliver tags clearly and with emphasis, roadmaps, and signposting. Otherwise, my flow will just fall apart. My flow will be on paper.

2. Lay out your framework clearly and don’t fail to say why you won. In the end, I need to hear what you believe carries the most weight in the round. How you met your burden. How the other side failed to meet theirs.

3. Don’t assume I know all the jargon. I have familiarity with most of it, but explanation matters.

4. Treat statistics with care. If there is clash on them, I will be attentive to your knowledge of how they are collected and how to measure their strength.

5. In Ks, I will be looking for specificity with reference to the AFF’s plan, and I will be listening for your alts.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Schmidt%2C+Joshua

I debated policy 4 years for Lake City High School in Coeur d'Alene Idaho (ok, technically I debated 3 years for CdA and then 1 year for Lake City which was a brand new school). I did this in the 90s. Policy debate was different back then.

I did not debate in college and have coached for many years now (PF and LD).

Lincoln Douglas

I value the resolution. I believe Aff has a burden to show the resolution is, generally speaking, a true statement. Neg has the burden to show it is a false statement.

The method by which we typically answer the question of the resolution is the criterion (value-criterion or standard). I should note that I am completely open to other methods of answering the question of the resolution. What most people mis-understand is that these methods must actually address the question and not some other question that you wish we were debating.

When it comes time to decide the round I will do the following: First - I will try and decide which criterion to use as a method for deciding the round. This means that you are extremely well advised to compare and contrast your criterion with your opponents. If both criterions are shown to be not worth using then I will just weigh generic “impacts” broadly defined and largely up to my own personal biases. You don’t want this to happen.

If I happen to choose your opponents criterion then you want to link into it and show how you also win the round under your opponents method of deciding the victor. This is a very good idea and I encourage you to do it.

Second - I will use the best criterion to decide the round. This is where I look at your contentions and impact level arguments and decide how they interact with the criterion I am using. Make sure your impacts are clearly applicable under your criterion.

General Notes: Speed - I can handle some amount of moderate speed that is getting less and less as I get older. I will generally not say “clear” because my main problem with speed is that your argument stops making sense to me, I can understand all the words just not the overall meaning. I wouldn’t say “clear” if you made a poor argument and I won’t say “clear” if you make a poor argument quickly.

Warrants - I highly value warrants that are explained well by the actual debater in rebuttals. Thus, you should extend the reasoning behind each piece of evidence in addition to just mentioning its name and assuming I will do the hard work of applying its logic to the round.

Author names - Refer to arguments themselves and not just “author name and #” and expect that to convince me of anything. I am generally unconvinced that something is true just because somebody got it published somewhere. (see point above about actually understanding and explaining your warrants, especially in rebuttals and especially in how those warrants interact with the argument).

Off Topic Arguments - these are generally a bad idea. I only consider the hypothetical world in which we enact the resolution (for the Aff) or negate the resolution (for the Neg). I do not consider “real world” impacts. That being said, if you have a particular argument that actually addresses the resolution then go for it, just be very sure that it actually answers the hypothetical question of the resolution and doesn’t do something else.

Circular arguments - most value debates come down to circular arguments where somebody will say without value X then value Y is meaningless and then the response will be, but value Y is necessary in order to fully realize value X. Understand that you should respond to these arguments if your opponent makes them because a dropped argument is a true argument. But these are unlikely to actually advance the debate in your favor. On the other hand, very specific arguments about values grounded in the resolution can be extremely convincing to me and are often very strategically wise to make.

Policy Debate

Basically, everything I said above about Lincoln Douglas is still true with a couple of relatively minor exceptions. First - Neg has presumption in policy debate and I will vote Neg if no Aff impacts carry through the round.

Second - I want to reemphasize that I view my role as the judge to compare the hypothetical world in which the Aff implements their plan to the Neg world (SQ or CP). The role of the ballot is to endorse the team that best does that and to explain my thinking about that question. I do not listen to any arguments about other ideas you might have about what the role of the ballot or the judge is in the round. Utilitarianism is not the only method for making this hypothetical comparison and I will listen to moral arguments (and indeed welcome them), but they must be grounded in the hypothetical debate world and not the “real” world.





Old Philosophy (basically the same as above, but I felt that I must have been unclear about a few things so I tried to explain better above).
I feel that debate is a game. Games have goals. The Aff's goal is to show that the resolution is generally a true statement. The Neg's goal is to show that the resolution is generally not true. My job is to evaluate who has accomplished their goal better.

The traditional value/value-criterion is a very efficient way of acheiving your goal; I understand what you are doing and therefore you do not need to spend much time clarifying how this causes you to meet your goal. I am open to other ways of meeting your goal, but make sure you are clearly explaining how your argument impacts the resolution. Also, you are probably being much less clear than you think you are, so explain your argument as clearly as you can and then clarify it more.

Speaking of clarity, talking fast really only works if the idea is simple to explain. For complicated ideas you should slow down (and almost *all* of philosophy is pretty complicated). Remember to explain your criterion particularly well as this is where I look to see exactly how you want me to evaluate the round. You want me to understand this very, very well so don't speed through it.

How I decide between two competing arguments. A good argument does the following: it is clearly explained (yes, this is a theme), it is relevant (i.e. it addresses your goal or it actually addresses the argument you are attacking), it is properly explained why your argument might be true (i.e. it has a warrant). It is important to note that bald assertions are not warrants and that quoting an "expert" who then makes a bald assertion is not particularly persuasive to me and can easily be overturned by your opponent's original analysis.

Arguments that the game of debate is fundamentally unfair are not persuasive to me (nothing in life is fair and much of what is perceived to be unfair in one way is actually tilted the other way).

Finally, I love crystallization. At the end of the debate I like a nice tidy list of things I should vote for you on and clear reasons why you are winning that list (it is also very helpful to weigh the arguments you are winning vs. the arguments your opponent might have won).

I am a traditional/quasi-progressive judge. I enjoy creative arguments of any sort as long as they are argued well. However, if you chose to run more policy-oriented arguments, do not drop the value debate. That always is a key element when deciding the round. Also, do not drop any arguments. I am less focused on whether someone followed the correct format of addressing a specific type of argument but rather the analysis and thought behind it.

If an argument is dropped, do not simply tell me that it was dropped; explain the impact of dropping the argument. On the same note, do not just extend all your cards during your rebuttal. That does nothing to help you win the round. Focus on the arguments and provide clear impacts of why specific arguments were dropped.

Use all the allotted time for both cross-ex and rebuttals. Extra time at the end of your speeches hurts your speaker points. Also, provide clear voting issues.

Please road map before your rebuttals and clearly signpost throughout.

I can handle speed but do not spread. The goal is to be comprehensible.

I was a LD debater when I was in high school and have judged for the past 8 years. Additionally, I research all the LD topics. As a result, I am very familiar with the LD format and the arguments for the given topic.

I am a game theorist and policy-maker judge. I will accept any arguments so long as you can prove that they are sound, relevant, and entail resolution-unique impacts. My background is in logic, rhetoric, and philosophy so I expect arguments to be well constructed with sound reasoning and appropriate warranting. I like to see progressive clash in crossfire rather than questions aimed at clarification or exposition. It is my belief that a debate simply cannot be won on content alone so I place equal weight on framework (theoretical) arguments and case (empirical/evidential) arguments. My win condition for debate is not only how well versed and dominant you are on a particular topic but also how well you can debate objectively; some criteria for this evaluation include but are not exclusive to effective use of turns and blocks, effective construction of counterexamples, effective elucidation of advantages and disadvantages of argument acceptance, and effective elucidation of fallacious argumentative methodology. In more empirical formats such as PF I see it as essential that debaters understand the respective fact-finding and research methods involved in their warrants; in other words, debaters should be able to quickly and accurately explain exactly how a conclusion was reached in an academic study, meta-analysis, etc. and furthermore how that conclusion uniquely addresses the claim or claims it is being employed to support. Overall I believe that the purpose of debate is to encourage more comprehensive and diverse education, thus abusive strategies (policy debaters I'm mostly looking at you) rarely win on my ballots.

Topicality is crucial in debate, while a debater may bring up a creative point or piece of evidence , that doesn't mean it will weigh in the debate round if it is not topical.  I recognize that a debater should not only defend their case, but put out evidence refuting their opponent. In LD debate we are dealing with a values based debate so, we should have evidence besides emphircal facts and figures and a debater would do well to use philopshy to show why something "ought" to be a certain way. Performance is a part of debate. Debaters should be able to communicate effectively and not just speed thru a round. It is the quality of the evidence, NOT the amount of evidence that wins a debate case. I do not support the use of counterplans in LD. A critique could work in LD, BUT I have seen very few supported effectively, so this should be done with extreme caution. Avoid using jargon, in the real world people don't use "cards" they use evidence. Speed should be like you were giving a speech, not selling at an auction. Debaters who use philsophy in LD have the advantage because they can prove what is suppose to be and not what merely is in the real world.

 

TL;DR Chart

Feelings |------------------------------------------X| Dead inside

Policy |-----------X-------------------------------| K

Tech |---X--------------------------------------| Truth

Read no cards |-----------X---------------------| Read all the cards

Conditionality good |----------X-------------------| Conditionality bad

States CP good |----------X--------------------------| States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing |---------X-------------------| Politics DA not a thing

Always VTL |---------------X----------------| Sometimes NVTL

UQ matters most |---------------------------X--------| Link matters most

Fairness is a thing |-------------X--------------------------| Delgado 92

Try or die |X-----------------------------------------| What's the opposite of try or die

Not our Baudrillard |-----------------------------X---------| Yes your Baudrillard

Clarity |X--------------------------------------------| Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits |-------------------------X--------------------------| Aff ground

Presumption |---------------------X-----------| Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face |----------------X--------------| Grumpy face is your fault

Longer ev |------------X--------------------------| More ev

"Insert this rehighlighting" |--------------------------------------X-| I only read what you read

Reverse voters are a thing |--------------------------------------X| Spare me

Fiat solves |-------X---------------------------------| LOL someone messes w/ your aff

CX about impacts |-------------------------X--------| CX about links and solvency

Who is this Zizek guy |-----X-------------------------| The Phenomenology is my bedside novel

Expressive|--------X----------------------------| Stoic

Top level

Experience: HS - backwoods regional debate, mostly LD a little PF. College - Policy, 2 years at GMU

I do the flowing thing. I go off the flowing thing.

No disclosure is also dumb. Email me after if you want comments.

My pen is down when my timer goes off.

No I don't want to shake your hand. Sorry.

There is not a world in which underviews are good nor will you convince me there is a world in which underviews are good.

Debate is a game and it should be fun. I'll vote on anything that's not an -ism. Below are just my predispositions that are subject to change.

A lot of people like to outsource violence (oppression, etc.) to other countries when there are a lot to pull from and use in the U.S. Be creative. Many people's struggle and oppression did not end with the Revolutionary War and Civil War despite what the history books try to tell you. Debate is also educational, so educate everyone in the room.

Pandemic Rule

If you show me your fluffy animal, preferably in a sentient format, I will increase speaker point by 0.1 or whatever the equivalent step is for your tournament.

The Gamble

The following will result in a 0-0.5 increase or decrease in speaks

1) Quoting from the band The Wanted.

2) Referring to President Dude in an invalidating manner throughout the ENTIRE debate

Lincoln-Douglas:

Thoughts on progressive: Look to policy. Inserting RVIs and conflating T/Theory will make for a pissy Beth. Don't ask people to delete files you flashed them. That's too extra.

Value/Value Criterion: Need to link to contentions. Obvi. Just the lens on how I should evaluate the round. Conceding this won't lose you the round.

Definitions/Observations: If you're going to talk about it, be self-serving about it.

Contentions: This is where most of the debate is. Everyone seems to be saying the same arguments. Be creative with your argumentation here.

Cross-ex: Make an effort to not look at each other. Please. I don't flow this. CX is binding.

Road maps/Line by Line: Stolen from Sean Colligan. "Debate is a journey and a journey is helped by signpost and roadmaps. Could you imagine trying to find this building without any signpost or roadmaps, it would be chaos."

Policy:

If email chain: beth.f.zhao@gmail.com

I don't run prep for email/flashing. Don't abuse it. If it takes too long I'll start the timer at my discretion but I'll do you the courtesy of letting you know.

Topic research? What's that? 2A's for life.

T: Default to reasonability. If you didn't get to read a stupid process CP it's nbd but if you lost a core of the topic DA then the aff probably isn't T. If you're running spec args set it up in CX otherwise CX checks. Slow down and show me where the clash is.

Theory: Sans condo, reject the arg not the team. But a dropped theory arg is a dropped theory arg. Can't say I'm the best judge on theory. It would be really helpful if you would slow down and do line by line rather than read block your coach wrote five years ago. You get two conditional worlds and the status quo until the 2NR, otherwise I'm pretty convinced by condo bad.

FW: I understand more now as a judge than I ever did as a debater. I was mostly in policy v. policy debates. Take this as you will

CP: Process/Delay,etc. CP's are stupid. Any other CP is a great way to solve the aff. Planks probably shouldn't be conditional. Solvency deficits and perms are ways to my heart. Judge kicking seems cheating but if the 2A doesn't say anything about it then the 2A isn't very good at their job.

DA: While DAs are important, I think it's getting harder and harder to win with just a DA. Links and impact calc are the most important here. I won't not vote on UQ overwhelms

Case: Case almost always gets try or die so if your favorite 2NR is DA and case you should put some link turns on case otherwise it's an uphill battle for you. A lot of 2NRs seem to forget that case is a thing. Most K's don't work without some defense on case.

K: The extent of my k lit are the cards I read in round. From a truth perspective, the K probably links to the aff and the impacts are probably true, but the alt just seems to be some sort of circle jerk. I'd like to think that my ballot does something and I'm not sure if thinking away the patriarchy actually does anything.

K/Performance AFFs: Do your thing and I will try my best to follow. I lean policy. If you can't adequately explain your AFF by the end of the round its your fault. New debaters just don't know debate well enough to say why debate is bad. Young debaters for the most part do not have a solid grasp to debate these affs well.

CX: I don't flow it unless I catch something important. CX is binding. If knowing that I don't flow CX is a reason that you start making things up that will make for a very angry Beth and will reflect in your speaker points.

Random thoughts I didn't know where to put but might be important: Impact turns are da bomb and I love to watch them. The more outlandish the better. Dedev is love. Dedev is life. If you concede 1AC advs and go for a straight turn DA that is not severance.

Public Forum

I evaluate the round similarly to my policy paradigm, happy to answer any questions before round. Below are things I would like to (not) see happen in the round

Strategy. Going for arguments/impacts/scenarios that your opponent dropped and contextualizing it to the round is the best thing you can do. Too often debaters don’t notice dropped/under covered arguments and it’s super frustrating for me bc I already see my ballot written. If you go for harder arguments you’ve made your job harder and mine so now I’m less happy.

Analysis. I guess it’s called weighing but please do this! Depth > breadth. The more you can contextualize your debate for me, the easier it is to write my ballot.

Time keeping. There should be a timer running at all times, whether it’s prep, cross, or speech. This also means you need to time literally everything not only to keep everyone responsible but also to make sure round/tournament run on time. If at any point you have to ask or are asked “are you running prep” “is anyone keeping time” then someone fucked up

General niceties. I don’t care for them AT ALL and teams that really lean into it honestly piss me off. I get it’s PF or whatever, but I don’t really like it. I’ll list somethings that irk me and why.

A) Introducing yourself and team. For the love of god your speech is already so short, just get to the substance. I promise I will not vote for/against you bc you did/not introduced yourself. If it doesn’t count towards the ballot, it doesn’t matter. If you do it during your speech, I’ll be mad bc I don’t think your using your time strategically. If you do it before your speech your adding more time to the round that I cannot wait to get out of.

B) Roadmaps. Love a good roadmap, but your roadmap should be something along the lines of “aff case, neg case. I’ll be starting on x argument”. anything more than that and you’re wasting everyone’s time.

C) Saying things like “I’d like to take prep time” or anything that signals you’re asking me to use your time. It’s weird. It’s your time. Idc how you use it. Take ownership of your time.

D) Normalize “is anyone not ready” before speeches and “you ready” for cross. This is especially important for online environment where verbal cues are a less common. Things like “is my judge ready” really bother me.

E) This is a catch all. Do not involve me into your debate anymore than I have too. I’m here to evaluate arguments, nothing more. Please ask questions before your debate that you think will help you but once the timer starts I’m chilling.

F) This doesn't mean you get to be mean. Filter out what is and is not necessary.