I’m a very simple judge, not many presences or bias towards different types of arguments. I am good with understanding theory or T. My decisions are made simply based on what arguments are won on the flow. Technicalities are a big thing for me, if you make drops or fail to properly extend arguments I will not consider them. I have over 5 years of judging experience in Policy, LD. PF.

Former LD/PF Coach at Marquette University High School in Milwaukee, WI and former PF debater at Brookfield East High School (class of 2014) in Brookfield, WI.

As far as the round goes, my bottom line is that I don’t want to have to intervene so please make the round as clear as possible. Speaking more generally, I think debate can teach

Short Version

LD

I prefer traditional debate.

I'm open to progressive arguments if they're well-presented and clearly link into the resolution, but tread carefully and at your own risk.

Don't spread. It's a cheap strat with no real world value. Left up to me, it would be banned from debate.

PF

PF is supposed to appeal to a lay audience. Please don't be lazy and fire off all your research at me as quickly as possible Be very clear with arguments and thorough with your rebuttals.

Give voters in the Final Focus. Please.

Long Version

LD

I’m theoretically open to anything as a judge so long as you extend your arguments throughout the round, offer good impact calc, and provide solid links to the resolution (especially if you plan on running anything 'progressive'). This may seem basic but it's only happened in 10% of the debates I've judged, maybe less.

As far as content goes, I would much rather judge a traditional debate. This means providing a framework (ex: value and value criterion) followed by a few topical contentions. I'm okay with Kritiks and theory so long as they apply to the resolution. For example, a Native-American oppression K works well with a resolution about education (seeing as the US actively destroyed Native-American culture through boarding schools), but it doesn't work nearly as well when debating criminal justice. In other words, please tailor your Ks (or theory) to the resolution. If you don't, I'll conclude that someone gave you something to read and that you don't actually know how to debate and will be clamoring for reasons to drop you for the remainder of the debate.

Spreading is a cancer in LD debate. Sure, debate is like a game and spreading is a strategy you can employ to win the game, but it's not something you're going to go pro in- there's no professional debate league. The value of debate to you as a debater derives from the skills it equips you with to navigate through life (i.e. research, articulation, persuasiveness, audience adaptation, etc). The point is that spreading is not a skill you will use in life after debate.

To clarify, I won't drop you for spreading but will gleefully tank your speaks. If both debaters want to spread I will judge the round as you wish but will tank your speaks. I'm sure this annoys many of the "progressive" LDers reading this, but if you're actually good at debate, adapting shouldn't be a problem.

PF

It saddens me that I need to put this in my paradigm, but I will drop you if you run anything progressive in Public Forum. PF is supposed to appeal to a lay audience; it is a debate where any generally informed member of the public should be able to judge. If you try and go over the heads of the judge or your opponent and avoid thoughtfully engaging with the resolution, I will not hesitate to drop you on that alone. You are a cancer to PF and should strongly consider moving to policy or LD.

As far as best practices go to win me over in PF (again, pretty basic stuff but I rarely see it in round): make sure you extend any offense you plan on using in the Final Focus through the summary, provide good impact calc (ex: why should I prefer saving lives over saving money?), and please give voters.

It amazes me when I hear people say "and if I have time, I'll give voters." Voters are by far the most important part of the Final Focus. You can't whine about being judge-screwed if you didn't do the work yourself and clarify what the judge should vote on.

Feel free to reach out with any questions: ashveersingh12@gmail.com

I was a policy debater at Cornell University from 2004-2007. While a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, I supported and judged for the debate team at Rufus King International High School in Milwaukee; I have also served as a judge for Ronald Reagan High School for forensics. I am currently the Assistant Director for the Atlanta Urban Debate League (AUDL).

Judge Philosophy

I generally will not do extensive impact analysis for teams who don't do the work in the round. Thus, I will always lean in favor of the team who does a better job of explaining their arguments and how their arguments interact with the opposing teams. I generally don't vote for arguments that are "dropped" on one sheet if they are adequately answered by work elsewhere on the flow, particularly for novice or JV teams. While I generally don't have an ideological investment in the round, I am not persuaded by ontologically violent arguments.

I generally only dock speaker points for debaters who engage in malicious ad hominem or cross reading/clipping.

General - I am open to most arguments and presentation styles (including performance affirmatives and kritiks) but you need to do the work on the flow/in-round.

Topicality - Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. Debates should be reasonable and provide equitable ground.

Reading Evidence - If you flag evidence for me, I am willing to evaluate it to determine if the warrants support the argument/tag. However, I not willing to reconstruct arguments for you.

Theory - ASPEC is only a thing if you don't respond to it. I'm fine with conditionality...but if you run a conditional, multi-planked counter-plan...no.

DAs - Clash is good.

K - I'm a fan. If you are an AFF and someone is running a K against you, it is your responsibility to engage the K and rigorously challenge the ALT and its solvency. Similarly, if you are a NEG running a K, then you need to explain how your argument (framework or otherwise) interacts with the 1AC arguments. You need an ALT. The ALT must have solvency.

While I am fairly familiar with (and enjoy) the lit from fem, womanism, and CRT, you need to have a good explanation of the theory and how it materially functions in the round.

K AFFS - While you can be critical of it, you must have a plan text and you must advocate and defend action by the United States Federal Government.

PF: It's all about logic and a foundation. If you wish to make an argument it needs both evidence and the impact to back it up. While I don't mind arguments based on theories I do need something viable to be able to think it is possible. 

Policy: I'm a policy judge. I know, very fitting. I try to look at the round as a policymaker; however, I am not the president. The easiest way to get my ballot is to apply impact to each argument and to how they can affect the real world. While I do prefer to look at the round within the role playing policymaking method of applying AFF and NEG strat, that does not mean I will not vote on Kritiks. I prefer something to find applications to the real world and there are a number of K's that do so. Though a kritik that does not have a viable alt, for example, "reject the AFF," is probably on its own not going to do much to make me look at it as a way to solve the issues of the kritik, pushing for a shift in how policymaking should work or how I should look in the round are viable options for me to look at as they are decisions I can make and adapt to within that round. When it comes to a K-AFF I will most often prefer an actual plan text, or at least something close to that, otherwise I am going to be very open to the T debate. Speaking of which as I want to know that before I vote on a plan whether or not it is topical to solve the problem, if it is run well enough or undercovered I will vote on T. Just make sure you really go for it. In the end keeping the round as policy oriented as possible will get me to be more likely to vote on it, and within that same respect the place I prioritize the most is Solvency. No matter what the questions brought up in the debate come up to, in the end I will vote for whoever shows what solves the issues at hand the most. You can give me a list of issues, but in the end if you can't show me how your side will solve the most problems I will not vote for you (whether it be a K, CP, or just the status squo). Also if you advocate for the Status quo I'll give you bonus points for saying,"don't mess with the flow, stick to the status quo."