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.

jorman.antigua@gmail.com

school affiliation: acorn community high school (Brooklyn NY), NYUDL (new york urban debate league), stuyversant high school (New york, NY)
years debating: 4 years of high school, starting college debate

in a debate round i have done everything from cp and politics to performance

my first highschool topic was aid to south Africa, last one was reduce military (if that matters)

I will vote on whatever arguments win, this means I may vote on anything, it could come down to Counterplan-Disad, Procedurals, Kritiks, Affs with no plan text, to even performance. tell me what your argument is and what the ballot signifies (if it has a meaning)...i.e. policy maker etc...(...)

speaker points: be persuasive and make it interesting thin line between funny and ass hole at times may it be in cross-x or your speech you decide *background music* ...analysis/argumentation (don't lie about reading a hole card if u didn't,don't just read cards and tag~line extend ~_~ ) i will call for evidence if needed and i will hit you wit the world famous "cum on son" lol

specifics...

impact your arguments (duhh)

Topicality: i like a good t debate, their fun and at times educational, make sure you impact it, and give a correct abuse story...

counter plans: have a good net benefit prove how they solve the case

dis ads: you can run them i vote for anything and am familiar with most scenarios

k: i was a k db8er for the better half of my db8 career so i'm pretty familiar with most k~lit u will read unless its like some deep
nietzsche, zizek, lacan type ish but i get it...and if you explain it give a good story and show alternative solvency i will vote for it...it is also fine if you kick the alt and go for it as a case turn just debate it out...

preformance: i did this too...explain what the round comes down to...i.e. role of the judge/ballot/db8ers...and if their is a form of spill over what this is and means in real world and debate world... block framework lol...and show me why your/this performance is key...may it be a movement or just you expressing your self...i like methodology db8s so if it comes down to the aff and neg being both performance teams be clear on the framework for the round and how your methodology is better and how the other may recreate these forms of oppression you may be speaking about...may it be the deletion of identity or whiteness etc...same things apply if your running a counter~advocacy against a performance team...(*whispers* solvency)...k vs performance rounds same as methodology prove the link and as for the alt prove the solvency... framework vs performance rounds i had a lot of these, boring but fun to see the way they play out depending on interp, vio, impacts and stuff...

framework: any kind is fine...same justification as Topicality...depending on how your spinning framework within a round... *yells* education =)

theory: sure

short & sweet

#swag...have fun...do you...debate =)

I did league parli in high-school and did american parliamentary debate while at Columbia. I have experience judging both. I flow and I understand fast talking. However, I do not have experience judging spreading, nor am I a fan of it. I appreciate signposting like everyone else but it's not an end-all be-all. I expect every team to take at least one POI. If there's a VERY blatant POO I'll protect the flow but you should err on the side of calling it out yourself because I try to actively limit my own bias or interventionism as much as possible. Fine with tag-teaming.

I'm open to theory but I have not judged anything non-APDA in a long time so keep that in mind. Keep that in mind for kritiks as well -- open to them but if I think they're too tenuous or poorly explained I won't value them very highly. I approach topicality from the reasonableness standard.

Obviously, any abusive language - especially if it's discriminatory - is unacceptable. Teams should introduce their pronouns (or refrain from doing so) according to their comfort. I go by she/her.

I try to be pretty tabula rasa as a judge. Please weigh your arguments so that I can in good faith ignore my own biases as to what arguments seem most important without having to make a stupid decision. In the same vein, please also dedicate time to framing the round. Please explicitly link all of your impacts - if the link is subpar I won't be very impressed by the impact even if it's extinction.

I studied philosophy in college and I like hearing it in round when it's applicable. I also like when it's explained well and meaningfully contributes to the round rather than when a few buzzwords are thrown out. I'm doing immunology research now so would love to hear some science arguments. Obviously no pressure to include either kind, but no need to shy away if you're studying similar things, I will follow them. In general I encourage complex arguments over blippiness.

Good luck to everyone competing :)

Background

I was not involved in debate in High School, so I don't have a lot of that type of background. I got involved in judging tournaments in 2014 when my oldest son starting debating. He was involved in Lincoln Douglas, so I tried judging those rounds when I attended. I am an Electrical Engineer, 20 years of experience. I have been very active in politics over the years, being county and state delegate several years for the local political party, representing my district. I have judged a lot of rounds over the last year and a half; probably 40 or more. I am familiar with the process of a LD Debate and I know more than a bit about the topics presented as my son and I discuss topics and debate philosophies quite a bit at home.

Judging style and process

My judging philosophy follows the Value/Criteria/Contention flow. Being an engineer, I have made a spreadsheet to help me in my judging. Since I type much faster than I write, I use my laptop to help me keep track of the flow of the debate. I want to know what your Value, Criteria, and all of your Contentions are and very clearly. I enter those in my spreadsheet and then track how you and your opponent make points or attacks on those contentions. I have devised a number scheme to score each contention and then add (or take away) points from that score based on your ability to convince me of the validity of your contention (or to get me to agree to your attacks on your opponent's contentions). At the end of the debate, I use these scores to help me determine who won the debate, because that debater convinced me the most of his contentions (or attacks on opponent's contentions).

If you like to talk fast, I am fine with it, to a point. I have tried to judge policy debates where "spewing" is the norm. I don't like spewing. Fast talking is one thing, but spewing is for the birds (I'll never judge a policy debate again). One thing you better be sure of is that I get your value, criteria, and contentions; to do that SPEAK THOSE CLEARLY AND CONCISELY! I find contentions to be very weak if I can't understand what you are contending. Obviously, if I get a speech or two into the round and I still don't know your contention, you are going to score weaker on those contentions.

I also track dropped contentions and score them very highly for your opponent when they are dropped. If you miss them, I assume you mean you agree with them, which is a big score for your opponent. I score higher when you pick up and make a big deal of your opponent dropping (if they do). I also tend to give Affirm the benefit of the doubt because of the disadvantage in speech times, in the interest of fairness. However, I also tend to hit Neg harder if they miss because of their time advantage on speeches. That by no means implies I agree more often with Affirm or Neg; just a little benefit of the doubt in the interest of fairness.

I consider most topics to be optimal with 3 contentions. Less than that doesn't seem to cover enough to prove a position, while more than that seems to cause time problems with speeches. You certainly are free to use as many contentions as you like, but in my opinion, 3 is about right.

Timing of speeches

I am fine with you timing your own speeches. I keep time, and my timer is law, be it faster or slower than your timer. I also claim the right to allow someone to finish a sentence or question after the timer goes off. But, again, it's my call. If you keep talking after the timer, I wont stop you. I just start knocking off speaker points.

Disclosure

Most tournaments don't allow judges to disclose or provide feedback. I don't care if they do or not; I don't disclose or provide verbal feedback. Tournaments go way too long as it is without extra time expended in disclosure or feedback. Additionally, if you lost, you almost certainly consider me a fool and worthy of adamant debate proving you are more than worthy of winning. I don't come to tournaments to debate you. Just judge. So even if you see me wandering around afterwards and ask me how you did, I am going to tell you I don't remember (which is probably true), and either way, I don't want to debate. Even if you are sincere and would take constructive criticism, my memory (and desire) just isn't good enough to give you want you seek. Take my written remarks on the ballot for what they are and that will be what you get. I will make an effort to be as detailed as I can as to why I voted for or against you. Sometimes it is obvious who won; sometimes it is a hard choice and I wish I didn't have to make either of you lose. But there can only be one winner and one of you will hate me for my position. I prefer to be well within the confines of anonymity when you find out what I said bad about you.

Speaker Points

I generally take the 30 points you receive and break them down by speech (Affirm has 4 speeches, 1 cross ex, so 6 points per event. Neg has 3 and 1 cross ex,, so 7.5 per event). Depending on your performance during that event, I rate you based on performance in that event. I may dock points for being disorganized, being rude, being belligerent, not speaking clearly, etc. based on how you perform in each event. I rarely take off more than 1 point per event. So a good solid performance in each event will garner a good speaker point score.

Major annoyances

Most techniques of debate I am fine with. Contention is fine, but rudeness rubs me wrong. Some inadvertant rudness can be expected and it grates me a bit, but I won't nail you too hard. Unless you are really bad. One thing really irritates me in debates: the "straw man" technique. If you don't know what that is, look it up. It really gets my goat. One debate I judged, a debater deployed the straw man technique and I stopped caring what either person's criteria or points even were. Straw man is dishonest, unfair, and wrong! If you use it in a debate I judge, you guarantee a loss. It can happen inadvertently, and I understand that, but pounding it home will waste your time and mine.

I am a 3 year Lincoln Douglas debater in the Utah Curcuit (which was a decent blend of traditional and progressive debate).

When I debated I personally preferred critical arguments (although not always formal Kritiks) and valued creative approaches to the resolution. If you have a crazy unexpected case, I will be very likely to appreciate it.

For all of these suggestions (and any other aspect of the round), I will gladly ignore them and evaluate the round in a different way, if you provide a good justification for it. Consider these my weak priors 

For traditional debate, I view the value criterion debate as absolutely critical to evaluating the round. I will pick the winning value, then the winning criterion, and then evaluate the arguments through those. That means that if you have an impact of saving money but the criterion is saving lives, I will ignore it. If the V/C debate is ignored, I will have no choice by to default to standard cost benefit. A strong defense of your V/C framework with well constructed links will win you a round that I judge.

I debated many progressive rounds and am familiar with most of the philosophy behioind the main kritiks, so I will be able to handle whatever you throw at me. Your kritiks need to be well linked; links specific to the opponents case are strongly prefered to general links. If you intend to spread, please flash me the file if you can. I am typically skeptical of RVIs; I will vote off of one if its well defended, but you don't get them for free.

Some judges will drop a debater for 'unethical' cases, ie advocating open sexism, racism, holocaust denial, actively supporting fascism, etc. I view debate as a training ground for debates existing in the real world. If you cannot defend against such an obviously problematic case (which should be absurdly easy) I will not reward you for it anyways, and unless argued otherwise in round, will stick the the "ballot to the best debator" framework. I will however give the lowest possible speaks to the offender.

For Columbia 2020: I competed in LD and mainly judge LD, and I study philosophy at Columbia. All this really means is I am comfortable with any argument you want to throw my way. If you have more specific questions feel free to ask me before the round, email me at talia.coyne@gmail.com or facebook message me (Talia Coyne on Facebook and there's a link at the bottom of this paradigm) and I'll do my best to answer comprehensively. Feel free to read the rest of my paradigm (especially the miscellaneous part), but it won't be perfectly relevant to PF, though it may help you understand how I think about rounds.

Misc:

Please don't shake my hand after the round
I don't care if you sit or stand
I don't care what you wear, whatever makes you comfortable.
If you say anything blatantly sexist, racist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, antiblack, etc. I will drop you for doing so. Also, making your opponent or me uncomfortable in a way that the debate cannot continue means a loss for you. If you have any inkling that what you're reading could make someone uncomfortable, ask first. I will not buy an argument about how trigger warnings/ disclosure of explicit parts of cases are unnecessary or bad.

I debated LD for 3 years for Stuyvesant High School, graduating in 2016.

In general, I think debate is your game which you should play in whatever way you’d like. However, I realize that isn’t very helpful, so I’ll elaborate my feelings on various types of arguments, but in general I’d rather you read an argument you know well and like (and think you can win) rather than throwing together a structural violence framework and a couple of oppression arguments because you think that’s what I want to hear. I’d much rather hear an argument you actually know! That being said, here are my general thoughts and feelings about various types of arguments.

Ks:
This is what I read for the majority of my junior and senior years. I think Ks are a really great way to bring larger arguments into the debate space and to talk about debate itself. Generally, I like well thought out and unique Ks as opposed to generic Ks that you throw in. I think using Ks strategically is becoming increasingly common, which I think is fine and cool, but if you want to impress/ intrigue me and (probably) get a speaks boost, I’m most likely to be happy with a well thought out critical position rather than a generic one. That being said, you can absolutely still read those arguments (or any others) in front of me. I’m not the type of judge who will vote for someone just because they read a K.

T:
I think T is a really useful strategy in the debate and I love a good T vs. K debate, when it’s warranted. I’m not super enamored of T as a strat as opposed to being in response to real abuse, but that’s your prerogative to run no matter what.

Theory:
To clarify, I will vote on theory and will not hack against it. I just dont like it that much.

To be completely honest, theory is probably my weakest area as a judge. It’s hard for me to evaluate a round with several theory shells floating around, and theres a solid chance you wont be happy with the decision unless you are the clearest of all theory debaters. That being said, if there is legitimate abuse in the round, don’t be afraid to read theory in front of me - I have a solid grasp on theory especially when the abuse story is very clear to me. (I realize this seems kinda contradictory and also vague so if you need clarification email me/ Facebook message me/ find me at the tournament).

Plans/ LARPing/ DA
All of these args are cool! I’ve increasingly been seeing the value in a specific, well thought out plan as opposed to a general, whole res arg. The one thing I will say is that I’m pretty sus of extinction DAs. You can read them, but I’ll be pretty sympathetic to turns/ general args against them unless the aff is literally like “end all forms of renewable energy”. They’re cool arguments and I’ll evaluate them as such but I’d probably prefer an econ DA or even just a link chain that’s hyper specific to the aff as opposed to just being like “affirming causes nuclear extinction vote neg”

Framework:
Framework’s cool. Framework used to exclude Ks is really cool and I think super strategic. If you’re reading a weird framework/ something you don’t think I’m familiar with/ it’s a complex framework designed to exclude arguments/ very similar to a common framework but different in some key area, slow down a bit. Explain it to me. If I don’t understand it, I wont vote on it. You could have extended every argument, but if I don’t understand why your framework specifically excludes T, I probably won’t vote just because you made that claim; I need a warrant for why and how that’s true; i.e. you saying “deont takes out T, affirm” means pretty much nothing to me, whereas saying “extend card X which says that rules governing the language we use to make policies are bad because of Y, thus the T goes away and you affirm on Z argument” is much more compelling and understandable.


Please don't shake my hand after the round
I don't care if you sit or stand
If you say anything blatantly sexist, racist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, antiblack, etc. I will drop you for doing so. Also, making your opponent or me uncomfortable in a way that the debate cannot continue means a loss for you. If you have any inkling that what you're reading could make someone uncomfortable, ask first. I will not buy an argument about how trigger warnings/ disclosure of explicit parts of cases are unnecessary or bad.

Feel free to message me on Facebook or email me at talia.coyne@gmail.com if you have any more specific questions. Also please put me on the email chain.

I debated LD on the local and national circuit for Westlake High School in Texas, graduating in 2013. I coached Scarsdale High School, and currently coach for Walt Whitman High School.

I will vote on any argument so long as the conclusion follows from the premises–my primary aim is to operate under the shared assumptions held by both debaters, so I will avoid "defaulting" on any framing issue at all costs and will detest being forced to do so. I will evaluate arguments as they are presented on the flow, so I will always prioritize explicit over implicit comparison made between arguments. If you'd like me to be on an email chain, send everything to mgorthey@gmail.com.

I debated for 4 years for Scarsdale High School. I qualified to TOC twice, reaching octofinals my senior year (2015).

Debate is your activity not mine so I’ll try to avoid injecting my personal biases into my evaluation of arguments. If you’re ahead, even by just a little bit, on the side if an issue I’m not inclined towards, I’ll vote for you. This means that I’m not committed to a particular set of "noninterventionist" norms; I’ll attempt to use the paradigmatic preferences that debaters assume in the round.

The preferences below are for situations in which debaters' assumptions are unclear or there are no arguments resolving a clear disagreement. They are (unless specifically noted) entirely up for debate. In general, I hope to evaluate rounds similarly to Tom Evnen or Mark Gorthey. Here are some basics:

• I default to truth testing.
• Theory and topicality are questions of competing interps, but by that I only mean that defense isn't sufficient to win a theory debate. If you have a different understanding, explain how your warrants for the paradigm justify the conclusion you want them to, preferably in the first speech you read it.
• Theory is drop the argument, topicality is drop the debater.
• I have an extremely low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments, but I would like some mention of the argument in every speech. The exception is conceded paradigm issues (drop the debater, competing interps, aff gets perms in method debates, etc).
• No new 2AR RVIs. This is a hard requirement. I don’t see a way to evaluate these debates in a wholly noninterventionist way, so I’d prefer to minimize the direct ballot implications of new 2AR arguments.

I assign speaks mainly based on strategy and argument quality.

• I'll say slow, clear, or loud as much as necessary – if you're making an effort to adapt, I won't lower speaks, and I will be especially conscious about not penalizing debaters with speech impediments. However, if I don't hear an argument because of a lack of clarity, I won't vote on it.
• I won’t hesitate to lower speaks for rude post-round behavior like exaggerated expressions of confusion or loudly dropping objects. I believe that post-round discussion is valuable so this deliberately doesn’t apply to questions from the debaters or others who watched the round.

EXPERIENCE: I'm the head coach at Harrison High School in New York; I was an assistant coach at Lexington from 1998-2004 (I debated there from 1994-1998), at Sacred Heart from 2004-2008, and at Scarsdale from 2007-2008. I'm not presently affiliated with these programs or their students. I am also the Curriculum Director for NSD's Philadelphia LD institute.

Please just call me Hertzig.

Please include me on the email chain: harrison.debate.team@gmail.com

QUICK NOTE: I would really like it if we could collectively try to be more accommodating in this activity. If your opponent has specific formatting requests, please try to meet those (but also, please don't use this as an opportunity to read frivolous theory if someone forgets to do a tiny part of what you asked). I know that I hear a lot of complaints about "Harrison formatting." Please know that I request that my own debaters format in a particular way because I have difficulty reading typical circuit formatting when I'm trying to edit cards. You don't need to change the formatting of your own docs if I'm judging you - I'm just including this to make people aware that my formatting preferences are an accessibility issue. Let's try to respect one another's needs and make this a more inclusive space. :)

BIG PICTURE:

CLARITY in both delivery and substance is the most important thing for me. If you're clearer than your opponent, I'll probably vote for you.

SHORTCUT:

Ks (not high theory ones) & performance - 1 (just explain why you're non-T if you are)

Trad debate - 1

T, LARP, or phil - 2-3 (don't love wild extinction scenarios or incomprehensible phil)

High theory Ks - 4

Theory - 4 (see below)

Tricks - strike

*I will never vote on "evaluate the round after ____ [X speech]" (unless it's to vote against the person who read it; you aren't telling me to vote for you, just to evaluate the round at that point!).

GENERAL:

If, after the round, I don't feel that I can articulate what you wanted me to vote for, I'm probably not going to vote for it.

I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary.

I don't view theory the way I view other arguments on the flow. I will usually not vote for theory that's clearly unnecessary/frivolous, even if you're winning the line-by-line on it. I will vote for theory that is actually justified (as in, you can show that you couldn't have engaged without it).

I need to hear the claim, warrant, and impact in an extension. Don't just extend names and claims.

For in-person debate: I would prefer that you stand when speaking if you're physically able to (but if you aren't/have a reason you don't want to, I won't hold it against you).

I'd prefer that you not use profanity in round.

Link to a standard, burden, or clear role of the ballot. Signpost. Give me voting issues or a decision calculus of some kind. WEIGH. And be nice.



To research more stuff about life career coaching then visit Life coach.

I debated and coached regularly for 4 years each. I qualified to the Kentucky ToC and coached debaters competing on the ToC circuit. I instructed camp labs, mostly at NSD. I no longer flow speed or follow trends in the activity. I still think flowing speed and following good arguments is fun. My email is wesley.j.hu@gmail.com.

I used to like reading paradigms. If you're similar to me in that regard, here's a longer description of how I think:

I'll vote on anything so long as a I understand a semblance of a warrant. Debate is a game of arguments; my job is not simply to record claims. “The sky is blue thus affirm” is never sufficient, even if conceded. Weigh, and be responsive to your opponent. Absent explicit comparison between two arguments that justify directly contradicting conclusions, who but me remains to decide which is better warranted?

I have a low threshold for extensions of concessions, especially if you’re aff. But, you should mention any argument you want me to evaluate. I won't reward you for a winning strategy that includes an argument you've forgotten until after the round when you’re cordially explaining your disagreement with my decision.

Do what you do best. If you believe your position is one I’ll be unfamiliar with or have a hard time understanding, slow down a tad & emphasize explanation by way of definition, analogy, and examples.

Defaults: Consider this scenario: the aff declares "the standard is maximizing expected well-being," and reads 6 minutes of util advantages. The neg responds with 7 minutes of disadvantages, turns and defense on case, evidence comparison, and impact calc. The entire debate is contention weighing.

I will evaluate which debater won the most offense under util. There are an infinite number of assumptions implicit in any conversation. We agree about some things by virtue of being there and speaking with each other. I'll evaluate whatever you identify and present to me as the essential points of contestation. Ideally you make it explicitly clear to me how I evaluate the debate, but if I must default on any issues, I'll default to whatever both debaters seem to implicitly agree.

Speaks: I assign speaks based on a combination of strategy (understanding how layers in a round interact, and collapsing to the important layer(s)) and efficiency (how effectively you engage in the line by line arguments within said layer(s)), and only those two things. I do not consider how well you speak (not what this activity is about), or how good your arguments are (it would be biased, and debaters shouldn't have to conform to a judge's stylistic preferences).

I'll give you a small bump if you teach me something new - it will be a bigger bump if you teach me something new about a topic in which I had previously held dogmatic or myopic assumptions.

I will dock speaks if and only if you are overtly mean-spirited or exclusionary, and I will do so significantly.

I am on the planning committee for the Texas Debate Collective and the director for NSD Philadelphia I'm a MA candidate in American Studies where I'm working on the intersection between Asian-American and Disability Studies. I coach Loyola JC, Bronx Science YW, and Bergen County EL.

Overview

1. The round belongs to its debaters, not the judge, so it's the job of the debaters to tell me who won, not the other way around. I do my best to evaluate rounds in terms of least intervention, which means I search first for weighing as a means to scale what the key issues are, then examine the arguments thereof. The biases and defaults in this paradigm are meant to help you, not to restrict what you want to do.
2. If you use the word "retarded" as an equivalence to the word "stupid" or "bad" without acknowledgement (that is, an apology upon saying it), I will drop you

Evidence Ethics/ Clipping Cards/ etc.

1. Evidence ethics is an argument to be made in the debate round. I will not stop the round because of an accusation of people miscutting or misusing evidence, for there is a fair academic debate to be had.
2. Card clipping: I will review recordings if available. To accuse someone of clipping cards will cause the round to stop. I'll decide using whatever material I have to figure out if somebody has clipped. If I decide a debater was clipping, I will give that person a L20. If the person accusing is wrong, for I have decided that clipping did not occur, I will give the accuser a L20. I have never judged an accusation of card clipping. I'm not as good at flowing as other judges are, and will invariably give somebody the benefit of the doubt that they did not clip cards.

Speaks:

1. I evaluate speaker points on strategy, arg quality, time allocation, and if you are respectful and nice. When did nice become equated with weakness? I am not impressed by overt-aggression or ad hominen styles of debate. Micro versions of this include "You should've listened in lab more!" or "I have no idea what you're thinking!" Come on. If it's nasty to say to somebody outside of debate it absolutely is in the debate round. Kindness should matter more.
2. What I do not factor in, however, is literal speaking clarity, efficiency, etc.
3. I don't consider the number of times I say clear or slow into speaker points
4. I will not evaluate arguments about "not calling blocks" or what not. Similarly, you can't just tell me to give you a 30.
5. I won't give you higher speaks if you end your speech early- nor will I sign the ballot before the end of the 2AR. I don't know why judges do this. This sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.
6. I don't find stand up 2ARs or 2NRs perceptually dominant at all

Post- Round

1. I think post-round discussion is valuable. However, if debater A has just lost the round, and in A’s questioning of the judge, opponent B decides to comment and enter into this conversation, I will drop opponent B’s speaker points and get angry in the process
2. If I sit and you are the winner (that is, the other 2 judges voted for you), and would like to ask me extensive questions, I will ask that you let the other RFDs be given and then let the opponent leave before asking me more questions. I'm fine answering questions, but just to be fair the other people in the room should be allowed to leave.

Background
I debated for Hunter College High School from 2010-2014 on the national circuit (focused in the Northeast) and attended the TOC my senior year. I am currently a student at Columbia University. 

General

I will try to judge based on what debaters do in round, rather than on my own opinions. But, I do have some preferences that will affect your speaks and, inevitably to some degree, my evaluation.

I won’t disregard impacts based on an arbitrarily narrow standard, such as a “minimizing war” standard that is just justified through util. Also, you can’t drop spikes and then respond in the next speech, but you can respond to the way the spike interacts with your case. This also goes for theory interps in the AC. Lastly, I will not default to presuming for one side in particular – if there is no presumption argument in the round and I find myself with a truly irresolvable round, I will vote for whoever I feel did a better job, as this seems less arbitrary to me than automatically presuming aff or neg.


Theory

I suppose I default to competing interpretations in the sense that I will compare offense and defense on the theory debate to evaluate it, but I do not really have any strong feelings about this. If you are running reasonability, though, you need to have a standard for what it is to be reasonable, not just assert that I should gutcheck on theory.

Sidenotes:

1) Due to the proliferation of generic theory spikes in ACs such as "CX checks meets all theory interps" and "neg must quantify abuse", know that speaks will suffer if you rely on these to win the theory debate and do not do a good job of addressing the specific abuse story. Additionally, be sure that the spike explains exactly what happens if dropped (i.e. should I drop the shell, vote them down etc.) 
2) I will give the neg leeway on these spikes, meaning that if I'm not sure if their 3 responses really answer back your 1 sentence assertion, I'm going to ignore your spike. 



Kritiks

I don’t think I will be the best judge for a K debate. I am not familiar with the literature, and I often find them flawed. Additionally, I find that many K impacts do not link to a justified framework, and I will not vote for those arguments. Lastly, I find pre-fiat or micropolitical voters uncompelling.

Speaks and Stuff

If I think you should clear based on your performance in this round, you will get a 28.5 or higher. These are based on your strategy, argument quality, and technical skills as well as your actual speaking skills. In terms of in-round behavior, I would prefer that you have real cross ex (not just prep the whole time), but you can stand or sit to do this. Asking questions in prep time is of course fine. Try not to be mean to your opponent, and if you are way better than your opponent, please don’t beat them down – make it an educational and enjoyable experience for them. I do not mind if you sit during speeches. I am happy to call clear if I cannot understand you and I am willing to call for things after the round.


Good luck and feel free to ask me questions before or after the round!

I did LD debate when I went to high school (2010-2014). I used to judge consistently but stopped in 2017. Since then, I've only judged once before this tournament.

I prefer the debaters speak slowly. I also prefer if they make arguments through creative thinking rather than just reading prewritten stuff. Weighing is also important because each side invariably wins some arguments, so I need to know which arguments are the most important.

That being said, you should debate however you prefer and I'll do my best to evaluate the round based solely on the arguments made in the round.

Hey, I'm Chris, and I debated for Newark Science for four years in LD and Policy. To start, I'd like to say that although I was known as a particular kind of debater, I encourage you to do what you can do the best, whether that be Kant, theory, performance, etc.

As a common rule, please don't go your top speed at the beginning of your speeches. Go slower and build up speed so I can get accustomed to your voice. I've had times where debaters started at their top speed, which wasn't really that fast, but I wasn't accustomed to their voice at all, so I missed a few of their arguments. To prevent this, please don't start blazing fast. Build up to your top speed.

I've come to realize I am probably one of the worst flowers in the activity. This doesn't mean I won't hold you to answering arguments but it does mean that I am far less likely to get a 5 point response than the next person. Take that as you will.

I'm far from a tabula rasa judge; if you say or do anything that reinforces racist, heterosexist, ableist norms then I will vote against you. This is not to say that you'll always lose Kant against Wilderson; rather, it's about the way in which you frame/phrase your arguments. If you say "Kantianism does x, y, and z, which solves the K" then I'm more willing to vote for you than if you say "Kant says empirical realities don't matter therefore racism doesn't exist or doesn't matter"

On that note, I'm an advocate of argument engagement rather than evasion. I understand the importance of "preclusion" arguments, but at the point where there are assertions that try to disregard entire positions I must draw a line. I will be HIGHLY skeptical of your argument that "Util only means post-fiat impacts matters therefore disregard the K because it's pre-fiat." I'm also less likely to listen to your "K>Theory" dump or vice versa. Just explain how your position interacts with theirs. I'm cool with layering, in fact I encourage layering, but that doesn't mean you need to make blanket assertions like "fairness is an inextricable aspect of debate therefore it comes before everything else" I'd rather you argue "fairness comes before their arguments about x because y."

I think that theory debates should be approached holistically, the reason being that often times there are one sentence "x is key to y" arguments and sometimes there are long link chains "x is key to y which is key to z which is key to a which is key to fairness because" and I guarantee I will miss one of those links. So, please please please, either slow down, or have a nice overview so that I don't have to call for a theory shell after the round and have to feel like I have to intervene.

These are just some of my thoughts. If I'm judging you at camp, do whatever, don't worry about the ballot. As I judge more I'll probably add to this paradigm. If you have any specific questions email me at cfquiroz@gmail.com

UPDATE: I will not call for cards unless
a) I feel like I misflowed because of something outside of the debater's control
b) There is a dispute over what the evidence says
c) The rhetoric/non underlined parts of the card become relevant

Otherwise, I expect debaters to clearly articulate what a piece of evidence says/why I should vote for you on it. This goes in line with my larger issue of extensions. "Extend x which says y" is not an extension. I want the warrants/analysis/nuance that proves the argument true, not just an assertion that x person said y is true.

I'd prefer to be called Adam.

I competed in national circuit LD at Stuyvesant High School in NYC for 3 years. I now attend Wesleyan University. 
My email is mrahman@wesleyan.edu if you have any questions or want to email me your speech doc for viewing.

Slow down on tags and citations, deliver clear overviews and extensions, and interact well with opposing arguments.

Doing this will net you good speaker points regardless of your stylistic preferences. I can adjudicate Kritik , LARP, framework, traditional, theory and substance heavy debates just fine.

I have experience in both progressive and traditional circuits,and will be able to judge and enjoy whatever style both debaters engage in. 

For novice / JV / less experienced: Do whatever makes you comfortable. If that means experimenting, speaking at a normal pace, opting for more traditional arguments, whatever. I want your rounds to be both a learning experience and taste of competition.

Speaks start at 28.5 and scale up or down based on performance, I reward points based on strategy, and I don't scale down often.

Flow Judge - If it is not on my flow it does not exist in the round.

Speed is fine. Enjoy technically proficient debaters. Poor time allocation is a pet peeve of mine.

Will doc speakers for uncivil/ungracious opponents.

Coach (LD/PF)

Former LD/Policy/PF Debater

t.shertzer@columbia.edu

Background

Louisiana School for Math, Science, and the Arts '16

Columbia '20

I competed in LD and PF in Louisiana for 6 years in MS and HS and have been judging MS and HS PF, LD, and Policy for 4 years while at Columbia. Louisiana is primarily more of a traditional / lay circuit and most of what I ran was on the more traditional side of LD, but I'm more than open to any type of argumentation as long as you explain and impact it well.

Summary:

Run whatever you want short of being blatantly offensive (e.g. "racism good") as long as you explain and impact clearly. You need to provide some sort of weighing mechanism and explain why that mechanism is superior to your opponent's and how you're winning under that mechanism. Have some sort of clear offense and extend your offensive arguments throughout the round while weighing your offense against your opponent's. Clear framing and comparative weighing is important. If you're reading something conceptually complex you must explain how its relevant to the round and clearly articulate the impacts of your arguments. I'll be flowing on paper and am down to vote for some wacky complex stuff (I'm 100% not a layjudge) but am not up to date on the hip debate lit and newer progressive argumentation styles so please be especially clear (I'm an engineering major so am unfamiliar with a lot of the lit/philosophy that gets read-- pls explain). Signpost, signpost, signpost.

Framework

Having some flavor of framework in LD is important to me. If you don't provide anything I'll evaluate under a util-ish lens by default. Winning framework is a big part of the debate, but winning framework ≠ winning the debate. Framework established the mechanism for weighing your impacts.

Theory

I never ran theory and am not super familiar with a lot of the lit but don't have anything against it. As with any type of argument, explain and impact well and you can run whatever you want barring anything morally reprehensible (i.e. if you're making the debate environment uncomfortable or hostile for someone else).

Update after judging a couple theory-heavy rounds: Please be especially clear how the theory you're running interacts with the ballot and how it contributes to you winning the debate / why I should care about it. Be advised that you'll really have to convince me that I should prioritize the theory over anything else if you want me to vote for it over something more grounded in framework / a clearer weighing mechanism.

K Debate

Again, never dabbled too much into Ks myself and while I'm a little more familiar with some of the common K lit you need to make sure you're explaining and impacting clearly.

Speed

Probably take things down a couple notches from your top speed, but as long as you're clear speed is fine. Slow down for tags, authors, and analysis. Speeding through cards isn't an issue given your opponent has access to your evidence (flash it, email it, print it, whatever).

Misc.

*If you're clearly more experienced than your opponent don't beat them into the ground-- it's not a good look.

*Presentation style <<< clarity of arguments

*Flex prep is cool as long as your opponent is down

*Speaks start at ~28 and go up or down

*I have very minimal experience with performance debate and if you're a performance debater you need to clearly explain how your performance relates to the ballot and clashes with your opponent.

*Good evidence >>> more evidence

*Have fun!! Tasteful jokes warmly encouraged

Lynbrook High School '16
Johns Hopkins Univ '20

Short Version I will vote on anything that is clearly explained to me and not offensive (things like death good are fine, but things like rape or oppression good and/or anything that makes debate an unsafe space will be problematic in front of me, feel free to ask me about this before the round). Ks, theory/T, plans/CPs, larp, phil, performance, extra T - all good. The only thing I'd really rather not see are weird blippy tricks designed to remove any chance of substance from the round (ex: a prioris) - do not read these in front of me or, if you do, explain their function in the round very well. In general, do what you're best at and just explain your arguments and how they interact with your opponents' arguments and the ballot well. Overviews and voter issues are always great for framing the round!

Prep ends when the flash drive leaves your computer or you hit send on the email. You must provide your opponent access to your case (hard copy, flashing, viewing laptop, emailing, something!) throughout the round. If you would like to include me in an email chain, feel free to do so. Do not steal prep and do not ask me for time to preflow.

If you have questions about my specific feelings on certain arguments, feel free to read below.

Speed

If I didn't catch something on my flow, I'm not voting on it. That being said, I will say slow and clear as many times as necessary without penalty. In general, I'm fairly accustomed to moderate speed, but make sure you're clear and slow down if you're reading dense literature or a lot of quick analytical arguments. I have a fairly low threshold for extensions, but explain the implication of the argument in the round well.

Framework

Make sure you have a clear framing mechanism that tells me how to evaluate the round and what impacts matter. Also, don't just mention it once in the AC and then never again - explain how the arguments in the round interact with it.
I don't care at all about the framework structure - ROB, Value - VC, do whatever you're most comfortable with.
I'm not very well-read in dense philosophy, so make sure to slow down on more dense cards/warrants and clearly explain how your framework functions in the round if you're reading more complex philosophy.

Theory/T

I default competing interps, drop the argument, and no RVIs. However, I don't prefer these or any such thing - they're just how I'll default to evaluating the theory/T debate absent any other arguments. If you make arguments to the contrary, I'll buy them. In fact, I actually lean towards drop the debater and RVIs good on the actual issues; I just need arguments to be made for those more "severe" impacts.
I ran a fair amount of frivolous theory/T, so I don't really care if you run it on actual abuse or strategically. However, make sure you weigh between shells, violations, voters, standards, etc and make the debate clear for me to evaluate rather than muddy.
Slow down on interps and don't throw out a bunch of blippy 8-word arguments at 500 wpm - I won't catch them. Make sure you adjust speed for the fact that theory is often shorter, analytic arguments.

Ks/Critical ACs

I read quite a few critical ACs and some Ks during my career and am definitely a fan of these types of arguments. I'm also totally fine with performance or extra-T Ks. That being said, I'm not very well-read in critical literature, so definitely make sure to slow down when you're reading dense literature and explain your arguments and their implications well in your rebuttals.
Make sure you can clearly explain your alt. Don't conflate the pre and post fiat distinction.

Plans/CPs/DAs

Great! I was always a fan of specificity with your arguments. If you're reading a plan or CP, make sure you can clearly explain the action your plan/CP takes. If you're reading a DA, make sure you can clearly explain the link and uniqueness.
Do a lot of impact analysis!

Tricks

Do not read these in front of me, please. My threshold will be very high if you're just reading blippy arguments meant to precede other arguments so you can get out of clash. If you're reading well-warranted arguments and clearly explain why they precede other arguments, that's totally fine!
If you want to go for the blippy preclusion/definitional arguments in front of me (but why?), make sure the argument is clearly explained & implicated in the original speech (this means explain its purpose/function in the round and what arguments exactly it precedes) and continues to be explained & implicated throughout the round.

Speaks

Good Speaks - Good prep and case-sharing (flashing/emailing/whatever) practices. Good strategical choices. Good explanation & implication of arguments and weighing. Good overviews/voters/framing. In general, making the debate a positive and educational experience for everybody involved.

Bad Speaks - Stealing prep. Being rude. Bad argument explanation, forcing me to intervene to weigh or implicate arguments. Weird tricks that have the sole purpose of preceding substance and avoiding clash.

Other Important Things

As a judge, it is my duty to make debate a safe space that we can all benefit from. Thus, I will not vote on offensive arguments, such as rape good or oppression good. This isn't any attempt to censor your arguments or limit your choices and, 99% of the time, this won't even be relevant in a round, but just want to clarify for the 1%. Feel free to ask me about this before round.
Don't be rude to your opponent, especially if they're less experienced than you. If you are continuously rude, your speaker points will reflect it.
As stated earlier, prep ends when the flash drive leaves your computer or you hit send on the email. Do not steal prep. If you would like to include me in the email chain, feel free to do so. Also, make sure you can provide your opponent with a copy of your case throughout the round, not just in CX or prep or whatever.

Contact Info

If you have any questions, feel free to email me at shailjasomani@gmail.com, send me a message on Facebook, or ask me right before the round.

I debated competitively for four years at the Bronx High School of Science. I primarily debated on the national circuit and I got a bid in my senior year, while competing in many bid rounds during my sophomore, junior, and senior years. Since then, I worked at NSD and VBI for 2 summers, coached multiple independent debaters and coached Bronx Science. I coached 3 kids to the TOC.

Email: john.staunton1011@gmail.com

Conflicts: Bronx Science

Short Version: I ran almost all types of arguments throughout my career, so I'll be fine listening to anything. Make sure you weigh back to some sort of framework and compare your arguments. I take the route of least intervention. If you're running a confusing position, please explain it well. Spreading is cool and I will yell "clear." If you have any questions, my email is at the top.

Long Version:
1. Theory/T: I read this extensively during my sophomore and junior years and enjoyed having these debates a lot. I don't default to any voters or paradigms, meaning you will have to justify those yourself. If no voters are read and there are no arguments that tell me to evaluate the shell otherwise, I will evaluate it as a response to whatever argument violated the shell. That being said, if paradigms and voters are conceded in the following speech, it is not necessary to extend it, but at your own risk. If your opponent points out that you didn't extend it and makes arguments as to why that means theory is no longer a voting issue, I will then move on to the next layer. I would prefer it if these debates are based on weighing offense back to each interpretation. I also don't care if you use it as a strategic tool or not. However, if you hit a K, I would prefer you read it as a link to the role of the ballot rather than something that just excludes any and all discussion on their issues. Lastly, asking me to gut check frivolous theory isn't a response to theory, so I will not do that, absent some mechanism telling me what theory shells to "gut check" and why said theory shell fits that description.

2. Kritiks: I read Ks a lot more often later in my career, starting junior year, and I also enjoy these debates a lot. I probably enjoy listening to K debates more than anything else, granted there is comparison and weighing. You should start your later rebuttal speeches with the role of the ballot or other framing arguments. I try to be well read on as much literature as possible, so I know and understand most of the common K arguments on the topic (from identity politics to high theory). However, that does not necessarily mean I, or your opponent, will understand your particular position; so, be sure to explain it well. That does not mean repeating what your tagline says; rather, it means you should explain it in a different way, using simple terminology and concrete examples. These examples don't even have to be real historical occurrences, since you can often relate an argument to some physical scenario (I know what yellow is because it is not any other color). When it comes to making a decision, it is necessary that I understand how each argument functions in round: why it answers your opponent's argument, the relevant advantages and disadvantages, etc. In other words, you should aim to explain your positions in the best way possible, but I will be primarily concerned with the interactions I see on the flow. Non-topical ACs are cool, but I think it's better if they're disclosed. It's hard to have a debate against a case you had no idea would be run and it is impossible to expect that you'll have prep against it absent disclosure. You will not be penalized for not disclosed your non-topical cases and I will not have a bias for disclosure theory in this instance.

3. Framework: Framework debates can be very interesting and have some of the best interaction. Not many debaters opt to do framework debate anymore, which is sad. Make sure you explain how offense functions under your framework and what the arguments in your framework mean with complicated philosophy. I enjoy cases that use non-utilitarian frameworks with a plan. I am also open to hearing framework arguments against Ks. You can make arguments for why your framework comes first, but you can also read your framework as a counter method. Just don't make arguments for why your framework means their issues don't matter, as the other option is not only more interesting and involves better interactions, but it also ensures that debate remains a safe space. Impact justified frameworks aren't great either. The only impact I assume is bad coming into the round is oppression.

4. LARP: Unique plan texts are fun to hear and they should be disclosed. However, I prefer plans in the context of non-utilitarian frameworks. I think politics DAs, and most extinction scenarios are rather ridiculous, but that just means if your opponent loses to these arguments, that's completely their fault. I also will not automatically prioritize evidence over analytics, absent reasons to do so.

5. Tricks: I enjoyed running this a lot - just not against Ks involving issues of oppression. Those debates are uncomfortable for everyone else in the room, and if you use tricks to conclude that oppression is permissible, then you should expect to be dropped with low speaks. That being said, I will definitely evaluate tricks and will enjoy rounds with interesting and unique tricks - even if they are straight up ridiculous. I'll probably laugh, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Also, tricks don't necessarily mean just "skep" or "presumption." They can be topical and substantive too. Putting substantive tricks inside your T and theory shells is something I'd find cool too.

6. Speaks: I will generally follow the guidelines for calculating speaker points in the document under "Speaker Points Calculation." Your speaks will automatically go to 0 if you are offensive or violent in the round. Additionally, I do not think it is under my jurisdiction to evaluate arguments about speaker points in round. Clearly, they are not a source of contestation or impact my decision calculus, and so I will ignore arguments that ask me to change your speaks.

7. Miscellaneous:
a. Sit or stand - I don't care. Just be clear (and yes, I will yell "clear" or "slow.")
b. It would be nice if you slowed down on taglines, author names, interps, plan texts, and important stuff like that.
c. I want CX to start right at the end of the speech and prep to start right at the end of CX. Don't waste time asking "Is everyone ready?"
d. I think disclosure it good for debate, but I also think forcing your opponent to disclose is bad. In general, I prefer seeing disclosure.
e. I personally don't think flashing should count as prep, but I don't think that is under my jurisdiction. If both debaters want flashing to count as prep, then it will.
f. Spreading is good. I will yell "clear."
g. I tend to not evaluate embedded clash, unless I cannot logically come to a decision without evaluating it. If the aff is winning an argument for why pineapple pizza is terrible on one part of the flow and the neg is winning an argument on another part of the flow that pineapple pizza is great, I will have to evaluate embedded clash in that instance, even though the aff is probably correct.
h. If you have any questions you can ask me in round or email me. My email is at the top.

Decision Calculus:
Generally, I try to evaluate rounds by making the most logically consistent decision, while also intervening as little as possible. First, I look at all of the framing arguments that tell me how I should prioritize layers in the round. For example, which comes first: substance or theory? Once I sort through the layers in the round, I start from the top. If a debater wins that layer and wins that it is a reason I should vote for them, then I will vote for them. On a particular layer, I have to have some sort of framework for how I evaluate arguments on that layer, so I evaluate those framing issues first. Then, I need impact calculus for how to evaluate arguments under that framework on that layer. Lastly, I determine who wins the best impacts under that framework. For example, say that fairness is a voter and theory is drop the debater with competing interpretations and no RVIs. Then, the impact calculus is that impacts to strategy come before any other standard no matter what. So, I have to determine which interpretation is best for strategy and I determine who wins on the theory flow there. If the person responding to theory wins, then I simply move on to the next layer below that since there is no RVIs. This is a very simple example, but the same logic applies for any situation. This describes how I view the round at a macro level.

At a micro level, things get a little bit more complicated because we have to consider questions such as whether I evaluate embedded clash, whether I can even evaluate arguments that I don't fully understand, etc. The general way I go about evaluating arguments on the micro level is to compare the claims and see which person has the best warrant. Of course, what counts as the "best" warrant is subject to the judge and is why judge intervention is inevitable, but to minimize the risk of intervention, you should tell me why your warrants are the better warrants. This is just basic warrant comparison. Given this, I do need to understand the argument's premises and how it interacts. I find that in most rounds, only one debater will be doing warrant comparison on any given issue, so resolving that is easy. I evaluate arguments primarily on the place of contestation. Physically speaking, this would mean where the arguments are on the flow. Therefore, I will not freely evaluate embedded clash, unless I'm told to. If I'm told to, then I will just cross apply whatever arguments you are making to the correct place on the flow. However, after I draw a conclusion from a specific place on the flow, it needs to be logically consistent with every other part of my decision calculus. Therefore, I will evaluate embedded clash if and only if conclusions I draw from two different parts of the flow contradict. For example, consider a round where the aff wins on the AC that material strategies are good because the state is inevitable. Say this argument was conceded. However, on the K flow, there are arguments for why the state is not necessarily inevitable and those arguments are won. It would be logically inconsistent to say that material strategies are good since the state is inevitable if I can also say that the state is not inevitable. The way I resolve this is to take the arguments on different parts of the flow and see what comparisons exist.

There are three categories of arguments that I find to be paradigmatically outside my jurisdiction, and so I will not evaluate these arguments even if you make arguments as to why I should. The first category of arguments are offensive ones. If you make a claim that someone needs to warrant why oppression exists, or if you make a claim that is outright offensive or violent, then I will not only ignore the argument, but I will also drop you and give you a 24 (or lower depending on the degree of violence I find in the argument). The second category is arguments about speaker points. Clearly, your opponent is not going to focus on disproving your argument for why I should give you 30 speaks and so it is not a source of contestation and is not relevant to my decision calculus. Therefore, I will just ignore these arguments. The third category of arguments are new arguments in the last rebuttal speech. I will not evaluate new arguments in the 2AR, with the one exception that you criticize an egregious form of violence in the 2NR. This means I will not vote on 2AR theory in almost any circumstance. I will only evaluate new arguments in the 2NR if you explicitly justify why that is allowed (allow new 2NR responses to spikes). So, while I generally follow a specific path to deciding the round, this outlines the few exceptions to that.

Judging Record:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m7jyhz92n6dwyre/Judging%20Record.xlsx?dl=0

Speaker Points Calculation:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uiw9hvdy5yl0t1h/Speaker%20Points.pdf?dl=0

Judging Statistics:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/epbimew2a3syy56/Statistics.pdf?dl=0

I am a parent judge who would like to listen to a debate about a value criterion and the topic.  Please avoid speaking too quickly.  I will try to evaluate all arguments.

If you are looking for a round with theory, Ks, etc. please strike me.  

Greenhill CX '16, Columbia '19

Last update: 09/29/2019

Overview: I was a CX debater/2N at Greenhill for four years; I was a CP/DA debater but will vote on any argument except offensive args as long as you can win it. I'm very familiar with cap k and security k literature but not most other k lit. Tech over truth, extend warrants, do impact comparisons and line-by-line, etc. I'm fine with speed, but be very clear on taglines, theory, analytics, etc; if I don't flow it, I'm not judging it. Flashing is not prep, flex prep is OK, open CX is OK, disclosure on wiki and/or verbally within a reasonable amount of time before the debate is critical. You will get extra speaks if you have well-researched args (e.g. AFF-specific strats, sneaky AFFs, etc; see below)

Add me to the email chain and/or feel free to email me with questions at ghskwei@gmail.com

CX Theory: I default to thinking a couple conditional positions are justified, neg gets fiat, no wholerez, 99% of CPs are theoretically legitimate, etc. but can be convinced otherwise. Fairness is an impact only when you can articulate how I can compare it to other impacts (see 3). I think judge kick makes perfect sense but will only do it if you tell me to since judge kick is not the default in high school debates. I will vote on framework vs. k's/k affs, but I personally hate these debates - go for an AFF-specific PIK or something more interesting for bonus speaks.

LD debaters: everything above applies. I'll happily judge your framework, theory, etc. other non-CX style rounds. If you are going to read a huge block of text from your laptop: slow down and number/label your arguments, otherwise nobody will be able to flow them. I won't evaluate an argument that I can't flow.

Also, I think that silly theory violations such as "interp: opponent must flash permutation texts before reading them" are bad for debate, and I really hope you can go for/win on better args. You will get higher speaks if you go for substance when given the option between winning on substance and winning on silly theory (this does not apply if you're not winning substance, of course).

Speaks: I believe that speaks are a way of rewarding/punishing debaters for actions/performances outside of the win/loss decision on the ballot. Speaks will be adjusted to consider factors such as speaking ability, speaking clarity, research and argument quality, performance during CX, strategy/what you go for, courage, and decorum (e.g. offensive args/language, rudeness to opponents, etc are bad.). I will disclose speaks if asked.

Average tournament-adjusted speaks will be roughly 28.0 for policy debates, higher for LD debates

+.1 for making a batman joke, which tells me that you at least skimmed my paradigm

+.5 if you have a well-researched, aff-specific strat (I especially like seeing this vs k affs)