I am formally a policy judge however I love all arguments I am well versed with K debate CP and all formalities of debate my paradigm is simple convince me why your argument is valid and makes sense and should be weighed above the other team and I will vote for you you be it policy, kritik, E.T.C. I mostly look at the rebuttals, this is where you should be able to sell your point, bring everything together and convince me that your arguments outweighed the other team's.

IF YOU ARE GOING TO SPREAD PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU GO SLOWLY ON YOUR TAG LINES AND YOUR PLAN OR ELSE I CANNOT FLOW THEM AND IT WILL END UP HURTING YOU!!! IF YOU DO NOT, AND I MISS KEY ARGUMENTS IT WILL BE ON YOU

More details, take notice.

Flashing- not very picky with the flashing cards or whatever, but just try to not waste too much time flashing or I will start running prep.

Line by line - I do pay close attention to specific arguments being made on the flow, that being said I hate judge intervention and will not draw any lines for you. I advice that you specify which arguments you want me to weigh in particular and its importance in the round

Topicality - I think that topicality is a strategic argument and will look at it as a disad, and pay particular attention to the 'impact" of the affirmative to both the fairness and education of the round. If you plan to go for topicality I want to see you prove abuse in the round without purposely opting out of potential arguments. Highly doubt that anyone will ever persuade me that it is a reverse voter or it's not a voting issue. *Love a great T debate*

Kritiks -- I think the best teams tend to look for more specific links outside of the generics read in the 1NC, if you can extract really good links from the evidence the aff presents, or the words that they use, it makes the K more powerful and decreases the chance of the aff swindling their way out. Also, having a pretty SOLID alternative really helps proves that their is a different non problematic approach, and gives neg some credibility. I think affirmative should always have a framework asking to weigh their case impacts against the Kritik, makes your case "matter" when it comes decision making.

Theory - not a huge fan, but I am not against using this as a strategy for whatever... using theory alone to get the ballot is ill advised. I mostly likely will vote down the argument, unless you can prove that somehow they skewed your education or ability to debate failrly.

Case - self explanatory. for the aff team - Take good care of your aff throughout the round. Weigh it against everything, its your best defense mechanism.

Counter Plan - try to make it topic specific, and have a counter plan text

Framework - totally open to new ways of thinking/voting in rounds, I think its important that we question how we debate. I will go with whatever framework is presented and warranted the best in the round. If no framework is established in the round I will traditionally go with aff having to meet the burden of proof, and neg defending the status quo or a competitive policy action. Tips for running Framework - prove why your framework is best not only for you, but for the opposing team and for any other potential debate. The more inclusive and fair your framework to higher the chance I go with it.

Any further questions, ask away when you see me.

Woonsocket High School (Debate Rhode Island) 2016

Harvard 2020

- Debated at UDNC, Bronx, Little Lex, Harvard, State tournaments, etc. (regional)

- NAUDL Alumni Ambassador 2017 and coached two BDL teams for it

- helpful for you (if you have time) to read Janet Novack's paradigm - she was my coach in high school and her views have really shaped mine.  

- Have judged at varsity CX at Yale, Bronx, Big Lex, and BDL tournaments

- Will vote on anything (besides stuff like racism good obviously); you do you.

- I haven't run a gender or race K and didn't debate them much in high school, so if you're going to run one in front of me just make sure that the link debate is clear and that you have good analysis. I like a well-versed debate on these if there's a clear link -- please don't do links of omission if that's the only K that you're going for though, make it a better debate.

- Ran policy affs (advocacy statement senior year so like soft left?) // heavy on Cap, T, K, and sometimes ran anthro (lol)

- I've judged 29 rounds on this topic (and watched many more)

General:

- If it is not on my flow, it does not exist. It is your fault if it's not in the right place on my flow - keep it clean.  GO SLOW ON ANALYTICS.

1) CLARITY. Keep my flow clean. Do clear line by line. Roadmapping and signposting gets good speaks from me. I'm already an indecisive person by nature - if I feel like you didn't weigh the arguments enough I'll do them myself and you may not agree with it.

2) SPREADING. I'm fine with spreading, just be clear on tags and authors. Please say "and" or use another word between cards. I'll tell you to slow down / will say "clear" if I can't understand you. I'll only do this a handful of times though so it's up to you to see if i'm flowing or not. 

3) Judges are ignorant and unpredictable creatures, I am no exception, don't let me make the decision on who won based on my musing at the moment. Demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that no matter what insanity may be possessing me today, that I must vote for you.

4) I try to be as blank slate as possible, meaning you need to tell who to vote for and why. Give me clear impact calc. Make my life simple, and you will be rewarded. I love a good impact calc and line by line. Make sure you have offense too or else there's no reason to vote on defense. If neg has no offense at the end and most of the aff stands, I will probably vote aff on presumption if they do better impact calc. 


5) Topicality: One of my least favorite args. I'll vote for it if the aff doesn't respond to it sufficiently. I've ran multiple T's in rounds, which is fine with me but I only like seeing it when there's an actual violation. That being said, don't make your whole entire strategy T unless you really need to. I love off case. I don't really want a 5 minute 2NR on T unless you've actually spent some time on T before.

6) K’s: Explain your K well if you go for it. I will listen to cross X on the K. My ballot will not, however, be cast on CX. Show me that you know it and that it matters to you. I personally ran DnG Cap K and ran anthro for fun a few times. My absolute pet peeve is when people can't explain their alt without having to pull their cards back up and use them for reference the whole time. You should know your alt inside and out like it's your baby. What happens in the world of the alt? Why do we need to do the alt? Why is the alt mutually exclusive? How do you explicitly link? I hate links of omission, make a link wall and make it clear to me why we are voting for your K and what doing so means. 

7) Kaffs: Similar story here. You really have to sell me on solvency. I find that most K-aff teams have trouble articulating their solvency. In round? Out of round? Spillover? If you can sell your solvency, then I will probably vote for you. Show me WHY it's necessary to run your K as an aff.

Framework is cool. I used to run Cap/FW against K Affs... I'm pretty boring.

8) Speaks:

• What gets you good speaks:
  • Following the flow
  • Making it easier for me to flow
  • Making things interesting
  • Clear spreading
  • Productive CX
  • Being passionate

• What hurts your speaks:
  • Being really boring (I love laughing)
  • Wasting CX or Preptime
  • Being rude
  • Generalizations

9) I'm doing this for fun so I expect you to have some fun as well, take the round seriously but that’s no reason to be boring. 

If you’ve made it this far - congrats!! Any further questions can be emailed to kelleybabphavong@college.harvard.edu

Please add me to the email chain using rane.baldwin@gmail.com .

I debated policy for 4 years in high school in Kansas, coached PF for 2 years in Iowa during college, and then coached policy for a couple years in Boston. l now work for an urban debate league on the east coast. This means that I watch a lot of TOC circuit rounds but judge infrequently.

I will listen to anything and enjoy K's, although my knowledge of the lit itself is limited and you thus need to be explicit. I am tabula rasa, but arguments that are highly racist/sexist/cissexist/islamaphobic, etc will be devastating to your speaker points and potentially harm my ability to evaluate the technical aspects of the round. In other words, please don't tell me that immigrants are terrorists. I will be super annoyed with you.

My threshold for arguments with impacts like fairness and education is quite high and I will expect you to articulate your warrants thoroughly. I need to know what you mean by "critical pedagogy" and why specifically you are better for debate than your opponents.

Please articulate and do not speak faster than you can do so clearly. I'm okay with speed and spreading but am not comfortable judging extremely fast debates. I may ask you to slow down.

Please add me to the email chain using rane.baldwin@gmail.com .

I debated policy for 4 years in high school in Kansas, coached PF for 2 years in Iowa during college, and then coached policy for a couple years in Boston. l now work for an urban debate league on the east coast. This means that I watch a lot of TOC circuit rounds but judge infrequently.

I will listen to anything and enjoy K's, although my knowledge of the lit itself is limited and you thus need to be explicit. I am tabula rasa, but arguments that are highly racist/sexist/cissexist/islamaphobic, etc will be devastating to your speaker points and potentially harm my ability to evaluate the technical aspects of the round. In other words, please don't tell me that immigrants are terrorists. I will be super annoyed with you.

My threshold for arguments with impacts like fairness and education is quite high and I will expect you to articulate your warrants thoroughly. I need to know what you mean by "critical pedagogy" and why specifically you are better for debate than your opponents.

Please articulate and do not speak faster than you can do so clearly. I'm okay with speed and spreading but am not comfortable judging extremely fast debates. I may ask you to slow down.

Affiliation: Brookings HS, Brighton HS
Debate Experience: Four years of high school policy for Brookings HS in South Dakota, four years of college parliamentary for Boston University, two years coaching high school policy for New Mission HS in Massachusetts, one year coaching high school policy for Brookings HS, one year coaching high school policy for Brighton HS, four years coaching college parli for Brandeis University and Wellesley College.

I haven't judged much this year, but I'm somewhat familiar with the topic literature through cutting files for the BDL.

Judging Philosophy:
For the most part, this is up for you to determine. I try to enter the round as tabula rasa as possible, but there are a few things you can do to improve your odds:

1. Clash, warrant, and weigh.

2. Have a coherent story. Unless you set up a framework telling me otherwise, I'll default to weighing probability more than the average policy judge.

3. Tell me what to vote on and why. During your rebuttals, write the RFD for me. Be explicit: what do you have to do to win, and how have you achieved that? What did your opponents fail to do that should cost them the round?

4. As far as speed, you need to know your own limits. For me it's not an issue of speed but one of clarity; I don't care how fast you go as long as you're still actually saying words. The only time I've had trouble keeping up is when people speed through analytical blocks that pack 10 distinct arguments in a span of 15 seconds.

I'm fine with just about anything as long as it's clearly and persuasively explained. Feel free to ask me if you have any specific questions. And have fun!

Tell me what you advocate.

tell me why it is not being done

tell me why it needs to be done

tell me why it is the best thing we should do

I participated in Open division high school debate for 2 years and college debate for one semester. I am most familiar with policy debate. I have since been judging Policy Debate for the last 3 years. 

My judging style is could be described as Tabula Rasa, however on Kritique and Debate Theory arguments, I require that these be well developed, or they are easily defeated with Topicality and Fairness counter arguments.  If you do run a Kritik, I encourage you to know the philosophy to some depth.  There have been a number of rounds where I have had to begrudgingly vote for a K, even though it was clear that the team running it was not well versed in, say Nihilism.  As a Tabula Rasa judge, it is up to you to properly define the framework within which the round should be judged.

I prefer a few, well reasoned arguments that are carried, developed, and built upon throughout the round.  Most rounds typically come down to the rebuttals, where the debaters tell me the important issues, how, and why I should vote in their favor.  I like to have a clear, concise summary of the issues you believe are important, and where you stand.

Roadmaps and sign posts are a key component, and especially necessary if you spread.  Spreading should be done in a way that still conveys your arguments and logic. While communication skill is important, I will weigh issues more heavily in a decision. 

I debated in NPDA parliamentary for 4 years in college. I have been judging for the Boston Debate League for over a year now.

On performance, I award speaker points equally weighed on verbal and non-verbal presentation, and cross examinaition question quality and strategy. The exception to ths is speed--speed is fine.

On positions, I have thick calluses for theory and procedural arguments, both surrounding the role of the ballot and why they are voting issues.

Weigh impacts (probability, scope, magnitude, time-frame, etc.) in-round and be as articulate with every argument as is reasonable given the time allotted. My job as the objective arbiter is easy when each point is argued to conclusion.

I was a high school debater in the mid-2000s and have coached mostly regional policy debate teams since then. I don't judge many rounds on the national circuit and I'm not especially up on the newest lingo or arguments. Still, I can flow decently fast, I am well-versed in the broad types of arguments folks make, and I am willing to listen to any argument you care to make.

I tended toward policy-oriented debates when I was competing, but these days I mostly find myself coaching critical arguments (on both the affirmative and negative). Any of these types of arguments can win you the round if you're giving me clear reasons why I should vote for you. The same goes for topicality and theory arguments, though you'll probably have to slow down and articulate them thoroughly if you want me to vote on them.

Other things:

-I like debates where folks are reasonably friendly, even when arguments are hotly contested.

-My day job is as a high school teacher and I'm here for the educational value of the activity. You can argue that other things matter more, but you should know that this is my bias.

-I use he/him pronouns.

-Feel free to ask my anything else before the round starts.

Debated at: Brighton, Excel (Boston Debate League)

Competed at NAUDL and NFL 

As a judge I think debate is an activity where you can defend or advocate for something that your confident and passionate about. I try to walk in the debate round with no predispositions so don't worry about having to change what you talk about and how you do because of me. But I also realize debate is a subjective activity.

Speed: For the most part I can understand people when they go fast the problem usually is with clarity. If you are not cleat I will yell cleat 3 times after that I will only flow what I can hear.

The most important thing for me is that you have clash in the debate round. Saying things like "they dropped our smith evidence" isn't an argumen yout must have a claim and a warrant.

Judge Paradigm for Frank Irizarry, Suffolk University

Name: Frank Irizarry

Email:firizarry@suffolk.edu

College: Suffolk University

Current Profession: Professor/Debate Coach

Judging for: Suffolk University Debate / The Boston Debate League

My experience:

I was a CEDA debater at Marist College (1989-1993) and I coached at the college level for 15 years (Northern Illinois University, Syracuse University, Pace University, University of Florida, Suffolk University). I have been actively involved with the Boston Debate League for the last 14 years and I judge periodically for the BDL. I have judged policy debate for a long time.

After a 14 year "sabbatical" from coaching, I am back coaching college debate for Suffolk University. I am looking forward to this next act in my debate journey.

I am fairly open to whatever debaters want to do stylistically in a debate round. I wasn't always like that but time away gives you some perspective and I realize that this activity belongs to the debaters so I try to create minimal interference in their argument/advocacy strategy.

If you'd like to know about my thoughts on the typical things debaters generally like to ask about, here goes:

Rate of Delivery: You need to slow it down a bit. The hand speed is not what it once was. Additionally, when you are reading blocks of analytics, it is difficult for me to catch everything that you said. Also, the way some debaters underline/highlight their cards doesn't make sense to me as I'm listening to the debate. And I am listening. I actually try to flow and not just construct the round from your speech docs.

Start of the Debate: You do not have to countdown "3..2..1." You're getting ready to read the 1AC, not launch a rocket ship into space."

Quantity of Arguments: I prefer a few well developed arguments but if your strategy involves making lots of arguments early in the debate, so be it.

I am willing to vote on: Topicality, Counterplans, Generic Disadvantages, Conditional Negative Positions, Debate Theory Arguments, Critical Arguments.

I am probably in the minority here but I dislike multiple counterplans in a debate. I think it makes for bad debate. I have voted for teams reading multiple CP's but it never makes me happy.

Ultimately, I like well reasoned arguments, a defense of those arguments and clash on the arguments in the debate.

I dislike rudeness directed toward me or your opponent.

If you have any questions, just ask!

Debated for the Boston Debate League.

I will vote on anything as long as its well articulated and you outline the voters and impacts very well.

Speed- Fine when it's done well -- be clear or I won't flow. I will usually tell you if you are not clear once.

Evidence & Arguments- I want a comparative analysis, I prefer debaters that explain the warrants within the evidence and that have good line by line.

K's- Make sure that the link is very well articulated. Also clearly explain the story of the criticism, don't assume I'm familiar with the philosophy you utilize.

Don't disrespect anyone in the round

Good with anything, speeed- make sure that you are clear and I can hear what you say.

Topicality: 

Explain why its abusive in the round and why it matters to the debate as a whole.

Policy/fiat/USGF affs:

tell me why policy making is the best thing ever/ why it's preferable to the Neg's roll of the judge and ballot/etc. Explain your permutations, what they look like, how they work, why it functions.

Case:

Case Debate is important, make sure that you engage in it!

K/DA

Give good link analysis, the more links that you have specific to the case the aff is running the better, if you only have generic links then I probably will not vote for it so make sure you focus on the link and alternative debate.

rnix@bostondebate.org

Policy Debate Coach for 3 years at Edward M Kennedy (MA), now working for the Boston Debate League. I'm familiar with the resolution and most of the common policy Affs this year. I'm familiar with the more common K and Theory arguments, but if you're running a theory-heavy kritikal aff, do a little bit extra to make sure I understand your argument. I believe my role as the judge is to help both teams improve their arguments and learn from the round.

I go blank slate as best as possible, but I will vote down offensive arguments, and I will explain myself fully in my feedback if that is the reason why I voted you down. I will vote on anything, including K, T, Theory, FW.

Please extend your positions throughout the debate, if you drop an entire position in a speech, even if you bring it back later, I will vote on fairness/violation issues (but only if the other team actually explains the nature of the violation and why I should care that there was a violation in the round, I will do my best not to intervene). Violations won't lose you the debate, but they may cause me not to consider some of your arguments.

I will only ask to see evidence if there has been a direct challenge by the opposing team to it's content or validity.

Impact analysis is the debate round. Convince me why your impacts within your framework are best and why you best achieve your framework and you'll win the round. If one side drops framework, I will assume whatever framework the other team gives me. You need to do the work to weigh the most important arguments at the end of the round. It's safe to assume that if an argument was run and extended throughout the debate that I will at least minimally weigh it in my decision calc, so ultimately you need to explain to me why the summation of your impacts outweighs those of the other team.

I'm pretty good with speed, but volume is important, as long as you're loud enough we'll be all set. There is something to be said for emphasizing your most important points by extending them throughout the round and changing your tone when you present them. Otherwise I will assume everything you're saying has equal weight, which may not benefit you in the round.

Organization is important. Tell me which flow you're on and tell me when you move to something new. If you're giving a line-by-line, let me know, otherwise I'm going to flow everything straight down as an over/underview. I won't do the work for you on the flow.

The Meadows School '15

Northeastern University '19

Belmont Law '22

e-mail: pokerman1996@gmail.com ***PLEASE ADD ME TO YOUR EMAIL CHAIN***

*If you have any questions ask me before the round – it will not hurt your speaks in any way, it can only help*

About me – I debated for 4 years at The Meadows School in Las Vegas, NV -- I tended to be more traditional policy than K during my debate career

How to win in front of me:
— explanation - usually, the team that explains their arguments (and how they interact with the other team's arguments) more will win

— you can convince me an argument is good in many ways —> cross ex, persuasion, good evidence, etc.

— explain net benefits to CPs and how the CP solves for some/all of the aff —> I won't do this for you via my flows

— make the link to Ks and DAs VERY clear – shady links need ever more analysis

— @AFFs – make sure you have offense on your advantages/solvency or you will lose 100% of the time

— @AFFs – make perms on CPs and Ks – tends to be a solid way to either garner offense or make the neg's positions non-competitive/not mutually exclusive

— go as fast as you want just be clear (slow down on tags) - if you're not/I can't understand you I will say "clear" (at that point slow down and enunciate better)

Specific arguments:
— DAs - please explain the link, people tend to read DAs with terrible link evidence and tend to not explain it. I'm not very convinced by "1% risk of a link means you vote neg" args – you should be explaining the link in that time. TURNS CASE IS IMPORTANT. If the 2ar is really really good on uniqueness, and just spends like 2-3 minutes doing amazing explanation, its almost impossible for me to be convinced by negative 'try or die' arguments.

— Politics - There is a lot of good ev. and literature out there given the political scene right now. However, PTX can easily be defeated by affirmative arguments about the illegitimacy of political capital or the low quality of negative evidence. Still, sometimes the negative wins by out-teching the aff.

— CPs - theory is really, really important because most counterplans are extremely theoretically illegitimate. In particular, the argument that 'counterplans that do/can result in the entirety of the plan are a voting issue' is very persuasive to me. Explain how the CP solves the aff and the specific net benefit to the CP. I WILL NOT DO THIS FOR YOU. *If you read Lopez, you better win theory.*

— T - T is good, especially on this topic where a lot of affs are K are shady on how they link to the resolution. Your explanation o/w evidence, but cards are important for definitional purposes. Why is your interp. of the topic better? Limits isn't really an argument, because there are an infinite amount of cases under any theoretical topic - i think of limits as the key internal link to ground, which is a much more important impact. Since teams rarely do impact comparison when going for topicality, if you do even a little bit you'll probably win. Reasonability isn't a real argument, don't waste your time.

—Ks - not the world's biggest fan of no alt Ks and ones with bad links, but am open to listening to them. I have been more policy than critical in my debate career; this means that I most likely will not pick up on K tricks that you might have used to win rounds in the past. Explanation is very important so I can understand your K. Usually, the team that talks about the aff more wins. FW can be a reason that I shouldn't even look at the case, but it depends on how it is argued. Role of the ballot arguments are usually really self-serving, and I'll sympathize with affirmatives that do a good job of pointing this out. Explain the impact to the K and how it o/w the aff's impact, and vice versa for the aff. Also, the Neg needs to explain what the world of the alternative looks like for me to be convinced that the alt is a good idea. ***I will NOT pick up on your K tricks because I am not a huge K debater; spend more time on the components of the K than on tricks***

— Theory - conditionality is good, dispo is better. That being said, it is still a good idea to read mutiple offcase positions as condo if you have more than one. Neg – provide a C/I and explain why that's the best way to frame debate. Aff - explain the in-round abuse and why your interp. is the best for debate. EXPLAIN TERMINAL IMPACTS TO CONDO AND WHY THAT HURTS DEBATE. I have been known to vote solely on 2ARs going for condo.

— Framework - YOU HAVE TO READ THIS AGAINST ALL K AFFS - I will vote on FW so treat this is a viable 2nr strat. In addition, I'm not really sure why teams are going for decision-making/education impacts on framework; fairness and predictability arguments are much more persuasive to me. K teams will ALWAYS have more game on the education front. @Neg: explain why your vision for the topic and debate is better, try to provide a topical version of the aff as an example, and talk about in-round abuse if you go for fairness/predictability (cross apply this to T as well).

— No plan aff's - again, not a huge fan. That being said, I'm still open to listening to them. The more the aff is about the topic, the less of a threat framework should be. Make sure you explain the world of the aff and what it looks like.

Extras:
– There is nothing I love more than fun, challenging debates. BE FUNNY, but still be smart. I enjoy witty humor more than nonsense. Humor --> higher speaks (given you are still good at policy debate and aren't an extemp. debater in policy)

– The better your ethos the more speaker points you will receive; if you feel like you're winning the debate, then you probably are. That being said, your performance during speeches and cross-x will determine a lot of your speaks (in addition to solid args).

Name: Flora (Yuan) Wang
Affiliation: Lexington High School, Brandeis University



I debated Lincoln Douglas for three years at Lexington High School and now debate American Parliamentary at Brandeis University. 

I generally defer to the teachings and philosophies of Sara Sanchez and Chris Palmer but below are my judge philosophies.

I believe in general that the better debating is done by the more persuasive and well- warranted debater. With that, debaters should be able to best explain and understand the evidence they present and should properly frame the round. With impact calculus and direct weighing, debaters should be able to effectively write the ballot for the judge. 

Debaters should speak at whatever speed they are comfortable with it. It is better to speak slower with better word economy rather than going as fast as possible. I will not hesitate to tell debaters to slow down if unclear. Debaters should sign post as clearly as possible. 

I start speaker points around 27. If the debate speaks incoherently or drops arguments across the flow, speaker points decrease by .5 for each instance. For a debater to earn a 28 they must be clearly winning the round across the flow. For above a 28, I believe they should be able to break and reach out rounds of a tournament. 29.5 and 30 are rare and will only be a result of an amazing life-changing speech.

Overall, be nice in rounds- it’s never pleasant to watch two high school students yell at you in a closed room. If you have questions please ask before the round and good luck!