Tabroom.com

New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament

2017 — Bronx, New York, NY/US

LD Debate Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Varad Agarwala Brentwood School

Gustaf Ahdritz Scarsdale HS None

Elyssa Alfieri Hire

Last changed on Thu February 15, 2018 at 10:16 AM EDT

Harrison High School '16
Binghamton University '19
Conflicts: Harrison, and North Hollywood JS

I debated for Harrison High School in NY for four years and I currently debate for Binghamton University. I'm familiar with the national circuit and with more traditional styles of debate.

GENERAL:

Be clear, slow down on tags and enunciate. I'd rather you don't go your top speed, probably 80% of your top speed is fine. I will yell clear and slow. If I miss your arguments I will only call for evidence if I messed up.
Weighing, crystallizing and warranted extensions are so important regardless of what position you're running. Doing these three things is a sure fire way to get good speaks from me.
Be kind and respectful to your opponent (I really dislike mean debaters!!!!) and don't say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, ect.

THEORY/T:
I'm fine with T or theory. I don't think frivolous T/theory is strategic but feel free to run it. I love when debaters make theory arguments that are specific to the abuse being discussed (i.e not just from your team's old back files). Remember to weigh, theory debates can get messy and I'd rather not intervene. I default to: drop the arg and competing interp but will evaluate theory however you tell me to.

CRITICAL ARGS:
I like Ks especially ones that have implementable alternatives, but you can read other types of alternatives I don't mind. If you are running a super complicated K then please slow down and explain your arguments thoroughly. Like always, don't forget to weigh.

POLICY:
I was never much of a policy debater so it would be best if you explained your jargon to me, I understand most arguments but better safe than sorry. Please slow down on card names, tags and other important info. I am not a fan of unrealistic extinction scenarios, but that doesn't mean I won't vote on them.

TRICKS:
Not really a fan and I don't think I'd be a good judge to evaluate them. If you do decide to run them I would prefer that the way the argument functions is clear in the first speech. If you're hitting a debater who is running tricks feel free to run theory - I'd be happy to evaluate it.

DENSE FRAMEWORK:
Explain, Explain, Explain. Please don't assume I know everything there is to know about your FW - even if I do I won't do that work for you. Also, big picture analysis is always a plus.

SPEAKS:
As a general rule of thumb, I start at a 28 then work my way up or down from there. To get above a 29.5 means that I see you in late elims at the tournament.

Jonathan Alston Newark Science

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 5:38 PM EDT

I am a head coach at Newark Science and have coached there for years. I teach LD during the summer at the Global Debate Symposium. I formerly taught LD at University of North Texas and I previously taught at Stanford's Summer Debate Institute.

The Affirmative must present an inherent problem with the way things are right now. Their advocacy must reasonably solve that problem. The advantages of doing the advocacy must outweigh the disadvantages of following the advocacy. You don't have to have a USFG plan, but you must advocate for something.

This paradigm is for both policy and LD debate. I'm also fine with LD structured with a general framing and arguments that link back to that framing. Though in LD, resolutions are now generally structured so that the Affirmative advocates for something that is different from the status quo.

Speed
Be clear. Be very clear. If you are spreading politics or something that is easy to understand, then just be clear. I can understand very clear debaters at high speeds when what they are saying is easy to understand. Start off slower so I get used to your voice and I'll be fine.

Do not spread dense philosophy. When going quickly with philosophy, super clear tags are especially important. If I have a hard time understanding it at conversational speeds I will not understand it at high speeds. (Don't spread Kant or Foucault.)

Slow down for analytics. If you are comparing or making analytical arguments that I need to understand, slow down for it.

I want to hear the warrants in the evidence. Be clear when reading evidence. I don't read cards after the round if I don't understand them during the round.

Offs
Please don't run more than 5 off in policy or LD. And if you choose 5 off, make them good and necessary. I don't like frivolous arguments. I prefer deep to wide when it comes to Neg strategies.

Theory
Make it make sense. I'll vote on it if it is reasonable. Please tell me how it functions and how I should evaluate it. The most important thing about theory for me is to make it make sense. I am not into frivolous theory. If you like running frivolous theory, I am not the best judge for you.

Evidence
Don't take it out of context. I do ask for cites. Cites should be readily available. Don't cut evidence in an unclear or sloppy manner. Cut evidence ethically. If I read evidence and its been misrepresented, it is highly likely that team will lose.

Argument Development

For LD, please not more than 3 offs. Time constraints make LD rounds with more than three offs incomprehensible to me. Policy has twice as much time and three more speeches to develop arguments. I like debates that advance ideas. The interaction of both side's evidence and arguments should lead to a coherent story.

Speaker Points
30 I learned something from the experience. I really enjoyed the thoughtful debate. I was moved. I give out 30's. It's not an impossible standard. I just consider it an extremely high, but achievable, standard of excellence. I haven't given out at least two years.
29 Excellent
28 Solid
27 Okay

For policy Debate (And LD, because I judge them the same way).
Same as for LD. Make sense. Big picture is important. I can't understand spreading dense philosophy. Don't assume I am already familiar with what you are saying. Explain things to me. Starting in 2013 our LDers have been highly influenced by the growing similarity between policy and LD. We tested the similarity of the activities in 2014 - 2015 by having two of our LDers be the first two students in the history of the Tournament of Champions to qualify in policy and LD in the same year. They did this by only attending three policy tournaments (The Old Scranton Tournament and Emory) on the Oceans topic running Reparations and USFG funding of The Association of Black Scuba Divers.

We are also in the process of building our policy program. Our teams tend to debate the resolution with non-util impacts or engages in methods debates. Don't assume that I am familiar with the specifics of a lit base. Please break things down to me. I need to hear and understand warrants. Make it simple for me. The more simple the story, the more likely that I'll understand it.

I won't outright reject anything unless it is blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic.

Important: Don't curse in front of me. If the curse is an essential part of the textual evidence, I am more lenient. But that would be the exception.

newarksciencedebate@gmail.com

Dotan Appelbaum Hire

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2018 at 11:07 AM CDT

Harvard edit: I'd love to hear some more anti-cap. But come on folks, let's call it what it is. It's not 'lower class', it's not 'economically disadvantaged'. It's the proletariat.

Harvard update: I haven't judged in a few months. This is my first tournament on this topic. Don't assume I know anything about the topic, cuz I don't (other than whatever I know from every court clog DA that everyone has read on every single topic ever).

Dotan Appelbaum. He/Him/His.

I'm a freshman at Wesleyan University in Connecticut. I graduated from Saint Louis Park High School in Minnesota. I debated LD for 4 years, 3 on varsity. I competed at mostly Midwest national circuit tournaments, with a few others thrown in (Bronx, Yale). I competed in the Valley Round Robin last year.

I mostly debated on the flow—framework, contention, all that fun stuff. But I did debate K's, theory, policy, etc. plenty, often with aspects of those styles as parts of my cases. I generally understand jargon and buzz words. However, if you are using very esoteric language/buzzwords, make sure you explain them.

I have some experience judging, though it was novices whom I judged. I am a tab judge, so if you're in a rush to get to the round, you should hurry up and stop reading.

TL;DR I'm a tab judge. Read anything. Please, make the round clear—take control of what's going on and write the ballot for me. Also, the one thing I won't vote on is disclosure theory. If you're gonna read it, you'll have to do a spectacular job of why the lack of disclosure in that round specifically disadvantaged you to the extent that you can't win, and to the extent that it outweighs the harms to small schools. Also, I love K's but please don't have an oppression Olympics debate. Those arguments run counter to the literature. Solidarity is key.

General:

-Claim, warrant, impact are all musts.

-extend the claim, warrant, impact. If you drop one, I won't be able to consider the argument.

-Make sure you signpost well. Otherwise, the debate gets super muddled.

-If you think I'm making non-verbals, I'm probably not. Don't let it affect you.

-If you are blatantly offensive/problematic, I will end the round.

-Good (and true) voting issues are the best way to win. Write my ballot for me.

-If I say that I default to something in the rest of this paradigm, it does not mean you have to win me over. If there is a shitty justification for the opposite, and your opponent doesn't respond, I won't default.

-I don't presume aff or neg unless arguments are made. I doubt a round would come down to presumption. I've only seen it once on a split ballot. But, if I have to presume, and no arguments were made, there will be a coin toss.

-Please enjoy! I don't want to make rounds scary. Let's have fun with debate!

Speaking:

-I'm pretty good with speed. Don't go top speed right away.

-Enunciate

-I will yell clear. If you see that I am not flowing, it's because I can't. Slow down.

-Don't ask me how to get a 30 because I have nothing profound to say. You know how to get good speaker points.

Framework:

-If your framework doesn't have real justifications, lord help you.

-Values are derived from the topic. Unless you can derive 'human decency' from the wording of the resolution, steer clear.

-If you engage in value debate, I will cry. (exceptions: see bullet point above)

Theory:

-There are two areas in which I put my foot down/do not evaluate arguments—bigotry, and disclosure theory. 1) It is very difficult to verify in round. 2) Disclosure hurts small school debaters—significantly. It makes debate more exclusive than it already is. 3) It makes debate way less interesting. Show your argumentative skills—not your prep skills. If you really want to risk it and read disclosure theory, you need to have a damn good reason to convince me that your opponents choice not to disclose their case disadvantaged you to the point that I should decide the round based on that.

-Other than that, I'm open to theory. Though, if it's out of round abuse, it will be very hard for me to be able to verify the violation occured.

-I really don't want a debate to end on a shitty spike numbered 6 on an 11 point underview.

-I default to reasonability and drop the argument. However, I don't even like to default to drop the argument, because after you tell me what rule they violated, you need to tell me what consequence is fitting.

K's:

-These are kool. Especially when they are grounded in the real world and deal with real issues of identity.

-You gotta have all the parts, including a role of the ballot.

-If your role of the ballot functions like a standard for evaluating the round, I will decide the round accordingly. This means that a ROTB does not necessarily up-layer a framework debate. Tell me why I should judge the round based on the ROTB. That means that if you read a framework, and your opponent reads a ROTB, prove to me that the framework is a better mechanism for judging the round.

-If your role of the ballot functions as an indictment of something your opponent did (i.e. language used, problematic words or arguments), you need to tell me what I should do about it, and justify it.

-If you're reading high theory or other super esoteric critical stuff, slow down and explain what the giant salad of words you just threw at me meant.

-Ok let's talk about K debate and what it is. A K is a critique (obviously). K's can be a critique of the resolution, of the affirmative's approach, of a debater's actions/language, etc. However, K debate has become almost entirely strategic. Debaters are invoking discussions of oppression for the sake of winning a round, expecting that simply saying certain words (like role of the judge, root cause, etc) will uplayer anything else said in the round. There are a couple problems with this. First, if you are ingenuine about your K, it's really easy to tell and the round gets much much worse. Second, in the real world these discussions of oppression are coming out of leftist movements and analysis. Do you think leftist movements argue that anticapitalism is more important than fighting antiblackness? NO! Please don't run an oppression olympics round. Any argument that a certain oppression is a root cause or is more important than any other axiom of oppression is itself oppressive, reductionist, and wrong. Wilderson is an anticapitalists. Anticapitalists fight antiblackness. These forms of oppression are linked. I'm not gonna drop you for making these arguments, but I can assure you that any debate centered on these arguments is going to be muddled, wrong on both sides, and generally bad praxis. It may as well come down to a coin flip.

Policy:

-Sure, go for it.

Misc:

-Make the round clear. Explain to me what the highest level of the debate is, and why you're definitively winning on it.

-As of the end of the Bronx tournament, my judging is 50-50 +1 to one side since I have so far judged an odd # of rounds.

Nicholas Aranda Walt Whitman

Last changed on Wed September 18, 2024 at 2:38 PM MDT

BIO:

Education:

BA in Philosophy, Peace Studies, & Communication Studies from Regis University

MA A.Q. Miller School of Journalism, Media, & Communication Studies-K-State University

Debate Teaching/Coaching:

-Debate Coach @ Colorado Academy ('23 - present)

-College Debate Coach @ K-State for BP debate ('21-'23)

-Assistant Coach Staff @ the Greenhill School ('20-'23)

- Instructor, VBI-San Diego '24

- Instructor, Harvard University - Harvard Debate Workshop '24

-Curriculum Coordinator & Top Lab Leader at Global Debate Symposium for WSD ('19-‘22)

-Instructor at Baylor Debate Institute for LD ('22)

-Instructor at Stanford National Forensics Institute (PF & Parli) ('19-'21)

PARADIGM
First and foremost I believe debate is about engagement and education. I highly value the role of charity in argumentation and the function of intellectual humility in debate.

NOTEs FOR ONLINE DEBATING:

1) You'll likely need to go slower

2) Be gracious to everyone, don't freak out if someone's Wi-Fi drops

3) I've reverted to flowing on paper--so signpost signpost signpost *See my sections on Cross-X & Speed*

You’ll see two distinct paradigms for WSD & LD/Policy in that order:

World Schools

I love World Schools Debate! This has by far become my favorite format of debate!

Do not run from the heart of the motion--instead, engage in the most salient and fruitful clashes. Weigh very clearly and don't forget to extend the principled/framework conversation throughout the entire debate (not just in the 1!). Ensure that you have a logical structure for the progression and development of the bench, work on developing and staying true to your team line. Work to weigh the round at the end--divide the round into dissectible and engaging sections that can be understood through your given principle or framework system. You are speaking to the judge as an image of a global, informed citizen--you cannot assume that I know all of the inner workings of the topic literature, even if I do; work to sell a clear story: make the implicit, explicit. World Schools Debate takes seriously each of the following: Strategy, Style, and Content. Many neglect strategy and style--too few develop enough depth for their content. Ensure that you take each judging area seriously.

Some thoughts on WSD

1. Prop Teams really need to prioritize establishing a clear comparative and beginning the weighing conversation in the Prop 3 to overcome the time-skew in the Opp Block. This involves spelling out clearly in the prop three not only what the major clashes in the round are but also what sort of voters I should prefer and why.

2. Weighing is a big deal and needs to happen on two levels. The first level has to do with the specific content of the round and the impacts (i.e., who is factually correct about the material debated and the characterizations that are most likely). The second level has to do with the mechanics leveraged in the substantives and defensive part of the round (i.e., independent of content—who did the better debating by relying on clear incentives, layered characterizations, and mechanisms). Most debates neglect this second level of weighing; these levels work together and complement each other.

3. Opposition teams should use the block strategically. This means that the material covered in the opp reply should not be a redundant repetition of the opp 3. One of these two speeches should be more demonstrative (the 3) and the other less defensive (the 4) — we can view them as cohesive but distinct because they prioritize different issues and methods. There is a ton of room to play around here, but bottom line is that I should not hear two back to back identical speeches.

4. Big fan of principled arguments, but lately I have found that teams are not doing a fantastic job weighing these arguments against practical arguments. The framework of the case and the argument should preemptively explain to me what I should prefer this *type* of argument over or against a practical argument (an independent reason to prefer you). This usually involves rhetorically and strategically outlining the importance of this principle because of its moral/value primacy (i.e., what is the principled impact to disregarding this argument). This said, winning your principle should not depend on you winning a prior practical argument.

5. Regrets motions are some of my favorite motions, but I find that teams really struggle with these. You are debating here with the power and retrospect and hindsight. To this end, watch out for arguments that say something is bad because it “will cause X;” rather, arguments should say this thing is bad because it “already caused X.” This does not mean that we cannot access conversations about the future in regrets motions—but we need to focus the majority of our framing on actually analyzing why an *already present/happened* event or phenomena is worthy of regret.

__________________________

LD & Policy Paradigm: Long story short "you do you." Details are provided. I'll listen to just about anything done well. Though I dislike tricks & am not a great judge to pref for theory debates. Some of these sections are more applicable to either LD or Policy but that should be intuitive.

General: I am very much a "flow" judge. Signposting is crucial. I do not extend arguments or draw links on my own. If you do not tell me and paint the story for me I will really despise doing the work for you.

Speaks: I am not afraid to give low point wins. The quality of the argument will always outway the persuasion that you use. It is ridiculous to vote for a team because they sound better. I will penalize racist, xenophobic, homophobic, sexist or ableist speech with low speaks. I don't disclose speaks. This seems arbitrary. I'm not confident why the practice of disclosing speaks has become a common request--but I think this is largely silly.

Speed: I am fine with speed; though I am not fine with bad clarity. More the half of the spreading debaters I listen to seriously neglect diction drills and clarity. Rapidly slurring cards together and ignoring clear sign-posting does not allow as much time as you think for the pen to put ink on the flow. I cannot tell you how many debates I have judged in the last two years where the entirety of CX time is spent by the opponent's trying to figure out what the other debater just said. I will only yell "clear" twice if you are going too fast for me--clarity has only become more important in the world of online debating. Recently, if I reach the point where I have to either say clear (or type it in the zoom chat) debaters get visibly frustrated. You have to choose between a judge who is capable of flowing your material or your desire to go so fast even when incomprehensible. In non-Zoom debates, typically nothing is too fast so long as your diction is good. If you see me stop flowing or if you notice my facial demeanor change this is a good indicator that your speed is too fast with not enough clarity. *Note my Section on Online Debating*

Value debate: I love philosophical clash! View my comments under Framework. Morality is not a value. It's just not. It is descriptive; debate requires normative frameworks.

Framework: Framework is very important to a good debate. Value clash should start here. This comes with two caveats. 1) Know what your authors are actually saying. I am a Philosophy major. I might penalize you for running content that you misconstrue. 2) Be able to explain, with your own analytics, any dense framework that you run. I will default to comparative worlds unless told otherwise. Some level of intervention is required on the part of the judge unless the framework debate is carried all the way to the 2AR--don't make me intervene. Make sure you return to the framework debate! (Especially important for me in LD)

Theory: You do you. Not a fan of frivolous theory, tbh; but you're in charge (more or less). Make the interp clear and the violation clear. I want to be clear here though: I do not enjoy theory debates, I think the proliferating practice of theory debates and competing underviews is net-bad for the activity. Additionally, if theory is a consistent leg of your strategy as a debater, that is fine, just do not pref me. I will not be a good judge for your preferred strategy. I'll also concede here that I am really poor at analyzing tricks debates and I am not a fan of the practice of lists of theory spikes--debate should be, at its core, about engagement not tricks for evasion. This is not to say that I have no understanding of how to adjudicate competing interps or theory debates, but it is not my comfort zone and I dislike the practice.

Cross-X: I flow cross-ex. I do consider it a substantive portion of the debate and cross-ex is binding. I believe that too many debaters waste their cross-ex time by desperately trying to get some understanding of their opponent's case because of the increasing absurdity of some case strategies and/or the lack of clarity that accompanies some speed. There are fundamentally three types of overarching cross-x questions: 1) Clarification, 2) Rebuttal, 3) Set-up/Concession; they rank in weakness/effectiveness from 1-3, with 1 being a non-strategic use of time.

Plans/CPs IN LD: This is fine. I will not usually listen to a theory debate on plans bad or CP bad for LD. PICs are fine. Once again, If you do it right you are fine. Again: If your strategy is to run a theory argument against a CP, a Plan, a PIC, or the like I may not necessarily be super happy about this *See my section on theory*. Debate is about engagement, not evasion--but I will listen to anything to the best of my ability.

K's: Good K debates are wonderful! Bad ones are the worst debates to watch. I love to see something Unique but relevant if you default to K. Please very clearly tell me what the Alt looks like; "vote neg" is not an alt!!! You gotta give me some function beyond “give me the ballot.” I am comfortable with most critical theory and post-modern scholarship. In particular, I have well-established academic training in phenomenology-informed critical theory, metaphysical frameworks that take strong ontological positions, and Deleuzian scholarship writ large. I can draw the links for you; Please do not make me. If you choose to run a critical theory, you should understand it well. I have experience working with critical theory and have worked alongside Dr. George Yancy firsthand on Critical Race Theory--I cannot stress this enough: good K debaters do their authors and their authors' scholarship justice by understanding the primary texts and scholarship inside and outside of the round. If your only exposure to a K author is a list of cards, you are philosophically unequipped to meaningfully engage in that author's scholarship, and unprepared for a good K debate.

This in no way means that you have to be a PhD student on Baudrillard to run a Baudrillard K, it just means you have to actually do your homework and trust your reasonable knowledge of the case-dependent scholarship because you didn't take shortcuts in understanding the K-Author, and your main textual engagement with the K-Author goes well beyond a series of cards, especially cards someone else cut.

Evidence: Be ethical with your evidence. This is serious stuff.

Weighing and Impacts: Spell out the voters for me. It's that simple. If you give me an impact calc, that is super beneficial for you.****When I give my RFD in prelims, you are more than welcome to ask questions. However, if you argue with me or begin to debate with me, I will give you a 20 on speaks--no joke Do not waste my time.

* I will not tolerate any rhetoric that is racist, sexist, or homophobic. Taking morally repugnant positions is not in your favor.

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

David Asafu-Adjaye Newark Science

Last changed on Sun January 14, 2024 at 6:19 AM EDT

Hey y’all. I’m David and I debated at Newark Science for 4 years on the state, regional, and national level.

College Debate: rundebate@gmail.com

High School Debate:asafuadjayedavid@gmail.com

My influences in debate have been Chris Randall, Jonathan Alston, Aaron Timmons, Christian Quiroz, Carlos Astacio, Willie Johnson, Elijah Smith in addition to a few others.

Conflicts:

-Newark Science

-Rutgers

I coach with DebateDrills- the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy,code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form:https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy

Two primary beliefs:

1. Debate is a communicative activity and the power in debate is because the students take control of the discourse. I am an adjudicator but the debate is yours to have. The debate is yours, your speaker points are mine.

2. I am not tabula rasa. Anyone that claims that they have no biases or have the ability to put ALL biases away is probably wrong. I will try to put certain biases away but I will always hold on to some of them. For example, don’t make racist, sexist, transphobic, etc arguments in front of me. Use your judgment on that.

FW

I predict I will spend a majority of my time in these debates. I will be upfront. I do not think debate are made better or worse by the inclusion of a plan based on a predictable stasis point. On a truth level, there are great K debaters and terrible ones, great policy debaters and terrible ones. However, after 6 years of being in these debates, I am more than willing to evaluate any move on FW. My thoughts when going for FW are fairly simple. I think fairness impacts are cleaner but much less comparable. I think education and skills based impacts are easier to weigh and fairly convincing but can be more work than getting the kill on fairness is an intrinsic good. On the other side, I see the CI as a roadblock for the neg to get through and a piece of mitigatory defense but to win the debate in front of me the impact turn is likely your best route. While I dont believe a plan necessarily makes debates better, you will have a difficult time convincing me that anything outside of a topical plan constrained by the resolution will be more limiting and/or predictable. This should tell you that I dont consider those terms to necessarily mean better and in front of me that will largely be the center of the competing models debate.

Kritiks

These are my favorite arguments to hear and were the arguments that I read most of my career. Please DO NOT just read these because you see me in the back of the room. As I mentioned on FW there are terrible K debates and like New Yorkers with pizza I can be a bit of a snob about the K. Please make sure you explain your link story and what your alt does. I feel like these are the areas where K debates often get stuck. I like K weighing which is heavily dependent on framing. I feel like people throw out buzzwords such as antiblackness and expecting me to check off my ballot right there. Explain it or you will lose to heg good. K Lit is diverse. I do not know enough high theory K’s. I only cared enough to read just enough to prove them wrong or find inconsistencies. Please explain things like Deleuze, Derrida, and Heidegger to me in a less esoteric manner than usual.

CPs

CP’s are cool. I love a variety of CP’s but in order to win a CP in my head you need to either solve the entirety of the aff with some net benefit or prove that the net benefit to the CP outweighs the aff. Competition is a thing. I do believe certain counterplans can be egregious but that’s for y’all to debate about. My immediate thoughts absent a coherent argument being made.

1. No judge kick

2. Condo is good. You're probably pushing it at 4 but condo is good

3. Sufficiency framing is true

Tricks

Nah. If you were looking for this part to see whether you can read this. Umm No. Win debates. JK You can try to get me to understand it but I likely won't and won't care to either.

Theory
Just like people think that I love K’s because I came from Newark, people think I hate theory which is far from true. I’m actually a fan of well-constructed shells and actually really enjoyed reading theory myself. I’m not a fan of tricky shells and also don’t really like disclosure theory but I’ll vote on it. Just have an actual abuse story. I won’t even list my defaults because I am so susceptible to having them changed if you make an argument as to why. The one thing I will say is that theory is a procedural. Do with that information what you may.

DA’s

Their fine. I feel like internal link stories are out of control but more power to you. If you feel like you have to read 10 internal links to reach your nuke war scenario and you can win all of them, more power to you. Just make the story make sense. I vote for things that matter and make sense. Zero risk is a thing but its very hard to get to. If someone zeroes the DA, you messed up royally somewhere.

Plans

YAY. Read you nice plans. Be ready to defend them. T debates are fairly exciting especially over mechanism ground. Similar to FW debates, I would like a picture of what debate looks like over a season with this interpretation.

Presumption.

Default neg. Least change from the squo is good. If the neg goes for an alt, it switches to the aff absent a snuff on the case. Arguments change my calculus so if there is a conceded aff presumption arg that's how I'll presume. I'm easy.

LD Specific

Tricks

Nah. If you were looking for this part to see whether you can read this. Umm No. Win debates. JK You can try to get me to understand it but I likely won't and won't care to either.

Kaushal Balagurusamy Mission San Jose HS

Last changed on Mon January 14, 2019 at 6:00 PM EDT

I Lexington LD ‘17

Cal Berkeley ‘21

General: Debate is a communicative activity where truths are contingent on your justification

and construction of them – that said I’ll vote off of whatever is justified. Debate is a testing space

for arguments – this means that whatever paradigm you justify whether that’s poetic

performance or reasonability – that’s how things will work. *I reserve the right to make

particular judgements that go against the paradigm or choices in specific issues not listed based

on new circumstances that arise* I’m impartial but understand psychologically people will be

biased towards arguments that are well explained and clearly explicated because I can

understand your intentions and framing better – that’s the only way ethos impacts things but it

matters. Persuasion, research, presentation are all crucial for debate to make you all great

reasoners, researchers, and talkers – those will help you in career and make the world a better

place – I’ll do my role as a judge to regulate practices like so. Big picture framing is important so

long as it resolves the line by line – pathos alone is insufficient but required

PF:

- I’ve talked to PF people on my team and debated it for fun a couple times within my team, and

since I did LD I’ll evaluate things similarly to a mutually agreed implicit framework or

framework/contention duality

LD:

General:

- Speed is fine, please be clear, I'll call it as many times necessary but I will get frustrated and

dock speaks

- I won't vote for an argument if I don't understand it, it is your responsibility to explain that

- Prep stops when your flash drive leaves your computer – making speech docs is part of prep

- I'm comfortable with most arguments as long as you can explain and weigh them explicitly and

clearly

- Disclosure is good norm- if you don't disclose or disclose insufficiently or it's brought up in the

round, I will dock your speaks by 1-5 speaker points (based on strength of this violation) from

whatever I would have given you, but I will still evaluate the theory debate and the rest of the

round impartially – I just need to deter undisclosure

- You must make your evidence available

- I enjoy policy debates the most, please weigh

- I also enjoy theory debates that are well executed

Defaults

- *I’ll only use default paradigms if both debaters don’t assume a common paradigm or explicitly

argue for one, or implicitly justify one – I try to keep my defaults the least interventionist as

possible so even if you don’t know about it, it won’t affect your strategy

- Theory: Competing interps, RVI’s, Drop the Debater

Comparing Worlds

- Framework – syllogistics over floating justifications, epistemic confidence

Policy-esque arguments:

- Impact comparison and weighing is crucial, otherwise i have no idea where to look first and

will read your cards because that’s the only non interventionist understanding

- Utilize argument diversity

- Framing is very important, if you don't explain implications of winning arguments, then i don't

know their use even if you have won them

- please compare evidence

- i personally think that hard work should be rewarded, so well executed strategies will increase

your speaks so will being well researched

Phil:

- I’m well read on analytical philosophy, I’m less well read on postmodernism and continental

philosophy but as long as you can clearly articulate them syllogistically – it’ll be super easy to

evaluate, just don’t throw buzzwords around because then I’ll just think you’re recycling

backfiles and trying to confuse everyone

- be comparative

Kritik:

- Very familiar with cap, ID ptx, antiblackness, CLS, security, and other policy kritiks – less

familiar with postmodernism

- Please have good evidence and diversify/nuance your kritik and when you respond to it

- Tech and ethos are both very important on the K debate, make sure that you can do both

- Long dumps and generic responses aren't that great, make them better by tailoring it to the

round and explaining the 2NR or 1AR against these very well

- I am pretty convinced by policymaking arguments against these, that being said, be super

responsive and err on the side of overexplanation against these

- Not well read in high theory, my understanding will solely depend on your ability to explain it.

Theory:

- Default to competing interps, rvi, drop debater- will still be convinced by arguments for other

sides

- Frivolous theory: I will listen to it because it is strategic but if it's clear that it's used as

argument avoidance and just for strategy rather than actual abuse, I’ll destroy your speaks to

reflect your pathetic strategy

- Good theory debates are better to watch especially when they are utilized well against tricks

and abuse

- weigh and frame – pure line by line just shows me your ignorant to the overall picture

Tricks:

- Love intelligent and unique tricks with interesting applications because they show the creative

research that debate should value – don’t recycle, because it just shows your lack of unoriginality

and research

- I’ll nuke your speaks to deter old recycled tricks like rodl indexicals and the standard

LHP/scarsdale 2012 stuff

- Implications need to be clear in the initial speech

- these include: a prioris, triggers, INCOHERENT framework applications, etc.

Ethics:

- If you are caught clipping, it will result in a Loss 0. That being said, if you accuse someone of

an evidence ethics violation and you are proven to be wrong, the same punishment will be given

to you. Accidentally skipping 2 words in a card is not clipping – record your speeches but not

your opponents – they should do that to avoid law violations

- Clearly miscut evidence or misrepresentation should be brought up by opposing debaters in

round as evidence indicts – evidence can be interpreted in various ways, don’t think it should be

required to drop them but you can read a theory shell, I just don’t think it’s a smart strategy

- If your opponent says some really messed up stuff like racism is good or something I’ll nuke

their speaks to mess them up for the tournament, but if you can’t beat such a pathetically racist

argument it shows your lack of skill – I need kids and the new liberal generation to be able to

stand up and justify, tackle the most bigoted of speech so that you are informed and ready to

destroy the racists of the real world, you will not get by in the real world expecting people to “be

liberal” – which means I won’t automatically vote against them but will dock their speaks

Stanley Baxter Harrison

Robert Bischoff The Albany Academies

Sarah Botsch-McGuinn American Heritage

Last changed on Fri September 20, 2024 at 1:28 PM EDT

Sarah Botsch-McGuinn

email: sbotschmcguinn@gmail.com

Director of Speech & Debate-Cypress Bay HS (2022-present)

Director of Speech and Debate-Cooper City HS (2018-2022)

Director of Speech and Debate-American Heritage Palm Beach (2017-2018)

Director of Forensics-Notre Dame San Jose (2009-2017)
Head Debate Coach-Notre Dame San Jose (2008-2009)

General:
I’ve been a debate coach for the past 17 years, and Director of Forensics for 9 at NDSJ, one year as Director at American Heritage, 4 years at Cooper City HS and now at Cypress Bay High School. I primarily coached Parliamentary Debate from 2008-2017, including circuit Parli debate. I've been involved in National Circuit LD pretty extensively over the last 9 years, but have judged all forms of debate at all levels from local south Florida and northern CA to national circuit.

First and foremost, I only ever judge what is presented to me in rounds. I do not extend arguments for you and I do not bring in my own bias. I am a flow judge, and I will flow the entire debate, no matter the speed, though I do appreciate being able to clearly understand all your points. I consider myself to be a gamemaker in my general philosophy, so I see debate as game. That doesn't mean that there aren't real world impacts off debate (and I tend to be convinced by 'this will impact outside the round' type of arguments). **I don't vote on defense. It's important but you won't win on a defensive answer.**

While I do appreciate fresh approaches to resolution analysis, I’m not an “anything goes” judge. I believe there should be an element of fair ground in debate-debates without clash, debates with extra topicality, etc will almost certainly see me voting against whoever tries to do so if the other side even makes an attempt at arguing it (that said, if you can’t adequately defend your right to a fair debate, I’m not going to do it for you. Don’t let a team walk all over you!). Basically, I love theoretical arguments, and feel free to run them, just make sure they have a proper shell+. *Note: when I see clear abuse in round I have a very low threshold for voting on theory. Keep that in mind-if you try to skew your opponent out of the round, I WILL vote you down if they bring it up.*

I also want to emphasize that I'm an educator first and foremost. I believe in the educational value of debate and it's ability to create critical thinkers.

+Theory shell should at minimum have: Interpretation, Violation, Standards and Voters.

Speaks:
Since quality of argument wins for me 100% of the time, I’m not afraid of the low point win. I don’t expect this to enter into the rounds much at an elite tournament where everyone is at the highest level of speaking style, but just as an emphasis that I will absolutely not vote for a team just because they SOUND better. I tend to stick to 26-29+ point range on a 30 scale, with average/low speakers getting 26s, decent speakers getting 27s, good 28s, excellent 29s, and 30 being reserved for best I’ve seen all day. I will punish rudeness/lying in speaks though, so if you’re rude or lie a lot, expect to see a 25 or less. Additionally, shouting louder doesn’t make your point any better, I can usually hear just fine.

If I gave you less than 25, you probably really made me angry. If you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, ableist etc I will punish you in speaks. You have been warned. I will kill your speaks if you deliberately misgender or are otherwise harmful in round. I am not going to perpetuate hate culture in debate spaces.

Speed:
I have no problem with speed, but please email me your case if you are spreading. I will call 'clear' once if you are going too fast, and put down my pen/stop typing if I can't follow. It's only happened a couple times, so you must be REALLY fast for me to give up.

PLEASE SIGN POST AND TAG, ESPECIALLY IF I'M FLOWING ON MY LAPTOP. IF I MISS WHERE AN ARGUMENT GOES BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T TAG IT, THAT'S YOUR FAULT NOT MINE.

A prioris:
Please explain why your argument is a-priori before I will consent to consider it as such. Generally I am only willing to entertain framework arguments as a-priori, but who knows, I've been surprised before.

Theory:
Theory is great, as I mentioned above, run theory all day long with me, though I am going to need to see rule violations and make sure you have a well structured shell. I should not see theory arguments after the 1AR in LD or after the MG speech in Parli. I also don't want to see theory arguments given a ten second speed/cursory explanation, when it's clear you're just trying to suck up time. My threshold is high for RVIs, but if you can show how your opponent is just sucking time, I'm open to this. Also open to condo-bad arguments on CPs/Ks, though that doesn't mean you'll automatically win on this.

*Note: Because PF has such limited time, I am not huge on theory in PF especially if both speakers are not especially used to them. Please only run theory if it is especially egregious, even though I like theory debate. There is a big difference between when a debate has 7-8 minutes of speaking time vs 3-4*

Disclosure theory: I'm unlikely to vote on this if your opponent isn't reading something very strange. I think education and disclosure is good but that doesn't mean I think someone should automatically lose for not. Keep this in mind. PLEASE I DONT WANT TO HEAR DISCLOSURE LITERALLY READ ANYTHING ELSE IM BEGGING YOU. IN PF IT IS AN AUTO LOSS TO READ DISCLOSURE THEORY I AM VERY SERIOUS. I WILL JUST NOT FLOW. PLEASE READ THIS.

Most other theory I evaluate in round. I don't tend to go for blippy theory arguments though! Reasonability is a good answer. Prefer competing interp.

Critical arguments:
I love the K, give me the K, again, just be structured. I don't need the whole history of the philosopher, but I haven't read everything ever, so please be very clear and give me a decent background to the argument before you start throwing impacts off it. Also, here's where I mention that impacts are VITAL to me, and I want to see terminal impacts.

I prefer to see clash of ROB/ROJ/Frameworks in K rounds. If you are going to run a K aff either make it topical or disclose so we can have a productive round. Please.

PF: I get you want to be cool, but please make sure you know your opponent would be okay with it. Email or contact them ahead of time. As I said above with theory, it makes me really uncomfortable to judge rounds where only one side is familiar with this type of debate. I am happy to run k rounds so long as everyone is cool with it.

Presumption:
In general I default to competing interp. If for some reason we have gotten to the point of terribad debate, I presume Neg (Aff has burden to prove the resolution/affirm. Failure to do so is Neg win. God please don't make me do this :( )

Weighing:
I like very clear weighing in rebuttals. Give me voting issues and compare worlds, tell me why I should prefer or how you outweigh, etc. Please. I go into how I evaluate particular impacts below.

I like clear voting issues! Just because I’m flowing doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate you crystallizing and honing in on your main points of offense.

I prefer voter speeches follow a: Main points of offense-->impact calc--->world comp model. If you just do impact calc I'll be happy with it, but I like looking on my voter sheet for what you feel you're winning on. It helps me more quickly organize my ideas.

Impacts:
I put a lot of emphasis on impacts in my decisions. The team with bigger/more terminal, etc impacts generally walks away with my vote, so go to town. This goes doubly true for framework or critical arguments. Why is this destroying debate as we know it? Why is this ___ and that's horrible? Translation: I tend to weigh magnitude heaviest in round, but if you can prove pretty big probable impacts over very low probability extinction impacts I'll likely go that direction.

You should be able to articulate how your contentions support your position/value/whatever. That should go without saying, but you would be very surprised. I don't vote on blips, even if we all know what you're saying is true. So please warrant your claims and have a clear link story. This goes doubly true for critical positions or theory.

Preferences for arguments:

If you want to know what I like to see in round, here are my preferences in order for LD:

K debate

LARP

Theory

Phil

Traditional

Tricks

This doesn't mean I won't vote for a tricks case but I will be much sadder doing it.

PF:

Policy/LARP

Traditional

Theory

NO TRICKS WHATSOEVER ITS AN AUTO LOSS

I know this makes me sound kind of intense, I promise I'm not. I really love debate, but I also don't like messy debate that feels super one sided and could be avoided if we check in and make sure everyone is cool with the kind of debate we are having. In PF, if you can't get ahold of your opponent I prefer if you stick to lay and presume they are a lay team. In LD go to town

Grant Brown Lake Highland Preparatory

Last changed on Sat June 29, 2024 at 10:21 AM CDT

Grant Brown (He/Him/His)

Millard North '17, currently a PhD student in Philosophy at Villanova University^

Former Head Coach at the Brearley School; I am mostly retired now from debate

^ [I am more than happy to discuss studying philosophy or pursuing graduate school with you!]

Email: grantbrowndebate@gmail.com

Conflicts: Brearley School, Lake Highland Preparatory

Last Updates: 6/29/2023

Scroll to the bottom for Public Forum

The Short Version

As a student when I considered a judge I usually looked for a few specific items, I will address those here:

1. What are their qualifications?

I learned debate in Omaha, Nebraska before moving to the East Coast where I have gained most of my coaching experience. I qualified to both NSDA Nationals and the TOC in my time as a student. I have taught numerous weeks at a number of debate summer camps and have been an assistant and head coach at Lake Highland and Brearley respectively.

2. What will they listen to?

Anything (besides practices which exclude other participants) - but I increasingly prefer substantive engagement over evasive tactics, tricks, and theory cheap shots.

3. What are they experienced in?

I coach a wide variety of arguments and styles and am comfortable adjudicating any approach to debate. However, I spend most of my time thinking about kritik and framework arguments, especially Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, and Deleuze.

4. What do they like?

I don’t have many preconceived notions of what debate should look, act, feel, or sound like and I greatly enjoy when debaters experiment within the space of the activity. In general, if you communicate clearly, are well researched, show depth of understanding in the literature you are reading, and bring passion to the debate I will enjoy whatever you have to present.

5. How do they adjudicate debates?

I try to evaluate debates systematically. I begin by working to discern the priority of the layers of arguments presented, such as impact weighing mechanisms, kritiks, theory arguments, etc. Once I have settled on a priority of layers, I evaluate the different arguments on each, looking for an offensive reason to vote, accounting for defense, bringing in other necessary layers, and try to find an adequate resolution to the debate.

The Longer Version

At bottom debate is an activity aimed at education. As a result, I understand myself as having in some sense an educational obligation in my role as a judge. While that doesn't mean I aim to impose my own ideological preferences, it does mean I will hold the line on actions and arguments which undermine these values.

I no longer spend time thinking about the minutia of circuit debate arguments, nor am I as proficient as I once was at flowing short and quickly delivered arguments. Take this into consideration when choosing your strategy.

Kritiks

I like them. I very much value clarity of explanation and stepping outside of the literature's jargon. The most common concern I find myself raising to debaters is a lack of through development of a worldview. Working through the way that your understanding of the world operates, be it through the alternative resolving the links, your theory of violence explaining a root-cause, or otherwise is crucial to convey what I should be voting for in the debate.

I am a receptive judge to critical approaches to the topic from the affirmative. I don't really care what your plan is; you should advocate for what you can justify and defend. It is usually shiftiness in conjunction with a lack of clear story from the affirmative that results in sympathy for procedurals such as topicality.

Theory

I really have no interest in judging ridiculous tricks and/or theory arguments which are presented in bad faith and/or with willfully ignorant or silly justifications and premises. Please just do not - I will lower your speaker points and am receptive to many of the intuitive responses. I do however enjoy legitimate abuse stories and/or topicality arguments based on topic research.

Policy Arguments

I really like these debates when debaters step outside of the jargon and explain their scenarios fully as they would happen in the real world. For similar reasons, good analytics can be more effective than bad evidence - I am a strong judge for spin and smart extrapolation. I tend to like more thorough extensions in the later speeches than most judges in these debates.

Ethical Frameworks

I greatly enjoy these debates and I spend pretty much all of my time thinking about, discussing, and applying philosophy. I would implore you to give overview explanations of your theory and the main points of clash between competing premises in later speeches.

If your version of an ethical framework involves arguments which you would describe as "tricks," or any claim which is demonstrably misrepresenting the conclusions of your author, I am not the judge for you.

Public Forum

I usually judge Lincoln Douglas but am fairly familiar with the community norms of Public Forum and how the event works. I will try to accommodate those norms and standards when I judge, but inevitably many of my opinions above and my background remain part of my perception.

Debaters must cite evidence in a way which is representative of its claims and be able to present that evidence in full when asked by their opponents. In addition, you should be timely and reasonable in your asking for, and receiving of, said evidence. I would prefer cases and arguments in the style of long form carded evidence with underlining and/or highlighting. I am fairly skeptical of paraphrasing as it is currently practiced in PF.

Speaks and Ethics Violations

If accusations of clipping/cross-reading are made I will a) stop the debate b) confirm the accuser wishes to stake the round on this question c) render a decision based on the guilt of the accused. If I notice an ethics violation I will skip A and B and proceed unilaterally to C. However, less serious accusations of misrepresentation, misciting, or miscutting, should be addressed in the round in whatever format you determine to be best.

Felix Chien Horace Mann HS

Stephanie Ciocca West Broward HS

Henry Curtis Lexington HS

Last changed on Sun January 19, 2020 at 10:45 AM EDT

--This is my first major edit to my paradigm in, like, two years, so ask me questions before the round if there's anything here that doesn't make sense or I forgot.--

I debated four years of policy and one year of LD in high school from 2003 to 2008. I've been coaching LD since I graduated and I've been with Lexington for the past 5ish years. I'm also working on a PhD in philosophy (this doesn't mean what you think it means, see below).

General info/Speaker points stuff

--Email chains are cool, include me on them: hcurtis@albany.edu

--Run whatever you want to run as long as it isn't actively offensive. If you want a K debate, have a K debate. If you're looking for a values or stock debate, that's cool too. The space is yours, do what you want with it. There's stuff that I'm probably less good at judging than other people, but I won't drop you for running a specific type of argument unless, again, it's actively offensive.

--I'm 100% team tech over truth. A dropped argument is a true argument. That being said (and this applies generally as well), the dumber an argument is, the lower my threshold for a response is. So, while most arguments require actual, thought out responses, if you respond to "must concede after the AC" by just saying "no I don't", that'll count. So, don't drop stuff, but don't waste time on really bad arguments. If an argument is given without a warrant, it doesn't need as developed of a response.

--On that subject, warrants are cool too. I hate vague extensions, they bother me and that'll reflect in your speaker points. If you're extending a card, a theory shell, anything really, give me the warrant behind the card. What does the [evidence/shell/value/whatever] say, why is it right, and what does that have to do with my ballot? Better extensions and better storytelling mean better speaker points. Blippy extensions with no explanation require less to respond to because, as above, blippy extensions are bad arguments.

--I'm not the best at flowing. This matters less in a world of speech docs, but for stuff like detailed underviews (like cramming drop the debater, RVI, reasonability, and random evaluate theory after the 1AR spike into the same subpoint) or longer theory shells, slow down. No, seriously, slow down. I won't get all of the details, and then when you're posting me after the round about how I could have missed underview A, subpoint 3, as extended with random other thing on a totally different flow as defense somewhere else, I'll just say I didn't get it on the flow and we'll both be mad.

--I don't like doing work for debaters. Embedded clash is a nicer way of saying judge intervention. Don't make me do it. Offense weighing and comparison is probably the most important thing for me (and key to good speaker points). Don't just say why your stuff is good, say why your stuff is better/more important to my ballot than their stuff.

--Last thing for speaker points, the most important factor for me is strategy. If you make strategic arguments and there isn't anywhere where I think you should have done something different, then you'll get very high speaker points. Strategy is number one for me, but that gets weighed against not being a jerk in round, being funny, and being a good speaker. If you do everything perfectly but you're not a clear speaker, then you won't get a 30, but you'll still get above a 29.5. I'll say clear or slow if I need to, but if I say it a couple of times, then you should know what'll happen to your speaks. If I say clear, don't do that thing where you're clear for a couple of seconds and then just go back to how you were speaking before. Also, general rule of thumb, be loud. I don't hear stuff very well, so the louder you are the better. Don't scream at me, but you get the point.

T/Theory

--At least 80% of my neg ballots when I debated policy were on T. Love me a good T debate.

--General stuff: I default to competing interpretations, no RVI, drop the debater unless told otherwise. Also, general pet peeve, if you're going to tell me drop the argument and it isn't blatantly clear what argument I'm dropping, then tell me what argument I'd be dropping.

--RVIs need a little bit of work for me. You need to convince me why you get RVIs in the first place (RVIs are much more convincing against multiple shells or 7 off strats) and then actively identify what constitutes an RVI and why.

--1AR theory is fine-ish, but when a round turns into shell versus shell, it usually breaks down into incomprehensible nonsense and then I get sad and then I trash your speaker points. If it gets to this point, what makes me happy is offense comparison. This is usually easier if we're weighing between fairness and education voters, but if it's fairness v. fairness, then be super specific about why your opponent is being worse for fairness than you are. Compare offense, don't just extend yours. Alternatively, go meta and tell me why aff or neg theory comes first. Either way, don't ignore the other side of the flow, because then I have to do weighing for you and nobody likes that.

--I'll vote for disclosure shells, but the dumb argument vs. strength of response weighing from before applies here. If there's straight up nothing on the wiki and they're from a school where you'd expect something to be there, then fine. But if it's a small school non-circuit debater and/or your interp is "must disclose all speech docs, past 2NR strategies, and what they've had for lunch the past five days", then a lesser response is required.

--Generally speaking, if there's an obvious win on substance and a more difficult win on T or theory and you go for T or theory, I consider that a less than strategic move and it'll reflect in your speaker points.

DA/Counterplan/LARPy Stuff

--I was a policy debater after all, so I'm pretty comfortable with this kind of debate.

--Impact calc is your best friend. Good impact calc means good speaker points and typically is a tiebreaker if I want to avoid intervening. If I have a better understanding of why your impacts matter more than your opponent's, then you're probably going to win.

--This is a general thing, but I'll highlight it here and elsewhere, but extensions should include storytelling for me. Don't just extend the cards from the disad, explain the warrants and tell me how they link together into the story of the disad. Better extensions, better speaker points.

K/Framework

--So remember how I said that me being a philosophy PhD doesn't mean what you think it means? I study bioethics and general normative theory and have had any knowledge/appreciation of continental philosophy beaten out of me over the last 5 years. So, I'm actually not the best at evaluating super dense Ks, high theory, that sort of stuff. That being said, you can totally run it if that's your thing. However, you're going to ahve to take extra time for storytelling. What's going on in the K, what does the aff/res do that is bad, why should I care, and what do you do to make it better/different? So, don't avoid running Ks if that's your A-strat. Do what you do best. Just be good at it and we're fine. If you've grabbed a K from a teammate that you haven't seen before and don't know how to properly extend and explain, it probably won't go well and you should consider doing something else (this applies generally).

--Framework v. framework debates are almost as bad as theory v. theory debates in terms of incomprehensibility. So, do active weighing work. Why does your framework matter more? If your framework precludes, why? If they say their framework precludes, why doesn't it. If both frameworks preclude each other and I have no in-round way to determine whose actually does, we're all going to be upset.

--Role of the ballot/role of the judge is probably the single most important layer of the flow. I mean, you have the power to tell me what my ballot does. Use it to your advantage. If you win that the only thing I should care about is whatever the role of the ballot says I should care about, that's kind of a big deal. Use it to your advantage. On the other side of the flow, you really should spend time here if you're responding to a K.

--Totally fine with performances, but, and this also applies generally, weighing pre versus post fiat offense and why the performance itself matters is pretty important. This is another area where the role of the ballot is your best friend.

--Like I said, I'm usually pretty good about ethics frameworks since that's kind of what I do for a living. That being said, debate phil is 99% of the time waaaaaaayyyyyyyy different from academic phil. This is especially the case for K authors like Foucault, but also for Kant, Mill, Rawls, etc. So, you'll have a little more leeway with explaining evidence for something like a Kant framework, but you still need to do actual extensions and explanations.

Other miscellaneous stuff

--Again, if this is your thing, this is your thing so do it, but I'm generally not a fan of tricks. Most tricks arguments fall into the camp of bad arguments I describe above where a response of "nuh-uh" is sufficient. Again, if this is what you do, then do it, just be super clear about where stuff is located, both when you're reading it and when you're responding to stuff in c/x. Nothing is more infuriating than shifty c/x responses. Saying stuff like "lol I don't know what an a priori is" when it's pretty clear you do is an easy way to get your speaks docked. Don't be that person.

--In that regard, unless you legitimately don't know what the person is asking about, don't say "I don't know what that means". If you've been to camp or the TOC or on the circuit at all, I assume you at least have some understanding of what terms like pre-fiat or spike mean. That's being shifty and wasting c/x time and it's annoying.

--Flex prep is fine. To a lesser extent, so it using c/x time as prep if you want. It isn't a good look, but c/x time is your time to ask questions and use it strategically. Asking questions is generally better than not. Also, both c/x and flex prep are binding.

That's all I can think of for now, I'll try to be better about updating this more regularly. Again, if something here isn't clear or if you want to know more, find me at the tournament and ask or ask me before the round starts.

James D'Ambrosio Sayville High School

Last changed on Fri August 10, 2018 at 1:54 PM EDT

JUDGING PARADIGM - JAMES D'AMBROSIO

I'm a traditional judge with a solid grasp of the role(s) of the Affirmative (Aff) and Negative (Neg) putting forth arguments illustrating why they won the debate. I'm a traditionalist when judging debates: Cases should have a value and a criterion, and I should need only one (1) sheet of paper to flow the Aff and another for the Neg. Arguments should be topical. I understand there's more complicated arguments such as a 'kritik' or 'disadvantage,' but arguments can be successfully run within the traditional value and criterion framework.

Tell me, exactly, how to vote on the round in the NR and 2AR, explaining why your voting issues are superior to your opponent's. I want the round to be resolvable without having to rely solely on weighting the arguments. If I have to do that, someone may be very disappointed. I don't want that to happen.

The following behaviors will negatively impact your rating:

ETIQUETTE: Zero tolerance for aggressive, bullying behaviors towards an opponent. Debaters should show respect and courtesy towards opponents at all times.

RATE OF SPEECH: The National Center for Voice & Speech indicates that public speakers, on average, speak 150-160 words per minute. Rushing to fit in every possible argument will hurt your score. Speak in a clear, concise manner and explain your strongest evidence/arguments in ways a general audience could understand, because I might not fully grasp more advanced concepts such as 'spreading.'

JARGON: Use of debate jargon will also hurt your score. Don't use terms that only more experienced judges would understand. I have a working knowledge of basic terms, but it's much safer to just explain what you mean.

TRICKS: Refrain from using any technique(s) that makes it impossible for your opponent to compete on an equal footing. Such behaviors are unprofessional & ill-advised. Again, this will cost you. Debate on substance; debate about debate is frowned upon.

BIGOTRY: I will not tolerate any blatant racism, sexism, or anything of the like. This will make it nearly impossible for you to win.

The following behaviors will HELP your rating:

**Show some creativity and resourcefulness by trying something new (within debate rules) that you've recently learned or did not implement last year. I know you want to win, but in the big picture, you're honing your debate skills for college and beyond. Make a deposit on your future.

**Show some humility -- acknowledge excellence. If you're opponent does something particularly well or makes a very good point, tell them and tell me. As you should know from reading this, I reward outstanding professionalism. If more adults did this, we'd have less problems in society.

In light of the above, maximize your rating by playing it straight -- make strong arguments and let them speak for themselves. My only goal is to make fair evaluations and decisions -- let's work together on that.

I'm a communications professional with significant experience in public relations in nonprofit and the public sector. The above guidance, in part, is the result of implementing interpersonal and employee communication plans/strategies along with engaging all organizational stakeholders.

James D'Ambrosio

Tiffany Dacheux Dallastown

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 12:54 PM EDT

Coach since 2014

For the most part,you'll be looking at this paradigm because I'll be your LD judge. cross-apply these comments to PF as applicable and to policy if/when I get recruited to judge policy.

Speed and Decorum:

Send me your case. This should go without saying, but let me know that you've actually sent me your case. I won't look for your case unless you tell me to look. Speechdrop.net or tabroom share is probably best rather than email.

I don't care if you sit/stand. Really, I don't. Just generally try to remain in the room. I won't be shaking hands.

Please time your speeches and prep time. I may not keep accurate time of this since my attention is to the content of your speeches. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.

Debate:

I do not prefer theory. I'm usually left feeling that most debaters let it overcomplicate their arguments or worse. Some may even allow it to further make debate inaccessible (especially to those who are likely already crowded out of this forum in some other way). Please don't run it unless there you see literally NO OTHER WAY to respond to your opponent's arguments. Even then, I may not evaluate it the way you want or expect. If you planning to run dense or tricky theory, you should find a different judge.

You have an absolute obligation to articulate your arguments. Even if I’m familiar with the literature or whatever that you might be referencing I *try* to avoid filling in any gaps.

Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD!

Tricks = no. Thanks.

I will not vote for arguments that are ableist, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. This should go without saying, but for the sake of anyone who needs to see it in writing, there you go.

Above all, strive to make sense. I do not prefer any “style” of debate or any particular kind of argument over another. Regardless of what you run, if your case relies on me to connect the dots for you or if it is a literal mess of crappily cut and equally crappily organized evidence sans warrants, you will probably be sad at the end of the round.

Daniel Daks Brentwood School

Doron Darnov Millburn High School

Nicholas Dolinger Pennsbury HS

Last changed on Sun September 15, 2019 at 3:23 PM EDT

I used to write in-depth feedback on ballots, but I feel like nobody was reading them, so now I will try to give an in-depth oral critique with minimal or no written RFD on this website.

I did four years of high school Lincoln-Douglas, during which time I qualified for both CFL and SDA national tournaments and made it to the tenth round in the latter. I am currently debating in both NPDA and CEDA for NYU. I'm from a traditional circuit and thus am most experienced with framework debate, but I attended and succeeded in many national circuit tournaments and am perfectly able to follow progressive strategies.

I would hesitantly describe myself as a tab ras judge with idiosyncrasies, which I have attempted to explain in detail on this page. I wrote this paradigm mostly with LD in mind, but it's basically applicable to all debate events to the extent that I would be compelled to judge them.
I presume truth-testing unless you should decide to argue otherwise.

Flex prep: is encouraged.

Kritiks: I have evolved somewhat in my fondness for K debate. Increasingly I see a lot of very continental philosophy-type critics which use obfuscation and poor definitions to do linguistic sorcery. This is probably not the most helpful thing; I am open to critical methods which reject the paradigms of analytic reasoning, but they shouldn't be propped up by unclear definitions and intellectual dishonesty.

With that said, Time Cube is in a category of its own. I am a human being who enjoys fun, so I will be happy to judge meme cases in general. Run at your own risk, because I think they tend to collapse under real scrutiny for the aforementioned reasons.

Literature: My knowledge of the topic lit is very limited. Speak about it as though you were speaking to a layman, because you are.

Philosophy: I love philosophy and metaethics, and I am strongly preferential to a framework with a priori justifications.
With that said, I do not want to hear your pedantry about the difference between justice and morality! Furthermore, I tend to find arguments distinguishing governmental obligations from moral obligations very, very unconvincing (if the two are in conflict, it's very difficult for me to weigh government duty over moral duty, Thomas Hobbes can eat my shorts).
I love the meta-debate of epistemic modesty vs. confidence, and often use such considerations to decide close rounds. I tend to lean toward confidence when it's not mentioned, but I can easily be swung in favor of modesty if a debater says so.
Skep is a hard sell. You will have to blow my mind to persuade me to vote for you on skep, since I would assume that skep makes the vote arbitrary...

Speaker points: I judge speaks predominantly based on style and rhetoric. Do not confuse this for the traditional LD paradigm which demands that every debater talk like William Jennings Bryan or something like that. You can be fast and smart without sacrificing the beautiful rhetorical flourishes that make debate fun. Humor and entertainment goes a long way toward achieving this end.
I would rather be a point fairy than a miser.

Spreading: Creates a high barrier to entry for national circuit debate, but I am generally in favor because it allows for more educational and enjoyable rounds. It is in bad form to spread against debaters you know cannot handle spreading.

Timing: I can time if you want me to. If you do not ask me to, I will not.

Topicality: Not my favorite, but I presume that it is a voter as a procedural rule unless this assumption is challenged on the flow.

Theory: I don't object to theory on principle, but I think the proliferation of frivolous theory in Lincoln-Douglas is a negative impact on education and fun. There are certainly times when it's justified or necessary, but only insofar as the opponent has skewed the debate so drastically that running theory is the only viable way to win.
I tend to be pretty hostile to research burden arguments. Vro, you don't have to know every minute detail of whatever obscure advocacy or framework they're running, as long as they make it clear in constructive and cross-ex--even if it's new to you, there's always a kritikal response or counterplan. I am afraid that the ubiquity of research burden arguments will deter debaters from gaining esoteric knowledge in the peripheries of the topic, thereby sacrificing educational value for fairness. Basically, I'd rather see you run Mao K against an unfamiliar advocacy than research burden theory.

TLDR: I'm ok with speed and pretty much everything else.

Evan Dugery La Salle College HS

Last changed on Thu February 9, 2017 at 5:32 PM EDT

Brief Summary:

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

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

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

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

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

A little more info:

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Evnen Lake Highland Preparatory

Last changed on Wed January 10, 2024 at 5:38 AM EDT

I’m the Executive Director of National Symposium for Debate, as well as the site director for NSD’s Flagship LD camp. I’m also an assistant LD coach for Lake Highland Prep.

I debated circuit LD for 4 years in high school, and I graduated in 2003. For what it’s worth, I cleared twice at TOC, and I was in finals my senior year. Since then, I have actively coached LD on the national circuit. For a period, I was a full time classroom teacher and debate coach. I have also coached individually and worked as an assistant coach for a number of circuit programs. I coach/judge at 8-10 TOC level tournaments per year.

Email for docs: tomevnen@gmail.com

TLDR rankings:
K - 1
Phil - 1
Policy - 2
Theory - 1
Tricks - 2
T vs K aff; K aff vs T - 1 (I’m happy on both sides of these debates, regularly vote both ways in these debates, and coach both ways in these debates)

Longer explanation of rankings:

Re my policy ranking - Feel free to read these arguments in front of me. I vote for them frequently. I’ll admit that I do the least amount of thinking and researching on the policy wing of topics. This probably makes me an OK, but not excellent, judge of policy vs policy rounds. In policy vs something else rounds, the 2 ranking doesn’t affect things much, except see paragraph below.

Re my tricks ranking - Again, feel free to read these arguments in front of me. I vote for them (and against them) frequently. I find well thought out tricks that are integrated with the substance of your phil framework or K interesting. I find a lot of other tricks fairly boring. Again, see paragraph below on adaptation.

Generally speaking, I won’t have any objection to what you read. You are usually better off reading your A strategy in front of me than substantially diverging from that strategy to adapt to me. When relevant, you should tweak your A strategy to recognize that I am also open to and comfortable with the standard maneuvers of debate styles other than yours. For example, if your preference is policy arguments and you are debating a K, you should recognize that I won’t functionally assume you can cross-apply the aff or that extinction outweighs the K, when contested. Similarly, if you are a phil debater, you should recognize that I won’t functionally assume that your phil framework precludes the util tricks (modesty, extinction first, etc.).

Whatever your style, if you have thought carefully about strategic interactions with opposing styles, and you are comfortable winning those debates in front of a judge who does not assume all of your priors, I will be a fine judge for you. If you need a judge who is strictly “in your lane” stylistically, then there will be matchups where I am not your ideal judge.

In terms of my familiarity with arguments: in phil lit, I am well read in analytic and continental philosophy (less so analytic philosophy, except in the area of ethics) and in the groups in between (Hegel and post-Hegelians, for example). In K lit, I’m well read in critical/Marxist theory and high theory, and I’m pretty comfortable (though slightly less well read) with the identity literature. I actively coach debaters on all of the above, as well as on theory, T vs K affs, K affs vs T, and (some) tricks. My debaters read some policy args, and there are scenarios where I encourage that, but I am less involved in coaching those arguments.

Miscellaneous

As a general policy, I don't disclose speaks.

Generally speaking, I'm not very receptive to arguments like "evaluate after the 1n" or "no neg analytics" (you know the genre). I'm fine with these arguments when they are scenario specific, and you can give an explanation why a type of argument needed to be made in a specific speech; obviously those arguments are sometimes true. Otherwise, I don't think these arguments are worth reading in front of me -- I never find myself comfortable making decisions based on sweeping claims that mean debaters generally can't respond to arguments.

Zoe Ewing Scarsdale HS

Last changed on Tue October 15, 2019 at 8:32 AM EDT

Hi! I did LD for 4 years and graduated in 2017, going to TOC twice and clearing there as a senior. I coached Byram Hills for two years. I've also worked at camps every summer since graduating, as Co-Assistant Director of NSD Philly 2019 and as a lab leader at NSD Flagship 2017-2019, TDC 2018, and VBI LA I 2017.

Email: zoeewing99@gmail.com Please put me on email chains!

General

I have no preference as to what you do with your speech time as long as your arguments have warrants and some framing as to why they're relevant. Don't assume I’m familiar with any dense literature and clearly explain the ballot implications of every argument.

I will aim to be as non-interventionist as possible and will vote on almost* any argument as long as it a) is not abhorrent and b) contains a logical warrant. Examples of arguments I would not vote on include "racism/sexism/homophobia good" (because those are abhorrent) or "the sky is blue so affirm" (because that lacks a logical warrant).

*I've added a couple of exceptions, scroll down to the "other notes" section to see them.

Please slow down on interpretations, advocacy/framing mechanism texts, and author names. I don't check speech docs in round, so don't bank on me reading along with your speech. I only check speech docs if some detail is contested or if it's my fault that I miss something.

I also believe strongly in trigger warnings for graphic narratives or discussions of particularly sensitive issues. I am fine stopping rounds in instances where a debater is unable to debate due to triggering material--please let me know if this happens. I expect the debater who failed to give a trigger warning to concede the round in such instances.

Defaults
These should never be relevant because I will never use a default if an argument is made on either side of the issue—the defaults are only here for the (hopefully rare) case when no debater makes a single argument on some important framing issue.

Truth testing over comparing worlds
Competing interps over reasonability—I also have no idea how I’d evaluate a “gut check” reasonability brightline so please don’t ask me to gut check. It would probably not work out in your favor.
Drop the arg on theory, drop the debater on topicality
No RVIs (and if the RVI is won, I meets do not trigger RVIs)
Metatheory before theory; T and theory on the same layer
I don't have a default side for presumption. In the absence of any offense left in the round and no presumption arguments made, I would vote for the person who had better strategy/technical skill/argument quality (in other words, the person I would give higher speaks to).
I don't think a default for whether Ks or theory should come first in the abstract is possible since they're both just pre-fiat arguments about what debate should look like. I'd default to whichever position indicts the other probably, but these positions frequently indict each other, so weighing really matters here. Just make those meta-level framing arguments and avoid chicken-and-egg debates.

Important note on defaults: If both debaters carry out the debate under some shared framing assumption that was not argued for, I will use that shared assumption as my default rather than these (i.e. if both debaters collapse to theory shells in their 2NR and 2AR but forget to read a voter, I would act as if a voter had been read rather than intervene, cross all theory off the flow, and vote for some random 1AR substance extension).

Other Notes

Please be ready to debate when you walk into the room – this means pre-flowing during your opponent's prep if you need to and having the AC speech doc ready to send.
I end up judging a lot of rounds that result in determining the validity of very short arguments made early in rounds that end up mattering much more later in the round (e.g. spikes). These often rely on making judgments on the weight of each argument on a somewhat arbitrary basis. I do everything I can to evaluate the round in a non-interventionist manner, but the burden is on debaters to prevent situations in which intervention could occur. If you plan to muddle rounds to sufficiently confuse your opponent to win, please ensure that you are not also confusing your judge to the point where I cannot easily trace your path to the ballot.
To be more specific about the previous point, if a round has two contradictory spikes that indict each other and one debater wins one spike and the other debater wins the other, I will default to argument quality/strength of link weighing. There is no way to be absolutely objective about this, so please interact your arguments!
NEW: I will not vote on "evaluate the theory debate after the [insert speech]" if the argument is made in the speech mentioned in the spike. For example, I won't vote on "evaluate the theory debate after the 2nr" if it's made in the 2nr. This is because any answer to the spike is technically a theory argument, making it unclear if even evaluating answers to the argument is legitimate. I will also not vote on this argument in any speech absent a clear articulation of what constitutes the theory debate and just generally have a low threshold for responses.
I require theory violations to be verifiable. I’ve seen rounds where people lied about whether a position is broken or whether something was on the wiki. Just provide screenshots please! If someone makes an I meet to an unverifiable shell with no verification (i.e. a disclosure shell without screenshots or a coin flip shell that's just word of mouth), I default to the I meet being true (innocent until proven guilty).
I won’t go to someone’s wiki to check a disclosure violation myself—that’d be like looking up a definition on T.
Flash/email everything you read off your computer to your opponent and judges! People often exclude analytics when they flash stuff and those are sometimes hardest to flow.
If I have met you at previous tournaments or camps, please don't make conversation with me that could make your opponent feel excluded. I promise that reminding me that I have judged you before or that you know students I coach will not have any bearing over whether I will vote for you--I would have marked you as a conflict if that were true, and it just leaves your opponent feeling rattled and unsure of whether I will be impartial. I have been on the opposite end of this enough times to know how much it sucks when it looks like your opponent and judge are friends.

Speaks

I will try to assign speaks based solely on strategic vision, argument quality, and in-round behavior. I will say clear/slow/loud as many times as needed. I do not disclose speaks during the RFD but will if you come to find me individually or email me after the round.

I dock speaks for:

Being unnecessarily rude/patronizing/condescending (especially when you’re much better than your opponent)
Lack of framing issues
Being racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/etc—this is a given
Stealing prep time/not being ready/delaying the round in any way
Having gendered language in your pre-written spikes/shells/etc
Talking about what I did as a debater or making personal appeals to me, talking about my former teammates, the debaters I coach, or well-known people in the activity--this excludes people with less "rep" or fewer connections in debate and makes everyone uncomfortable

Have fun—this is your activity! Make it a good experience for everyone. I am happy to answer questions about my paradigm before the round or about my decision after the round.

Zach Ezer Stuyvesant HS None

Sean Fahey Brentwood School

Last changed on Sun November 20, 2022 at 5:04 AM CDT

Benjamin Franklin High School

Tulane University

Current Conflicts: Durham Academy

Email: SeanFaheyLD@gmail.com (please put me on email chains and feel free to email me questions)

September 2022 Update (Read if you're a traditional debater): How exciting to be back in person! Some notes on lay debate in front of me. I am open-minded in terms of how you approach these debates as long as it does not come at an unfair expense to your opponent (ex: spreading against competitors who do not want to). Please be respectful of each other. I think about traditional LD fairly linearly - win offense underneath whatever framework is winning in the round. Whether that means conceding your opponents framework and going for turns or having an elaborate framework debate, all that matters to me is whether you outweigh under the winning framework. Cases without a criterion are very hard to evaluate unless you contextualize your offense to your opponents standard. I don't see much value in the value debate (no pun intended) other than using the value as an additional reason to prefer a certain criterion. I will listen to lay theory arguments, such as 'no counterplans', but, if you want to win on this argument, you need to articulate the theoretical argument as a voting issue and why (fairness/education/etc.). I appreciate thoroughly extended impacts and clear, decisive weighing. Also - with peace and love - please don't try to shake my hand, we just got out of a big pandemic. Have fun and debate your best!

I debated for 4 years at Benjamin Franklin High School in New Orleans, LA. I competed at the TOC twice and got to finals of the CFL National Tournament my senior year. I've taught at the Victory Briefs Institute and The Debate Intensive.

I read all styles of arguments at some point in time, but mostly read critical theory. That said, I’m open to all styles of argumentation and speed (I will state clear as needed). I like in-depth debates that emphasize critical and comparative handling of evidence/nuanced arguments. Simply reading a card is not really a full argument to me; rebuttals need to have a clear, full extension of arguments presented in your evidence. I don't have much lenience in evaluating extensions that are just the tagline and author. This should also flag that I’m not a huge fan of blippy styles of argumentation and, while debate is a competitive activity, I’d rather evaluate a more scholastic engagement of ideas.

I decide based on the flow, but everyone says that and it kinda means nothing. That said, I view myself as an educator and, as such, I don’t allow hateful/violent discourse and I will reflect that with my ballot/RFD.

I usually flow CX. I like well-used CX time.

Please slow down for plan texts, CP texts, theory interpretations, perm texts, or anything that has precise value in its wording.

Little blurb on disclosure+debating politely:

I think open source disclosure is a very good thing and I regard most attempts to avoid this norm as unpersuasive. That said, I have voted against disclosure theory many times on impact turns to fairness or transparency, given those arguments are won on the flow, of course. I think reading disclosure theory against debaters clearly out of the national circuit loop is pretty unkind and often voids engagement, so please don’t. That said, I think reading disclosure theory against novices/early varsity members of large programs on the wiki is acceptable because their coaches should tell them to do so/do so for them (especially if the rest of the team discloses) and sometimes these debates are the only way for people to learn.

In the same vein as my policy on disclosure theory, please do not spread out debaters who clearly can not spread. You can still win this way because I won't intervene, but I will dock your speaks because I think it's rude. Please be considerate and inclusive.

Little blurb on theoretical presumptions:

In the past I have said what I default to in terms of paradigms for theory and framework, but I’ve come to view this norm as an incentive for lazy debating. I think you should have to justify everything necessary for you to win.

Things ppl actually care about:

50-50 on Framework v Non-T affs and not necessarily because of my personal opinions on the matter.
Fairness and education are voters in no particular order; I think strength of link is especially relevant in the determination of which of these matters more in a given round.
That said, I think epistemic modesty, as it is generally used, is pretty nonsensical. Don’t really understand weighing a deontic violation against a risk of an impact.
I think K affs should do something or place some theoretical weight in the act of affirmation. Pessimism based affs with no clear solvency mechanism (or definition of what solvency is in the eyes of the affirmative position) generally seem to be negative presumption arguments in my mind. Feel free to change my mind on this point. I’ve seen exceptions to this.
Please explain your permutations by illustrating a clear picture of the world it supposes.
Weigh impacts and strength of internal links. PLEASE. Don’t presume that I think extinction is worse than genocide, war, etc. and give me some way to do risk analysis.
Asinine theory follows the pornography rule for me, you know it when you see - my threshold on answering these args is substantively very low.
Have fun, take it easy, and make some jokes or something.

Ryan Farrell Hire

Michael Fiedorowicz Edgemont HS

Last changed on Mon February 12, 2018 at 12:02 PM PDT

Michael Fiedorowicz

Bellarmine College Prep '14

Georgetown University '18

I enjoy traditional LD rounds rooted in competing value frameworks. But, I am happy to vote for any type of argumentation, though the threshold for explaining your path to the ballot on non-traditional arguments may be higher.

I was essentially completely out of the activity for about three years until this past summer 2017 and have only been intermittently involved since, so keep that mind. Most importantly, that probably means slow down for analytics and otherwise short/quick arguments. Please actually adjust and be clearer or slower if I call for it.

Clarifying and weighing will win most rounds. The less comparative work I am doing when making my decision, the better it is for everyone. You should want my RFD to sound a lot like the reasoning you present in your last speech.

Matt DeLateur and I share similar views on what you probably find relevant:

This is from his judge philosophy: “Framework: Most LD rounds and every LD resolution breaks down to competing value frameworks. As such, the easiest way to access my ballot is to either a) be very interactive and clash directly with the internal warrants of your opponent's differing system for evaluating what is important in the round, then establish yourself as the sole person with offense to the standard or b) concede the framework but uphold your burden to be comparative through really good weighing. Weighing and offense are key. I will evaluate truth-testing if it is argued for, but I default comparative worlds.
Edit 11/5/13: Recent framework debates are narrowing towards two frameworks that are meant to preclude "all other standards" for a bunch of varying reasons. Those reasons may be completely sound and valid. However, a poor debater will simply extend the number 3 or number 4 reason the standard comes first. A skilled debater will rather extend the number 3 or number 4 reason the standard comes first, but also compare the competing claims to priority that the other debater has made for their preclusive standard. I find debaters making this analysis is very productive insofar as it minimizes my intervention. Choosing between two standards that claim to "come first" without any comparison proves relatively difficult for a judge to remain neutral.”

Ks - I was not a K debater, nor did I encounter K debaters often. That doesn't mean I'm not receptive to Ks, it just means that I am not particularly well-versed in the lit; in other words, you yourself should be well-versed in it or at least be capable of coherently articulating your K and how it operates in the round.

Eddie Fitzgerald Poly Prep Country Day School

Last changed on Sat May 25, 2024 at 4:01 AM EDT

I require speech docs sent for all cards. Please include me on the email chain:
edfitzi04@gmail.com

I flow debater's speech performances and not docs, but may read evidence after speeches.

OVERVIEW:

I graduated from Liberty University in the spring of 2011 after debating for 5 years. Before that I debated 1 year of LD in high school. Since then I worked as a debate coach for Timothy Christian High School in New Jersey for 6 years, traveling nationally on both the high school and college circuit. Currently I am the Director of speech and debate at Poly Prep in Brooklyn.

I view debate as a forum to critically test and challenge approaches to change the world for the better. I prefer in depth debate with developed material that you look like you have a grasp of. I will always work hard to evaluate correctly and with little intervention, especially if you are putting in hard work debating.

Learning debate from within the Liberty tradition I began by running conventional policy arguments with a proclivity to go for whatever K was in the round. However, during my final 3 years my partner and I did not defend the resolution and our 1nc looked very similar to our 1ac. Personally, I’m a believer and coach for advocating liberatory and conscious debate practices. However, there will certainly be a gap at times between my personal preferences and practices and what I vote on. I’m not going to judge from a biased perspective against policy arguments, and although tabula rasa is impossible I will try to evaluate the arguments presented with limited interference.

Ultimately, do not let any of this sway you from debating how you prefer. Doing what you think you are the best educator on will probably be your greatest option. If any of this is unclear or you have questions that I have not address below please feel free to ask me before a round. Have fun, debate confidently, and be genuine.

Last updated 1/10/2020

PAPERLESS and prep time (LD and Policy specific):

Prep time ends approximately when the speech doc is saved and you remove the jump drive / hit send of the email. An overall goal (for both paperless and traditional teams) is to be prepared to begin your speech when you say end prep.

Speaking mostly to HIGH SCHOOL students:

Everyone involved in the round should be able to have access to any read piece of evidence once it has been presented. This means that if you are reading off of a computer you are responsible for providing your opponents with either a jump of what you are going to read or a physical copy before you start your speech. We shouldn’t be unreasonably fearful of people ‘stealing’ ‘our’ evidence, as source information should always be provided, and also because it’s certainly not really ‘ours’. You may, however, respectfully require your opponents to delete anything you provided them with during the round.

SPEAKING STYLES and speaker points:

I’m certainly open to (for lack of a better word) alternative and non-traditional approaches to your speech time. Passion, ethos, and emphasis are things that are usually underutilized by most speaking styles and debaters, and should be present in both constructives and rebuttals. After all, debate is at its core a communication activity. Cross-ex is a great time to exhibit this as well as advance your arguments. I may call clear once if it is an issue, however it is your responsibility to be an effective communicator during your speech. Being a jerk, unnecessarily rude, offensive, stealing prep, and not being helpful to the other team during cx or prep time are all things that will negatively effect your speaker points outside of the quality and delivery of your arguments.

HIGH SCHOOL LD SPECIFIC:

Yes, I am fine with speed, but that does not give you an excuse to be unclear. I may call clear once if it is an issue, however it is your responsibility to be an effective communicator during your speech.

I have experience to evaluate theory, but certainly prefer substantive theory (T, condo, NIBs, are all examples) as opposed to frivolous theory. You should probably slow down when reading your shells if you want me to be able to write down the nuances of your argument. Due to my background in college policy there may be a few preconceptions that I have that you should be aware of. Theory is not automatically an RVI, and I probably take a little more convincing on the flow than most judges in this area. You need to explain to me why a violation has resulted in abuse that warrants either voting down the other team or rejecting a specific argument. Simply claiming one to be true is not enough work here. When answering theory, showing how the abuse can be solved by rejecting a particular argument can make the violation go away.

Conceded and dropped arguments are considered true on my flow, unless they are morally repugnant or blatantly false. An example of the latter is even if your opponent drops a theory shell, if the team clearly does not link to the violation your accusation does not make that true. Conceded arguments must still be extended, warranted, and argued, but you should focus more on their implications.

Please read the paperless / prep time and the speaking style / speaker points sections of my philosophy located above.

PUBLIC FORUM SPECIFIC:

A quick overview statement: It seem that circuit PF is going through a growing period where it is solidifying some norms and practices. As a result of this, I will typically default to the understanding of the debaters in the round. I am also open to different interpretations as long as they are defended.

Concerning defense in summary: As indicated above, this is something that I am going to let the debaters determine / debate for themselves. However, if at any point the defense has been front-lined / responded to (either in 2nd rebuttal or 1st summary), then these arguments need to be answered and the defense needs to be extended for it to be available in final focus.

ARGUMENT SPECIFIC:

The rest of my philosophy is not specific towards ld or policy, high school or college, and it may do you benefit to read it as well, especially if some of your arguments tend to look like policy arguments.

FRAMEWORK (when run by the neg):

I think that negatives have the ability to and should engage with affirmatives that don’t defend a normative implementation of a plan. Even if the aff doesn’t defend the resolution there are still many substantive things that they will defend that provide ample ground. Although this ground might not be as predictable as your interpretation on FW calls for, it is still predictable enough to meet the threshold that you should be prepared for it.

Having said that, I think I’m one of those few sick individuals that will actually enjoy listening to framework debates as long as they are well developed on both sides. Granted, I will most likely be a harder sell than most, but I don’t think this should dissuade you from going for it if you think it is your best option. You will need to make inroads to the aff’s arguments by articulating ways traditional debate solves for their impacts. If you lose the impact turn to politics you will not win FW debates. You need to make arguments to the effect of traditional policy debate being key to a better form of politics and articulate net benefits to your interpretation from this. I think that the type of education we foster in debate far outweighs the preservation of the game in the strictest sense. That is to say that fairness claims alone are not the way to persuade me on FW. You should instead use claims of fairness to hedge against the impacts from the aff.

However, the main substance of FW debates (for both sides) should be about the competing benefits to the type of education and scholarship different traditions lead to.

For affirmatives concerning framework strategies, your greatest offense will be specific to your particular argument. I will be more easily persuaded if your aff is connected to the topic. I don’t appreciate aff’s that are written that hide their purpose or are exclusively constructed to impact turn FW. While I prefer some kind of relationship to the topic, I don’t think it is necessary. However, you do lose the ability to make an important strategic argument that other plan-less aff’s should employ, which is that your aff is important to topic education. More developed, this argument should be that your aff is necessary to topic education and that without it the debate ground that is left leads to bad forms of scholarship. That is to say that you aff is essentially topical. This argument is both inherently offensive and also provides the ability to make defensive claims against the neg’s offense.

KRITIKS:

This is the type of debate that I am most familiar with and have the largest literature base with (I was a philosophy major). However, messy and poor K debates are probably the worst. The key to winning this kind of debate is making the general link and alternative cards as specific as possible to the aff. I am not saying that the key is reading the most specific evidence (although this would be nice, however most of our authors here don’t write in the context of every affirmative), but that you need to find ways to apply the generic concepts to the specifics of the aff. Without this it is easier to be persuaded by the perm.

Teams are responsible for the discourse and performances in which then engage in given the context of the world we are situated in as well as the argument style the team engages in.

Aff’s have a wide range of arguments they can deploy, and are probably best sticking with the ones they are most comfortable with while doing a good job showing how they relate to the critique.

Concerning the perm, it is usually not enough work to simply show how the two different advocacies could work together. At this point it becomes easy to vote on the alternative as a purer form of advocacy without the risk of links. Aff’s should articulate net benefits to the perm to hedge against residual links and different DA’s to the perm itself. Case should be one of these net benefits, but aff’s need to watch out for indicts to foundational assumptions (concerning methodology, epistemology, ontology etc.) behind your impact claims.

Concerning framework: when was the last time a relatively moderate judge decided that the neg shouldn’t be able to run their K? The answer is probably a long time ago. The majority of these debates are compromised in the 1ar by allowing the K given that the aff gets to weigh their impacts after a lot of wasted time by both teams. I can hardly think of a situation where I would be persuaded to only evaluate the plan verses the status quo or a competitive policy option that excluded the alternative. However, I can envision certain ways that this debate goes down that convinces me to discount the impacts of the aff. In general, however, most of debate is illusory (somewhat unfortunately) and these framework questions are about what type of education is more important. If you chose to run framework with you aff you should keep these things in mind concerning your interpretation for debate.

PERFORMANCE or project verses a similar style:

These debates are some of the most important and essential ones for our community, particularly as more and more teams are participating in this form of advocacy. We need to debate and judge in light of this fact. These are also some of the most difficult debates to have. There are several reasons for this, one of the most poignant being the personal nature of these debates combined with the close relationships that most people amongst this insular community have with one another. We need to realize the value in these opportunities and the importance of preserving the pureness of our goals for the debate community. That might mean in some situations that conceding and having a conversation might be the best use of a particular debate space, and in others debating between different competing methodologies is a correct rout to go. In either case we need to realize and cherish common goals. In light of this it isn’t a bad thing to agree with large portions of your opponent’s speeches or even advocacy. Instead of reproducing the gaming paradigm of traditional debate, where competition is valued over advocacy and winning over ethics, we should instead choose to celebrate the areas of alignment we find. Conceding every round where this happens, however, is not a good idea either. This would send a message to the debate community that debate dies under this framework. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a possible time and place for it though.

When both teams largely agree on certain foundational framework questions efficacious debate can still happen. While making distinctions between advocacies and methodologies is essential for this kind of a debate, you should probably not manipulate and create links that are artificial. Distinctions that are made out of an in depth knowledge of the issues are far more beneficial and consistent. Traditional debate might look at these kinds of rounds as two ships passing in the night, but I think there can be a different metaphor – one where the teams are two ships starting at the recognition that the resolution and the debate community is flawed and that the round can be decided upon which team provides a better methodology and performance to get their ship further in the direction of what we should be as a community and culturally aware individuals.

I am undecided as to whether the aff should be allowed a perm and this should probably be debated out. However, I think that the aff should always have the ability to point out when a negative advocacy is the same as theirs.

THEORY / T:

Any bias I have towards theory will probably result in placing a burden on the team that reads the violation to prove that it should result in a voting issue. However, I don’t like shady stuff done only to be obnoxiously strategic. Don’t do it.

One thing that I definitely do not like is when teams read multiple conditional strategies that contradict each other. This will usually call into question the solvency of the critique if the aff takes advantage of this.

I don’t think that I have a bias concerning reasonability or competing interpretations, but I will probably default to competing interpretations until the aff is shown to be reasonable and from there it is up for debate.

COUNTERPLANS / DA’s:

I am probably liberal concerning counter plan theory, and aside from the question over conditionality most other theory arguments are probably reasons to reject the cp. Aside from traditional theory answers, showing why a certain CP is justified given the specific aff is a good response.

PICS that are specific to the aff are great, however word pics should probably just be articulated as links to the K.

Uniqueness controls the link only if a particular side definitively wins it.

I generally evaluate from an offense / defense standpoint, but it doesn’t mean anything if the CP links less than the plan does to a DA if the CP still meets the threshold for triggering the link. In that world there isn’t greater offense to the CP.

TJ Foley West Des Moines Valley HS

Last changed on Sat February 18, 2023 at 6:04 AM EDT

EDIT TO THE EDIT: I haven’t seen a debate in 5 years. The following still applies but know that I probably don’t know much about what you’re talking about if it’s evolved in the last 5 years.

EDIT: The following is a paradigm for LD only. PF folks, please disregard. I'm fine with anything in PF--just make it very clear in the final focus.

I debated for five years at Valley High School in West Des Moines, IA, graduating in 2017. I qualified to TOC my junior and senior years, accumulating eight career bids and getting to octos my senior year. I went to Harvard and studied social studies.

INTRODUCING THE 30 SPEAKS CHALLENGE! If you make an argument that I should give you a 30, here is what will happen:

1. Immediately after the round, I'm going to go to a random number generator and select a number 1-7.

2. That number will correlate to a numbered question, taken from UChicago Supplemental Essays among other sources. See the bottom for essay questions.

3. You will close your laptop and immediately respond with an answer. Your answer cannot exceed 30 seconds long.

4. If the answer is creative, humorous, and interesting, I'll give you a 30. If it's not, then I'll give you what you would have gotten anyway and then subtracting 0.3 speaks. High risk, high reward.

5. I'll repeat this process with your opponent if they wish. If both of you succeed, then whoever wins the round will get a 30 and whoever loses will get a 29.9.*

Note: I reserve the right to not follow the terms of this challenge should something egregious or unsafe occur in the round, or if you are just overwhelmingly rude to everyone.

IMPORTANT NOTE ON SPEAKS:

I'll vote on any argument, but if you read/do the following, your speaks will be lowered.

1. Disclosure theory (especially must disclose full text/open source)

2. AFC

3. If you refer to yourself as "we"

4. If you just read for 7 minutes (your speaks are inversely related to the amount of time spent reading)

5. If you spread against a novice/lay debater/someone of an obviously different skill level instead of including them in the round and making it a learning experience.

Short Version
At its core, debate is your game. I really don't care what you do as long as you aren't offensive. I enjoy good framework debates the most but in the end, do what you want. I'm not great at flowing, so slow down on tags and author names. I'm not a big fan of AFC and really don't like disclosure theory or brackets theory. This means I have a low threshold for responses, but if you win it I'll vote for it begrudgingly. Speaks are based on strategy and usually start at a 28.5 and go up or down from there.

Long Version

Ks: I don't understand a lot of the lit, but a well executed K is impressive. I think K vs. framework debates are interesting. My advice if you want to run a K is to overexplain the implications of the arguments you're running and don't assume I understand all of it.

Theory: I default to theory is an issue of competing interpretations. RVIs are fine to go for, but please weigh between warrants for an RVI instead of 15 blippy arguments for an RVI and 15 blippy arguments against an RVI. Voters other than fairness and education are neat. Oh, and FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PLEASE SLOW DOWN ON INTERPS AND COUNTERINTERPS.

Util: Weigh everything and it could be interesting. I'm majoring in international relations and did a lot of policy work outside of debate so I'll probably understand what the plan or CP does, but if you're going for something complex/debatey (recontextualizing fiat or something like that) explain what that means.

Framework: Love it. A good framework debate with weighing and preclusion is really fun to watch. However, weigh between preclusion arguments and explain why yours operates on a higher level instead of just going "I preclude." Also, number arguments so they're easier to flow. Framework vs. ROTB debates are cool to watch.

Random things: Don't refer to yourself in the plural that "we meet" or "our argument." There is one of you and it gets kinda annoying. I won't drop you for it obviously but I might dock you speaks. Also, signpost clearly and number blippy arguments so they're at least somewhat flowable.

Ask me questions before the round if I missed anything. Good luck!

30 Speaks Challenge Questions:

1. In 2015, the city of Melbourne, Australia created a "tree-mail" service, in which all of the trees in the city received an email address so that residents could report any tree-related issues. As an unexpected result, people began to email their favorite trees sweet and occasionally humorous letters. Imagine this has been expanded to any object (tree or otherwise) in the world, and share with us the letter you’d send to your favorite.

2. Lost your keys? Alohomora. Noisy roommate? Quietus. Feel the need to shatter windows for some reason? Finestra. Create your own spell, charm, jinx, or other means for magical mayhem. How is it enacted? Is there an incantation? Does it involve a potion or other magical object? If so, what's in it or what is it? What does it do?

3. So where is Waldo, really?

4. Dog and Cat. Coffee and Tea. Great Gatsby and Catcher in the Rye. Everyone knows there are two types of people in the world. What are they?

5. Joan of Arkansas. Queen Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Babe Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Mash up a historical figure with a new time period, environment, location, or occupation, and tell us their story.

6. You’re on a voyage in the thirteenth century, sailing across the tempestuous seas. What if, suddenly, you fell off the edge of the Earth?

7. You are about to be reincarnated into a specific office supply tool in a specific office. Whose office is it, what office supply are you, and why?

Sunil Gedela William G. Enloe HS

Matt Gofman Hire None

Anuj Gupta Hire

Last changed on Sun July 2, 2023 at 6:29 PM EDT

Roslyn HS ('17), Columbia ('21)

Be nice and be strategic. I'll evaluate pretty much anything you want me to, so long as you explain it clearly. This goes for Theory, Ks, Plans, Performance, etc. I have experience judging/debating most things, so go for whatever. I've been away from the activity for a few years now - (1) I probably won't be able to handle your top speed; be clear - if I can't understand your args then I won't vote on them, (2) if you choose to run something weird then be prepared to explain it well.

Specifics:

1. Be adaptive and be nice, especially with lay debaters. Lay debate is where everyone starts out, and it's the type of debate that most people expect when they first join a debate team. If you intentionally exclude your opponent by spreading or reading arguments that they clearly do not understand, I will know, and will not hesitate to reflect that in your speaks. The best debaters are the ones who can adapt themselves to their opponents, not the ones who rig the contest in their favor.

2. Extend your arguments. If your opponent drops something, don't assume that I'll catch it and do your work for you. Extend your arguments and impact them back to your framework. Higher speaks for good overviews, clear voters, and just generally making the ballot easy to write.

3. Truth >>> Tech, Theory > K, Fairness > Education. I always liked knowing what judges thought of these issues before my rounds so I figured I'd disclose my own thoughts. I can be persuaded to vote either way on these issues though, so feel free to go for your strat. I should note that I have a very high threshold for tech > truth args, especially if what you're going for is blatantly untrue/ridiculous (i.e. "I'm not the neg, I'm the negative").

4. Theory arguments need to tell a relevant and developed story. As a debater I frequently used theory as a strategic tool but that does not mean I want to spend 30 minutes sorting through your messy theory debates. At the end of the round, I don't care if they dropped the analytic under subpoint d on your limits standard - I care about whether the abuse justified you taking the time to read theory, and whether the arg in question deserves to be dropped/they deserve to lose. Similarly, having been away from the activity for a few years now, my tolerance for frivolous theory has dropped significantly. While I believe that theoretical abuse generally comes first, you need to tell me why their specific violation prevented you from engaging in the arg/debate. Don't read bidirectional theory or pedantic arguments unless you think you can really sell the abuse story. I also won't vote on a shell unless I have a cleanly extended interpretation, violation, standard, and voter.

5. My role as a judge is to evaluate who did the better debating. In the same vein as my stance on frivolous theory, I have a high threshold for ROB's that claim my role as the judge is to be a critical educator. It is my personal view that you, the debaters who have spent hours researching different sides of a topic, are each other's critical educators, but that's just me. If you want to break out K lit and read an ROB that says your K comes first, you should tell me why the impacts of the K outweigh substantive impacts (or even theoretical ones, depending on the K). This isn't to say that I won't evaluate args that question what I should vote on first (i.e. pre-fiat vs. post-fiat), but rather that I prefer clash over evasiveness.

Chetan Hertzig Harrison

Last changed on Sat January 27, 2024 at 4:04 PM EDT

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.

Ihwa Hussain Stuyvesant HS

Michael Ippolito Walt Whitman None

Victor Jih Brentwood School

Sheryl Kaczmarek Lexington HS

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:31 PM EDT

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

General Thoughts

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

Policy Paradigm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LD Paradigm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PF Paradigm

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vikram Kalghatgi Ridge

Loveleen Kang King High School

Julia Kennedy Nova HS

Jeannette Koegler Lake Highland Preparatory

Daniel Kruger Hunter College

Amit Kukreja Success Academy Manhattan HS

Last changed on Sat August 24, 2024 at 9:06 AM EDT

Updated for 2023 TOC

Conflicts: Newark Science.

I’m Amit Kukreja and I debated for Newark Science in Newark, NJ for four years.

If it helps, I debated on the local NJ Circuit, the national circuit, and was a member of the USA Debate Team. I did PF for a couple of tournaments my freshman/sophomore year. I went to the TOC in LD my junior and senior year. I competed in policy my senior year at one national circuit tournament and received a bid in policy to the TOC and won the NJ State championship in policy. I debated internationally in worlds format for Team USA my senior year. For the better part of three years, I mainly did LD, ending out in octos of TOC senior year.

So, I've been coaching for the past 7 years and my views on debate have changed dramatically from when I was in highschool. The number one thing to understand about me is that I truly do consider myself to be tabula-rasa, meaning you can read anything, I simply value the execution of the strategy that you read. The ONLY caveat I have here is tricks; please please do not read some one-line bs, the other side drops it, and then you get up and extend it and win. If you make an actual argument and it's dropped, I totally get it - but the "resolved apriori" will make me very sad. It's not that I won't vote off it, but my threshold for rejecting it will be so low that as long as the other side says "No. Just No." that will be enough for me. I want to see actual debates!

Okay, besides tricks - do whatever you want. I've coached a ton of kids the past 7 years in phil, policy, kritiks, etc. and really enjoy judging all types of debates. I love a one-off K strat just as much as a 4-off NC strat, to me it's about the strategy in which you deploy an argument and how it collapses by the end of the debate that influence me.

I love impact turn debates, solid counterplans, strong internal links on disads, core assumptions challenged within links for a kritik - all is game. I do really enjoy CX, if you can be dominant there and have some personality, speaks will benefit and I'll just be more engaged.

Feel free to ask if any questions!

Email: akukreja227@gmail.com

Phoebe Kuo Phillips Academy Andover

Last changed on Mon May 20, 2024 at 10:15 AM EDT

NCFLs 2024 Note:I typically judge LD and CX. Yes, I want to be on the email chain. Please send me speech docs at kuo.phb@gmail.com.

Background: LD in HS, CX at Cornell, coached for over 8 years in the Northeast.

The short: I want to see you being the best version of yourself in whatever form of debate you're inclined to. I have a few defaults but will generally evaluate the round however debaters would like me to. I don’t inflate speaks. Please be kind.

strategic issue selection, i.e., don't go for everything in your last speech
organization
clash
extend the whole argument: claim, warrant, impact, implication.
thorough evidence comparison
clear and thoughtful impact calc
30s are for people I think are a model of what debate should and can be. It's not enough to be good at debate; be good for debate.
Circuit debaters should be nice to transitioning debaters from JV and more traditional programs. That does not mean don't do your best or compromise your round; however, it does mean giving clear answers in CX, making efforts to accommodate for tech, and maybe considering 3 off instead of 4 off.
FLOW. +up to 0.5 speaks for a good flow. If you tell me you have a good flow and show me at the end of the round before I submit my decision, you will be eligible for some game-y speaker points.

Don't

steal prep.
play in CX. answer the question.
have excessively long underviews. Read a better aff.
read excessively long overviews. If you have a 1min+ long overview, I would prefer you read it at the bottom after you have done line-by-line. I promise I will get more of it if you do that.
tag things as independent voters; just weigh. Do the work to resolve arguments so that I don't have to. Calling something independent doesn't make it independent from the rest of the reps/performances/args in the round.
be a coward. Engage. Have the debate.

Kritiks

these debates are best when debaters have a lot of content/topic knowledge and can make the connection to their theory of power. It seems sophomoric to critique something you have a limited understanding of. A lot of your authors have likely spent a lot of time writing historical analyses and it would be remiss to be ignorant of that.
high threshold for explanations
spend more time explaining the internal link between the speech act or the performance and the impact
Really sympathetic to voting neg on presumption if the aff doesn't clearly articulate how the aff is a move from the status quo.
please don't read model minority type args

Policy style arguments (LARP)

love a well-researched position. Do it if it's your thing.
probably the easiest type of debate for me to evaluate.
90% of time you just gotta do the weighing/impact calc.

T v. stock/larp

read it
competing interps
RVIs on T are a tough sell in front of me

T/FW v. K affs

these debate becomes better as methods debates implicating the relationship amongst form, content, and norms
sometimes these get messy. I need more explanation of the implication of the arguments and how to sequence my evaluation.
Go slow and collapse early

Theory

Because I default competing interpretations, I treat these as CP/DA debates unless otherwise argued in round. To win my ballot, my RFD should be able to explain the abuse story, the structural implications for the activity (and its significance), and why your interpretation is the best norm to resolve those impacts. If you are not clearly explaining this, then I will have a difficult voting on it.
I won't vote off:
- "new affs bad"
- "need an explicit text" interps
- disclosure against novices and traditional debaters
I am sympathetic to a "gut-check" on frivolous theory
Good interps to run:
- condo bad;
- abusive perms bad (severance perms, intrinsic perms, etc);
- abusive CPs bad (delay CPs, etc);
- abusive fiat bad (object fiat, multiactor fiat, etc).
If I'm being honest, I don't enjoy flowing more than 20 sec worth of spikes/theory pre-empts at the bottom of the AC; just read a better aff
I don't have many defaults about 1ar theory, but generally think it's a poor strategic decision

Chris Kymn Byram Hills HS

Last changed on Thu February 15, 2024 at 2:04 PM PDT

Background: I competed in LD for four years, finishing in TOC finals. I actively judged/coached/taught at debate camps from 2014-2018 but since then have been less active.

General:

I'll vote for the side that requires me to do less work. When flowing, I try to get down as much of your original rhetoric as possible; when giving the RFD I'll try to reference and directly quote as much of that as I can. So comparing/weighing/impacting arguments will go a long way.

The round belongs to you! So please run arguments that you're excited to talk about, rather than content you think I'll prefer. In any case, I'd suggest you err on the side of over-explaining jargon (debate-specific, academic, or otherwise) and making sure arguments have been warranted in-round.

A few other points:

I don’t need super formal extensions. If your 5-card extinction scenario is conceded, briefly summarize the argument and move on to weighing. Just signpost carefully if your extension is short.
I'll give an argument the function you tell me to so long as (a) there's a warrant for that function, and (b) I understand what the function means. An example of (b) I don't understand is when a debater says "this turns all arguments" - you're better off labeling it as pre standards or an impact turn to X, whatever it may be.
If I have to call clear, I’ve probably missed something.
If you have questions regarding specific arguments, feel free to ask prior to round. I’m most likely “okay” with evaluating whatever argument you bring up, and I’m happy to comment on how to run it better.

Speaker Points:

Mostly based on (execution of) strategy and effort in giving a clear decision calculus. Especially creative arguments and high-clash strategies will also be rewarded. Here are some other things you can do to get higher speaks:

Make the round enjoyable to judge
Use little prep, and/or extemp significant portions of speeches
Give clear and concise overviews in final speeches
Compare/indict evidence effectively
Neutralize silly arguments efficiently

Ask before the round if you want more suggestions.

Tips:

Slow down for advocacy texts, theory interpretations, and other short arguments, such as lists of weighing arguments or paragraph theory.
If you’re affirming, make permutations and ask the status of counterplans, when applicable. (Do ask if you don’t know what either means.)
You should verbally emphasize parts of evidence that you think will be important later on. Slowing down in rebuttals to re-explain or state an important line in evidence is also appreciated.

JK Larkin Hire None

Raul Larsen DuPont Manual High School

Last changed on Thu February 4, 2021 at 7:45 PM EDT

Email chains are a tangible improvement to debate. RLarsen at desidancenetwork dot org. You can read my entire paradigm for bolded passages, as you would a card. Pronouns are he/him/”Judge”. The affirmative should have speech doc ready to be emailed by round start time. Please keep a local copy of speech recordings. In the event of a 30-second tech blip, recordings will be reviewed; no speeches will be redone, barring tournament policy. Debaters have the right to reserve CX start until receipt of marked speech doc.

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

(Long Version is for procrastinating non-debate work)

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

SHORT VERSION

(Pre-round Prep/Deadline Preffing): If you're a student doing your own prefs, you're best off reading the next two paragraphs and skimming my voting record. If you're a coach, you likely already know where to pref me.

Debate is a group of people engaging in performances. The nature of those debate performances (including my role as a judge) is settled by the competitors in the round with arguments. My default as a policy judge is to believe that those performances regard policymaking and that plans (/counterplans/alts/advocacies) create worlds with real impacts I should calculate via fiat as the plan is executed. As an LD judge, I think the round is about pursuing philosophical reasons to affirm or negate the resolution, and impacting through the lens of the criterial structure. Any successful movement away from the default paradigm typically entails explaining why I, the judge, should interpret your speech time differently. Most people succeed in shifting my defaults, and would consider me a “tabula rasa” judge. Nearly all of my LD rounds look like solo Policy these days. I’m expressive while judging, and you should take advantage of that, and look for cues. It is my belief that students are owed an explanation of the decision and that the judge is accountable to their evaluation of the round.

Clash happens through the lens of the ballot. The nature of how the ballot is to be considered is the framework flow, and that means that arguments like Kritiks might engage with T/Theory in some rounds and not others. This means I will vote for your take on burning down civil society in one round and vote you down on T in the next. I listen to about 20 rounds/week, so my strong preference is for good argumentation, not specific strategies. More at the top of the long version below.

Strategy Notes:

Negatives are currently going for too much in the 2NR, while dropping case. Affirmatives are currently spending too much time extending case while dropping world of the perm articulations.

Perms: I give the benefit of the doubt to the intuitive status of the permutation. I’m happy to vote against my intuition, but you need to lead me there (more below).

Tricks: If you go for this, impact the tricks out, as you would a dropped card. Slow down for the key line(s) in rebuttal speeches. Eye contact makes this strategy sustainable. Yes, Tricks rounds have '19-'20 ballots from me. No, they should not be your first move.

Disclosure the Argument is great! Drop the debater on disclosure is unimpressive. Read it as an implication to round offense, or you're better off spending time on basically any other sheet.

Topical Version of the Aff (TVA): Gotta read them, gotta answer them. Most of the rounds I vote for T are from a dropped interp or dropped TVA

RVIs =/= Impact Turns: My patience for abusive theory underviews is fading. Quickly

Independent Voters: explain to me why the voter stands apart from the flow and comes first. Debaters are not consistently executing this successfully in front of me, so consider my threshold higher than average

No Risk: I do vote on no risk of the aff/plan doesn't solve. Terminal defense is still a thing

If you expect me to evaluate charts/graphics in your speech doc, give me time during the speech to read any graphics. It will otherwise only be a tie-breaker in evidence analysis

Uplayering: layers of debate often interact with each other; that they exist in separate worlds is not very compelling. Sequencing why I should analyze argument implications before others is the best way to win the layers debate.

Previous Season Notes:

While I recognize there's no obligation to share your analytics, the practice serves a good pedagogical benefit for those who process information in different ways. This is even more relevant for online debate. I will begin awarding +.3 speaker points for those speeches including all/nearly all analytics in the speech doc AND that are organized in a coherent manner.

2019-2020 Aff Speaks: 28.801 Neg Speaks: 28.809; Aff Ballots 114 Neg Ballots: 108

222 rounds judged for the '19-'20 season, mixed LD and Policy

Coached students to qualification for 2020 TOC in LD and Policy

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

LONG VERSION

(good luck, get snacks)

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

I recognize that this is no longer a viable read between rounds. Because I continue to receive positive feedback for its detail, it will be kept up, but I do not have any expectation that you will memorize this for my rounds. Bold text is likely worth its time, though.

Long Version (Procrastinating Other Work/Season Preffing):

Role of the Ballot:

Framework debaters: if you think the debate space should be predictable and fair, you should articulate what education/fairness/pick-your-voter means to the activity and why the ballot of this particular round matters.

K debaters: if you think rhetoric and its shaping matters more than the policy impacts of the 1AC, you should articulate your world of the alt/advocacy/pick-your-impact in a way that allows me to sign the ballot for you.

Performance debaters: if you think the debate space is for social movements/resistance/pick-your-story, you should explain why your performance relates to the ballot and is something I should vote for. Ideal performance cases explain topic links or provide reasons they actively choose not to be topical.

Everybody else: you get the idea. Clash happens through the lens of the ballot. The nature of how the ballot is to be considered is the framework flow, and that means that arguments like Kritiks might engage with T/Theory in some rounds and not others. This means I will vote for your take on burning down civil society in one round and vote you down on T in the next.

The world is unfair. Fairness is still probably a good thing. We get education from winning, and from losing. Some topics are poorly written and ground issues might not be the fault of your opponent. For debaters pursuing excellence, traditional voters aren’t the end of the conversation. Argument context can be everything. Tech speak, fairness is an internal link more than it is an impact.

“Two ships passing in the night” is something we hear in approximately 143% of RFDs, and it’s almost always the most efficient way to sad faces, frustration, and post rounding. RESOLVE this by finding points of clash, demonstrating that your claims engage with the claims of your opponent in a way that is beneficial for you. Clash shows that you are aware that your opponent has ground, and your following that with an explanation of why that ground couldn’t possibly earn my ballot is very persuasive. A round without clash is a round left to the judge, and you don’t want to leave any argument, big or small, up to the discretion of the judge.

The preventable argument issue that most often shows up on my ballot is how the permutation functions. I give the benefit of the doubt to the intuitive status of the permutation. For example, I think it’s very easy to imagine a world where two separate policy actions are taken. I think it’s very hard to imagine a world in which Civil Society is ended and the 1AC still solves its harms through implementation. The former gets preference for the permutation making sense. The latter gets preference for exclusivity making sense. I’m happy to vote against my intuition, but you need to lead me there.

I flow on paper, because as a wise teacher (Paul Johnson) once (/often) told me: “Paper doesn’t crash.” This means I will NOT:

Flow your overview verbatim

Flow your underview verbatim

Flow your tags verbatim

But I WILL:

Follow the speech doc for author name spelling

Have no issues jumping around sheets as long as you signpost as you go
Still always appreciate another run through the order (if you don’t have the order, or you change it up, that’s O.K. Again, just sign post clearly)

Write in multiple colors (for individual speakers and notes)

Typically respond to body language/speech patterns and give you cues to what should be happening more or what should be happening less (furrowed brow + no writing usually means bad news bears. No writing, in general, means bad news bears)

I will keep the speech doc open on my computer, because it seems like a good idea to live the round as closely to the competitors’ experience as possible. However, it is YOUR job as a debater to COMMUNICATE to me the most important parts of your speech. 9 times out of 10 this means:

SLOW DOWN to emphasize big picture ideas that you use to contextualize multiple parts of the round. Let me know that you know it’s important. That level of awareness is persuasive.

TELL A STORY of the debate round. Are you winning? (the answer is almost always “yes”) Why are you winning? What are your winning arguments? Why do they demolish your opponent’s arguments into a thousand pieces of rubble that couldn’t win a ballot if you were unable to deliver any additional arguments?

WEIGH IMPACTS. Time frame/magnitude/probability. These are all great words that win debate rounds. There are other great words that also win rounds.
PRIORITIZE (TRIAGE) arguments. You don’t need to win all the arguments to win the debate. If you go for all the arguments, you will often lose a debate you could have won.

New Affs Bad may be persuasive, but not to me. Breaking new affs is the divine right of the affirmative.

I’m still hearing this debated occasionally, but cross ex is binding. I flow it/take notes.

Flex Prep is alive and well in my rounds. You have an opportunity to ask further questions, but not a clear obligation to answer them. I also think it’s pretty fair that prep time can be used to just… prep.

If you ask me to call for evidence, you probably didn’t do a sufficient job presenting your cards during the round.

Rhetorical questions seem very clever as they’re conceived, but are rarely persuasive. Your opponent will not provide a damning answer, and your time would have been better spent working to make positive claims.

I tend to like policy arguments and performance more than philosophy-heavy kritiks because Ks often lose their grounding to the real world (and, it follows, the ballot). Policy arguments are claiming the real world is happening in the speeches of the round, and performance debate has had to justify its own existence for as long as it has existed, which makes it more practiced at role of the ballot. If you love your K and you think it’s the winning move, go for it! Just make sure to still find clash. Related: “reject” alts almost always feel like they’re missing something. Almost like a team without a quarterback, a musical without leads, a stage without performers.

Good links >>> more links

Good evidence >>>>> more evidence

Many definition interpretations are bad. Good definitions win [T] rounds.

Many framework card interpretations are bad. Every debater is better off reading the cards in the entirety at some point during their infinite prep, in order to better understand author intent.

My threshold for accepting politics disads as persuasive feels higher than the community average. I think it’s because probability is underrated in most politics disads.

Anything I believe is open to negotiation within the context of debate, but general truths have a much lower standard of proof (i.e. Debater 1 says “we are currently in Mexico.” Debater 2 counters “Pero estamos en Estados Unidos.” I consider the truth contest over at this point). The more specialized the knowledge, the higher the standard of proof.

Technical parts of the flow (T & Theory come to mind) can be really fast. I mentioned above that I’m writing by hand. You are always better off with -50% the number of arguments with +50% presentation and explanation to the remaining claims. Yes, I have your speech doc. No, I’m not doing your job for you. Communicate the arguments to me.

Debaters are made better by knowing how arguments evolve. There’s a reason a permutation is a “test of competition” (see: plan plus). Knowing the roots and growth of arguments will make you better at clash will make you better at debate will make you better at winning real, actual ballots.

My default is always to give an RFD, and to start that RFD with my decision. This will typically be followed by the winning argument(s). Ideally, the RFD should look suspiciously like the final rebuttal speech of the winning team.

I apologize for this paradigm becoming unreasonable in length.

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

Advice I give frequently enough to consume space on this infinitely long page that is now my paradigm:

Ships passing in the night/Clash wins rounds (see above)

Thanksgiving standard: if you can't explain why this argument is important to your Grandma during Thanksgiving dinner conversation, you probably need to keep reading the literature until you can contextualize to the real world. There's also a really good chance it won't win you the round.

At least try to live the advocacy you endorse. If you think coalition-building is the move, you shouldn’t be exclusionary without clear justification, and possibly not even then. The debate space is better for inclusion efforts.

It’s always to your advantage to use cross ex/prep to understand opposing arguments. Don’t realize after a rebuttal speech that your strategy was based on an incomplete understanding of your opponent(s) and their case.

It’s almost always worth your time to take a small amount of prep to sit back, breathe, and consider how you’re going to explain this round to your coach, debate-knowledgeable legal guardian, or friend-who-doesn’t-like-debate-but-supports-you-in-your-endeavors-because-they’re-a-good-friend. It’s an exercise that will tell you what’s important and help clear the clutter of speed, terminology, and tech.

This is also a good test for seeing if you can explain all the arguments using small words. I think the fanciest words I use in this paradigm are “verbatim” and “temporal proximity”. If you can’t explain your arguments in a simple, efficient manner, you need to keep reading.

It’s also almost always worth your time to take a moment, a sip of water, and a breath to collect yourself before a speech. Do this without excess and every judge you compete in front of will appreciate the generated composure and confidence in your ensuing speech.

Don’t start that speech with a million words a minute. Build to it. Double plus ungood habit if you forgot to check that everyone was ready for you to begin speaking.

I have never, not even once, in a decade+ of debate, heard a judge complain that author names were spoken too slowly.

Don’t take 5 minutes to flash a speech or to sort together a speech doc after you’re “done” prepping.

Your speech and prep time is yours to do with as you wish. Play music, talk loudly, play spades.

Opponent prep time is theirs to do with as they wish. That means you don’t get to play music intrusively (read: use headphones), talk intrusively, play spades intrusively, you get where this is going. This is one of the areas I think speaker points is very much at judge discretion.

If it’s not a speech and it’s not cross ex and neither team is running prep, you should not be prepping. Stealing prep is another area that I think leaves speaker points very much to judge discretion.

Don’t set sound alarms to the time you keep for your opponent’s speeches. Nobody ever, ever wants to hear the timer of the opponent go off before the speaker’s. I will keep time in 99% of debates, and if you’re wrong and cutting into their speech time, you’re losing speaker points.

I’m friendly.

I’m almost always down to give notes between rounds/after tournaments/via email on your performance in debate. Temporal proximity works in your favor (read: my memory has never been A1).

There are few things I love in this good life more than hearing a constructive speech that takes a new interpretation of an old idea and expands how I see the world. Writing your own arguments makes the time you invest in debate more worthwhile.

Spend some time teaching debate to others. Most things worth learning are worth teaching, and the act of teaching will give you an excellent perspective to arguments that have staying power in the community.

Lincoln-Douglas Debaters: A priori arguments can win rounds, but I’d rather see a debate where you win on substance than on a single line that your opponent dropped/misunderstood. If you’re going for a dropped analytic, impact it out in the 2R, as you would any other dropped card.

I feel like the rounds that end up being primarily the criterial debate typically indicate that the debaters could have done more to apply their arguments to the lens of their opponent’s criterion.

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

This space is for you. We don’t hold debate tournaments so that judges can sign ballots. You don’t spend hours/years preparing arguments and developing this skill because you just really want Tab Staffers to have something to do on the weekends. Mountains of money aren’t shifted so that we can enjoy the sweet, sweet pizza at the lunch hour. We’re here so that you can debate. Performance is about communicated intent, and debate is no exception. You can take anything out of that experience, but articulating your purpose walking into the round, even if only to yourself, will make you more persuasive.

Closing note: I typically think dialogue is the best way to educate, and that my role (at a bare minimum) is to educate the competitors following the round, through the lens of my decision and its reasoning. I will typically write a short Tabroom ballot and give as extensive a verbal RFD as scheduling permits/the students have asked all the questions they desire. The short version of this paradigm caused me physical pain, so that should indicate my willingness to engage in decision-making/pedagogical practices.

4 years high school LD/Extemp/PF

3 years college policy/parli/public

Coaching/teaching debate since 2009-ish

Writing Arguments by Allegory since 2013

Erik Legried Brentwood School

Last changed on Sat April 21, 2018 at 9:21 AM MDT

*Updated on 4/21/18 while migrating to Tabroom. I'm revising this because my former paradigm was dated, not because of any significant changes to my judging philosophy.*

Background: I coach LD for the Brentwood School in Los Angeles. I competed in LD for Robbinsdale Cooper HS and Blake HS, both in Minnesota, from 2006-10. I studied philosophy, economics, and entrepreneurship at Northwestern University, graduating in 2014. I have judged several hundred circuit LD rounds, and plenty traditional rounds too.

Overall: I am a 'least-intervention' judge, and try my best to vote on the arguments in the round. Barring certain complicated extremes (i.e. offensive language, physical coercion), I vote for the best reason articulated to me during the debate. This involves establishing a framework (or whatever you want to call it - a mechanism for evaluation) for my decision, and winning offense to it.

Some implications/nuance to 'least-intervention' - a) I won't evaluate/vote on what I perceive to be new arguments in the 2NR or 2AR, b) I won't vote on arguments that I don't understand when they're introduced, c) I won't vote on arguments that I don't hear, and d) I won't vote on arguments you don't make (i.e. if your evidence answers something and you don't point it out)

Spreading: I think speed is overall bad for debate, but I will not penalize you for my belief. You should debate at whatever speed you want, granted I can understand it. If it's just me judging you, I will say clear / slow up to three times per speech. After three I will stop trying. The first two 'clears' are free, but after the third one I will reduce your speaker points by 2 for a maximum of 28. On a panel I will say 'clear' once, maybe twice, depending how the other judges seem to be keeping up.

Speaker points: holistic measure of good debating. I'm looking for good arguments, strategy, and speaking. I average around a 28.5. A 29.3+ suggests I imagine you in elimination rounds of whichever tournament we're at. I'm averaging a 30 once every four years at my current rate.

Loose ends:

- As of the 4/21/18 update, I do not need extensions to be 'full', i.e. claim / warrant / impact, especially in the 1AR, but I do expect you to articulate what arguments you are advancing in the debate. For conceded arguments, a concise extension of the implications is sufficient.

- If I think there is literally no offense for either side, I presume aff.

- I default to a comparative world paradigm.

- I default to drop the argument, competing interpretations, no RVI, fairness/education are voters.

- I will call evidence situationally - on the one hand it is crucial to resolving some debates, on the other hand I think it can advantage unclear debaters who get the benefit of judges carefully reviewing their evidence. I will do my best to balance these interests.

Feel free to contact me at erik.legried@gmail.com.

Reza Lotfi Montville

Richard Ma Interlake

Greg Malis Isidore Newman School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:28 AM CDT

I teach math and serve as chair of the math dept at Isidore Newman School in New Orleans. I retired from coaching high school at the end of the 2017-2018 school year. I coached Policy and LD (as well as most every speech event) for over 25 years on the local and national circuit. In the spring of 2020, we started a Middle School team at Newman and have been coaching on the middle school level since then.

I judge only a handful of rounds each year. You will need to explain topic specific abbreviations, acronyms, etc. a little more than you would normally. You will also need to go slower than normal, especially for the first 30 sec of each speech so I can adjust to you.

Email chain: gregmalis@newmanschool.org

My philosophy is in three sections. Section 1 applies to both policy and LD. Section 2 is policy-specific. Section 3 is LD-specific.

Section 1: Policy and LD

Speed. Go fast or slow. However, debaters have a tendency to go faster than they are physically capable of going. Regardless of your chosen rate of delivery, it is imperative that you start your first speech at a considerably slower pace than your top speed will be. Judges need time to adjust to a student's pitch, inflection, accent/dialect. I won't read cards after the round to compensate for your lack of clarity, nor will I say "clearer" during your speech. In fact, I will only read cards after the round if there is actual debate on what a specific card may mean. Then, I may read THAT card to assess which debater is correct.

Theory. Theory should not be run for the sake of theory. I overhead another coach at a tournament tell his debaters to "always run theory." This viewpoint sickens me. If there is abuse, argue it. Be prepared to explain WHY your ground is being violated. What reasonable arguments can't be run because of what your opponent did? For example, an aff position that denies you disad or CP ground is only abusive if you are entitled to disad or CP ground. It becomes your burden to explain why you are so entitled. Theory should never be Plan A to win a round unless your opponent's interpretation, framework, or contention-level arguments really do leave you no alternative. I think reasonable people can determine whether the theory position has real merit or is just BS. If I think it's BS, I will give the alleged offender a lot of leeway.

Role of the Ballot. My ballot usually means nothing more than who won the game we were playing while all sitting in the same room. I don't believe I am sending a message to the debate community when I vote, nor do I believe that you are sending a message to the debate community when you speak, when you win, or when you lose. I don't believe that my ballot is a teaching tool even if there's an audience outside of the two debaters. I don't believe my ballot is endorsing a particular philosophy or possible action by some agent implied or explicitly stated in the resolution. Perhaps my ballot is endorsing your strategy if you win my ballot, so I am sending a message to you and your coach by voting for you, but that is about it. If you can persuade me otherwise, you are invited to try. However, if your language or conduct is found to be offensive, I will gladly use my ballot to send a message to you, your coach, and your teammates with a loss and/or fewer speaker points than desired.

Section 2: Policy only (although there are probably things in the LD section below that may interest you)

In general, I expect that Affs read a plan and be topical. K Affs or Performance Affs have a bit of an uphill climb for me to justify why the resolution ought not be debated. If a team chooses this approach, at minimum, they need to advocate some action that solves some problem, and their remedy/method must provide some reasonable negative ground.

I think K's need a solid link and a clear, viable, and competitive alt, but I best understand a negative strategy if consisting of counterplans, disads, case args.

Section 3: LD only (if you are an LDer who likes "policy" arguments in LD, you should read the above section}

Kritiks. In the end, whatever position you take still needs to resolve a conflict inherent (or explicitly stated) within the resolution. Aff's MUST affirm the resolution. Neg's MUST negate it. If your advocacy (personal or fiated action by some agent) does not actually advocate one side of the resolution over the other (as written by the framers), then you'll probably lose.

Topicality. I really do love a good T debate. I just don't hear many of them in LD. A debater will only win a T debate if (1) you read a definition and/or articulate an interpretation of specific words/phrases in the resolution being violated and (2) explain why your interp is better than your opponent's in terms of providing a fair limit - not too broad nor too narrow. I have a strong policy background (former policy debater and long-time policy debate coach). My view of T debates is the same for both.

Presumption. I don't presume aff or neg inherently. I presume the status quo. In some resolutions, it's clear as to who is advocating for change. In that case, I default to holding whoever advocates change in the status quo as having some burden of proof. If neither (or both) is advocating change, then presumption becomes debatable. However, I will work very hard to vote on something other than presumption since it seems like a copout. No debate is truly tied at the end of the game.

Plans vs Whole Res. I leave this up to the debaters to defend or challenge. I am more persuaded by your perspective if it has a resolutional basis. For example, the Sept/Oct 2016 topic has a plural agent, "countries" (which is rare for LD topics). Thus, identifying a single country to do the plan may be more of a topicality argument than a "theory" argument. In resolutions when the agent is more nebulous (e.g., "a just society"), then we're back to a question as what provides for a better debate.

Monben Mayon Hire

David McGinnis West Des Moines Valley HS

Ben Miller Cypress Bay HS

Last changed on Sat October 14, 2017 at 6:45 AM EDT

Assistant Professor of Communication, Onondaga Community College (NY) 2016-Present

ADOF, Cypress Bay High School (FL) 2012-2015

Experience
During my four years on the Texas high school circuit (2001-2005), I competed in PF, LD, and CX Debate, and was a parli debater for four years in college (2005-2009). I previously coached on the college circuit at California State University, Long Beach (2010-2012), and was the ADOF at Cypress Bay High School in Weston, FL (2012-2015). I'm now a college professor and teach argumentation courses.

General Paradigm
I am open to all types of arguments as long as they are logically sound. You need to make the links and do the analysis for me! I am open to whatever kind of position you would like to run, but clarity and weighing is essential in flushing-out arguments and my decision-making process. That being said, I do appreciate when debaters explain complex theory arguments. As a communication scholar, I obviously grasp and enjoy K debate...but, I also look for and appreciate additional explanations and clarity. Even though I'm familiar with a lot of arguments, I have been spending more time on IE side of speech/debate. Make sure that your arguments are clear.

Most importantly, make sure you tell my WHY YOU WIN THE ROUND. Compare and weigh arguments! Why are your arguments better?

Speed/Delivery
Due to my parli experience, I do enjoy when competitors use persuasiveness, narratives, and vocal emphasis to highlight critical arguments. You should not spread in front of me. Seriously, people sound ridiculous when they spread and you will never spread outside of the debate realm.

Speed - Sure...

Speaker Points
I think that speaker points are unnecessarily arbitrary; I also know that giving every debater in a round 30s skews results. As such, I use speaker points as a rank. If you are the best debater in the round, you will get 30 points, second best, 29 points, etc. I will only give you below a 27 in a round if I am offended about an argument or action in the round.

David Moon Collegiate School

Matthew Morales Charlotte Catholic High School None

Devane Murphy University High School

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 10:10 AM EDT

FOR COLLEGE TOURNAMENTS: ukydebate@gmail.com

FOR HS TOURNAMENTS:devanemdebate@gmail.com

My name is Devane (Da-Von) Murphy, and I'm the Associate Director of Debate at the University of Kentucky. My conflicts are Newark Science, Coppell High School, University High School, Rutgers-Newark, Dartmouth College, and the University of Kentucky. I debated 4 years of policy in high school and for some time in college, however, I've coached Lincoln-Douglas as well as Public Forum debaters so I should be good on all fronts. I ran all types of arguments in my career, from Politics to Deleuze and back, and my largest piece of advice to you with me in the back of the room is to run what you are comfortable with. Also, I stole this from Elijah Smith's philosophy

"If you are a policy team, please take into account that most of the "K" judges started by learning the rules of policy debate and competing traditionally. I respect your right to decide what debate means to you, but debate also means something to me and every other judge. Thinking about the form of your argument as something I may not be receptive to is much different from me saying that I don't appreciate the hard work you have done to produce the content"

***Emory LD Edit***

I'm a policy debater in training but I'm not completely oblivious to the different terms and strategies used in LD. That being said, I hate some of the things that are supposed to be "acceptable" in the activity. First, I HATE frivolous Theory debates. I will vote for it if I absolutely have to but I have VERY HIGH threshold and I will not be kind to your speaker points. Second, if your thing is to do whatever a "skeptrigger" is or something along that vein, please STRIKE me. It'd be a waste of your time as I have nothing to offer you educationally. Another argument that I probably will have a hard time evaluating is constitutivism/truth testing. Please compare impacts and tell me why I should vote for you. Other than that, everything else here is applicable. Have fun and if you make me laugh, I'll boost your speaks.

DA's: I like these kinds of debates. My largest criticism is that if you are going to read a DA in front of me, please give some form of impact calculus that helps me to evaluate which argument should be prioritized with my ballot. And I'm not just saying calculus to mean timeframe, probability or magnitude but rather to ask for a comparison between the impacts offered in the round. (just a precursor but this is necessary for all arguments not just DA's)

CP's: I like CP's however for the abusive ones (and yes I'm referring to Consult, Condition, Multi-Plank, Sunset, etc.) Theoretical objections persuade me. I'm not saying don't run these in front of me however if someone runs theory please don't just gloss over it because it will be a reason to reject the argument and if its in the 2NR the team.

K's: I like the K too however that does not mean that I am completely familiar with the lit that you are reading as arguments. The easiest way to persuade me is to have contextualized links to the aff as well as not blazing through the intricate details of your stuff. Not to say I can't flow speed (college debate is kinda fast) I would rather not flow a bunch of high theory which would mean that I won't know what you're talking about. You really don't want me to not know what you're talking about. SERIOUSLY. I will lower your speaker points without hesitation

Framework: I'm usually debating on the K side of this, but I will vote on either side. If the negative is winning and impacting their decision-making impact over the impacts of the aff then I would vote negative. On the flip side, if the aff wins that the interpretation is a targeted method of skewing certain conversations and wins offense to the conversation, I would vote aff. This being said I go by my flow. Also, I'm honestly not too persuaded by fairness as an impact, but the decision-making parts of the argument intrigue me.

K-Affs/Performance: I'm 100% with these. However, they have to be done the right way. I don't wanna hear poetry spread at me at high speeds nor do I want to hear convoluted high theory without much explanation. That being said, I love to watch these kinds of debates and have been a part of a bunch of them.

Theory: I'll vote on it if you're impacting your standards. If you're spreading blocks, probably won't vote for it.

Nicole Nave Barrington High School

Evan O'Donnell Princeton None

Ananth Panchanadam Walt Whitman

Last changed on Wed June 17, 2020 at 7:29 AM EDT

Ananth Panchanadam

2020 Update: Ananth Panchanadam

Education: B.A. Political Science, New York University (December 2018). Ms in Finance, Georgetown University, McDonough School of Business (May 2021), Unionville High School(2015)

Professional Experience: Internships in Investment Banking and Corporate Finance

Coaching/Teaching Experience: Stuyvesant, Ransom Everglades (Students qualified to TOC from both schools)

Competitive Background: Policy Debate

Paradigm: Wanted to keep this simple and quick. Feel free to ask more in-depth questions

I like students who have plans and by plans I mean students who have a clear vision as to what they are trying to accomplish in each speech. I want to reward debaters who have an idea of how to win the debate and can explain and execute that it. I prefer that over debaters who just extend their scenario and do line by line without any broader strategy.

I don’t have any style of argumentation preferences and have had coaching success with Policy, K and performative strategies. Speed is fine, please be clear and don’t blaze through theory shells and pre-written analytics.

I also think that the goal for most students is to win a debate and that students look to exploit points of arbitrage to secure victory.

T: I believe that Affs have a prima facie burden to be topical. What it means to be T is up for debate. You can also reject the topic but be ready to defend it. I don’t have a strong preference for reasonability or competing interps. It seems inevitable that both are used in my decision. Def go for it if you have a good explanation. I treat standards as linear disads and actual abuse is more persuasive than potential abuse.

Ks:

Role of Ballot is the first thing I evaluate on a k flow but I do need to believe that there is a reason for the ballot to have a role and that the specific role of the ballot is good.

Role of Judge =/= Role of Ballot. Role of Judge, ideally, helps me prioritize an issue or method that influences the way I interpret the arguments made in a round.

I view links as independent disads to the aff. Good teams will explain them as reasons to vote for the alt and/or the squo.

DAs/CPs:

Use case arguments to strengthen your DA arguments. Strong link work will serve you well. Specific counterplans and texts are good.

Personal Opinions/Conventions:

1) I disclose and call for cards unless told otherwise

2) Tech vs Truth is stupid: Drops =/= wins and strong truth claims don’t always beat technical drops. Use situational awareness to determine how to approach technical aspects of debate

3. 3) Author Quals matter. Peer reviewed research, respected news sources, industry opinions (especially for Finance and Econ). Authors from relevant fields.

4) Science, Statistics and Data analysis are good.

5) I don’t have a revolution or reform good bias for K debates

6) I generally don’t find g-lang type arguments persuasive and I will not vote for them against ESL students.

7) I don't like arguments made in bad faith and you'll know it when you see it. I don't like sketchy disclosure practices (Either do a reasonable disclosure or don't disclose at all and be prepared to defend the consequences of your decision).

8) I don't take prep for flashing/Emailing. Not everyone has a $3k macbook.

Feel free to ask me any questions you have and good luck!

Dan Pantelo Millburn High School

RJ Pellicciotta Cary Academy

Raffi Piliero Hire

Last changed on Tue February 14, 2023 at 3:12 PM EDT

Harrison High School '17
Georgetown University '20
Raffipiliero@gmail.com

Harvard update: I've been out of debate for over a year, so my old paradigm is not as applicable - I'm far less ideological about argument content now that I'm not involved. However, I've left it here for reference.

I'll keep this brief-ish, since nobody enjoys reading these things. Do what you want and you will be fine - I probably place a greater premium on clarity/structure than most, but otherwise just have the debate you'd like.

But for (slightly) more detail: I'll just list 5 things to know about me:

1) Experience

I was very involved in debate for a 9-year stretch (2012-2021) in both LD and Policy, as both a coach and competitor (was in TOC elims/NDT elims, led DebateDrills coaching for 5 years, etc.). I debated mostly on the national circuit and read mostly policy arguments, with some Kritik arguments sprinkled in.

However, I haven't been at all involved lately: I haven't judged for 2 years and haven't thought about debate at all for 1+ years.

Currently, I work full-time at Harvard on foreign policy and international security-related work, so I'll be very up on anything related to current events/politics/foreign policy/etc. But I have not thought about the topic or cut cards on it.

So: you don't need to slow down, and I trust myself to still flow well/keep up with whatever debate you want to have. But, I don't bring any knowledge of the topic or any "meta" since 2021, so it will behoove you to explain any new concepts well.

2) Hard rules

The only rules I have are ones that I expect to never be relevant: No "isms," nothing that makes the debate unsafe, etc.

The only thing that may be slightly different for me than other judges is that I won't evaluate personal attacks/accusations about out of round behavior. So: nothing about the opponents' preferences, appearance, behavior, etc. If you're not sure, ask before the round - I will also make it obvious that I'm not flowing if this happens.

Otherwise, it's your debate and you should expect me to be a disinterested/neutral audience.

3) Views on form

I did college policy, so speed is absolutely fine. You won't go too fast for me. However, in a significant percentage of debates I judge, clarity is an issue. If I can't understand every word you say on tags and the vast majority on cards, I'll let you know. If I have to keep saying clear, don't expect good speaks.

Debate is a communication activity - I could never understand why some judges flow off the speech doc, pretend they understood arguments they couldn't flow, etc. So: do prioritize clarity in both delivery and structure. No judge will ever complain that you numbered your arguments, slowed down and inflected, etc. These things are essential to comprehension.

Too many speeches are scripted. If you're "autopiloting" a significant portion of the 2NR/2AR without responding to your opponents' arguments, your speaks won't be great. I'll consciously give you better points if you give a 2NR/2AR without your laptop.

4) Views on content

The biggest thing I can emphasize is that you should have the debate you want to have. My defaults are just that: defaults. Debating can change any of my views. That being said, all of us have biases, so I'll try to be upfront about them.

I'm theoretically fine with any type of debate you want to have (Kritik, Policy, etc.). The only strong views I have are ostensibly content-agnostic: I place a lot of weight on evidence, and I probably apply a stronger threshold than most in what counts as an argument. If I can't explain it back to the other team, I won't vote for it even if "dropped." But: this may make me worse for tricks debate, unevidenced Kritik arguments, etc. - I don't harbor an ideological bias against them per se, but given my preferences for explanation/evidence, they may be less likely to succeed.

If history is any guide, I've historically judged a lot of policy vs. policy debates, and a fair number of "clash" debates. I'm probably best at judging those debates, and worse at judging K vs. K debates. If you're a K team in a clash round, you shouldn't worry that my policy background will hurt you. If anything, I think most policy teams aren't very good at answering K arguments, and I'm probably 50/50 on how I vote in T/Framework debates.

5) Speaker points

I probably average around a 28-28.5, but will go as low as 27 and high as 29.5. I'll shamelessly inflate speaks if you're clear, give structured speeches, and debate off your flow and not a script. And no, you can't ask for a 30.

Christian Quiroz Byram Hills HS

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 1:07 PM EDT

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.

Diganta Rashed Acton-Boxborough Regional HS

Last changed on Fri October 12, 2018 at 7:13 AM EDT

I debated for 4 years at Bronx Science. Questions? Facebook message me, or email me at drashed2009@gmail.com

Bronx Update: I have not judged for the better part of, if not more than, a year. You will definitely need to slow down with most stuff you read in front of me or I will not be able to follow. Flashing/email chains are heavily recommended.

Pre-round version:

Make the round your own, unless you’re racist, sexist, homophobic, or choose to actively exhibit problematic behavior. Read whatever you want, just remember that I haven’t been involved with debate for nearly half a year, so you can bet I likely won’t follow your top speed filled with a massive dump of spike-filled args. Best bet? GO 75% SPEED WITH SLOW TAGS, AND USE A FEW SECONDS OF REBUTTAL TIME TO ROADMAP.

Don’t know what I absolutely WONT listen to? Check the bottom of the paradigm.

Ask me for clarifications if you need to know about any specific type of argument you want to read.

Long Version:

Debate, despite its disadvantages, is still a forum for competitive education. You can still have the aspect of competition, but don’t sacrifice education for it. I have no particular preferences for what kind of argument you choose to run. I will listen to most arguments so long as the premise of your debate is not to actively exclude the other debater. I do have arguments that I will paradigmatically not listen to, check the list at the bottom of the paradigm to find out which.

Be courteous. Don’t be mean. Now, I guess specifics are in order.

Framework:

I like listening to well-written frameworks. If you are able to explain to me the logical justification behind why I should believe that actions derived from some ethical principle is good, chances are you will have the framework debate down. Have solid justifications in the framework and MAKE SURE THEY ARE WARRANTED.

T/Theory

I default competing interps, drop the argument on theory, and drop debater on T. If you are able to convince me otherwise, it better be well warranted. Reasonability is also fine as long as there is an explicit metric and threshold for what exactly is reasonable within the context of the arguments in play during the round. Don’t read friv theory, chances are I won’t enjoy it, you’ll get low speaks and I will more likely be inclined to vote against you for it.

I was a performance/K debater during my senior year. I believe the judge serves the role of an educator meaning Ks do belong in debate, don’t just prima facie try to exclude them. There is a vast ocean of literature so do not expect me to be well read on everything, so explanations of the literature are recommended.

Misc.:

· Roadmap so I know where on the flow you are

· First time judging in a while, so go slow

Arguments I will ABSOLUTELY not vote for

· Disclosure theory

· Skep vs. Ks

· Racism doesn’t exist bc science

· List will get longer in the future

If you crack jokes about the following people without being blatantly offensive you will get higher speaks:

1) Neal Kapoor

2) Michael Corder

3) Jacob Ronkin

4) Karan Choudhary

5) Brandon Kramer

6) List to be edited in the future

Elle Lauren Reed Byram Hills HS

Last changed on Thu January 5, 2023 at 6:38 AM PDT

If you wish to have one, please set up the email chain before round so you can hit send at start time.

ellelaurenreed@gmail.com

Conflicts: Sehome HS, Bellingham HS, Squalicum HS (WA)

* are new/significant

*UPS 2023- I will vote on anything yall are likely to read and am somewhat in the literature for coaching. I've noticed a lot of good LARRP debaters on our circuit, but haven't judged a very high level LARRP v LARRP round in a while, so if you plan on doing any kinda crazy stuff like plan tricks or plan repair maybe explain it in a tiny bit more depth.

*online debate note* from my limited experience judging online, I/my wifi seem to generally be able to follow a pretty good speed, though if you are very fast your mic will probably clip words. Know your mic quality, it changes how fast you can go and be clear. I will 'clear' 2-3 times, watch chat messages. I flow speeches not docs. Also, somehow, some of ya'll steal prep more than in-person with less stuff to do, don't do that.

Overview-
-Do good and win arguments. The more rounds i judge, the less i feel like the type of argument/style of debate you do matters as much in my evaluation of a round as i expected it would when i first started judging.
-Read what you want, if it has a warrant and some kind of framing mechanism to impact into.
-Also, don't intentionally be a bigot if you don't want to lose w/bad speaks. *This includes the cards you read and strategies you go for*
-Feel free to go fast, but signpost, differentiate tags, be clear, and SLOW DOWN AT INTERPS and PLANS! I flow speeches, not docs, and it is just good debate/spreading to differentiate tags and cards this way. also somewhat applies to important analytics
-*dont be sus: don't clip. dont message/talk to your friend or coach about the debate round in progress. dont have teammate in the room whispering tips to you. It really isn't complicated. I've disqualified teams over all of these. Most of the time, the team doing this stuff would win straight up if they would just think and debate normally. I may give you a warning, especially in JV, but I don't have to.

I try to base speaks on how well you debate, with some focus on technical performance but more on strategic choice, with 28.5 being average. Not too stingy, but i think point inflation is bad and rarely give 29.5 and above. I appreciate really good debates and try to reward good/ outstanding performances, technically or in 'the vibe'. Creativity gets rewarded pretty heavily

if you think my paradigm is odd and want to ask questions about it, feel free to.

specifics-

I debated LD in HS and got a few bids. I also did policy debate for NYU in college. I am probably more familiar with LD still, but I've judged and debated a lot of good CX rounds. I mostly read critical or performative arguments (especially in policy), and thats the style of debate I understand the best generally, but in HS i was very flex and fundamentally I will vote on whatever.

*note here for Washingtondebaters *- i mostly debated on the east coast and Texas, so i am way more familiar with tricks, phil, and pomo than the average judge on our circuit, despite my somewhat policy background. Feel free to read any of this stuff (well please) and i will appreciate it.

I also think disclosure is in general good and the best responses to disclosure theory are kritical rather than about small schools or fairness. about disclosure- i do not like deployment of disclosure theory outside of norms. If the aff has not been broken, or the debater has not competed at a tournament yet (or even worse, at all this year), I will likely reduce speaks for reading disclosure, even if i will vote on it. I really really don't like contact info theory as a way to establish a violation for a debater who is otherwise disclosing and following norms. I will absolutely reduce speaks for this in all instances. Other stuff (full text vs cites, must disclose to black/other group of debaters/ other reasonable deployments) is totally fine.

i wont vote on- the resolved a-priori (other a-priories are fine), arguments cut from the SCUM manifesto, *trans-exclusionary feminism/gender args*, oppression of any kind good, evaluate theory after the 2nr (some debate about what to evaluate when is fine, but this being shelled out is a really tough buy for me).

I strongly dislike how the DSRB 'must talk about personal experience/positionally' framework shell is deployed in some (both LD and CX) rounds. If you read this arg, at minimum, your performance should meet the interp. Reading it, for example, with a ton of tricks, nibs, skep, and fairness first without any discussion of your own identity is anti-black and insulting to the context these arguments originated in (and, often, very violent in round). I have not intervened against this argument, but I have and will reduced speaks. I am also very very open to voting on prefcon and other offensive arguments when this shell is deployed in an anti-black way.

Don't be violent, and pay attention to social position. I dock speaks for microggressions, sometimes subconsciously, so try to not. (for example; there is nothing less impressive to watch in a debate round where a dude condescends a woman on something she understands better than he does)

defaults- presume neg (i think me writing aff here previously was a typo), flips if neg reads an advocacy. other ones are probably not important: ****Im more likely to discard a flow/impact as irresolvable and look for other offense in other places, rather than default on a million paradigm issues to make a ballot story make sense****

I'm cool with more weird/innovative arguments and i tend to like them a lot, as well as impact turns like extinction good that some judges don't like. make sure your justifications are good (and no fascist stuff please)

*this section was written several years ago. I don't know how it holds up to the current meta, assume my ideas are still similar, if maybe somewhat more mellowed out*

I do NOT evaluate rounds based on persuasion. I evaluate the flow. If i should evaluate the round different, that's possible, but you have to win a warrant for your role of the judge. Any progressive stuff yall want to do is cool, but don't do it really badly. None of yall can spread too quickly so go whatever speed. Also uuuh 'rules of pf' isnt an argument in 99% of cases

I really do not like paraphrased evidence. PF already has huge issues with evidence integrity, and paraphrased evidence can say whatever you want it to say. Analytic arguments are almost always better because they normally actually have a warrant and don't teach bad academic practices. I also call for cards after the round and will go through the effort to check cites- do not fabricate evidence in front of me *this also applies to any other debate event when allowed by tournament*

ALL basic debate things actually do still apply to yall. For example- no new in the 2 (your arguments other than weighing/comparison in the final focus u want me to vote off of must be in a previous speech, and ideally before the summery. To clarify further, you also do not have to extend all arguments from earlier speeches, rather you should collapse down to your best arguments), dropped arguments are conceded arguments (including the first speech for whoever is speaking second!), you need offense to win a round, ect.

Another issue i often have in pf rounds is that teams expect me to take something bad-sounding for granted as an impact. You should not to this- 1. you de facto have to warrant all of the pieces; a) that your impact exists, and (b) that its bad, and (c) that its worse than your opponents impacts. 2. Things you think are intuitively bad may not be the same as what i think is intuitively bad

david richardson Newark Science None

David Sangiao-Parga West Broward HS

Last changed on Sat October 7, 2017 at 5:30 AM EDT

My judging paradigm for Lincoln Douglas (LD) Debate is a clash of values. The value represents a means to an idealistic, just world. The criterion is the standard by which to measure the opposing values and to ultimately define the value that should be upheld. The contentions are used to uphold the value. Value, criterion and contentions must be clearly stated by both sides.

Therefore, the debater that upholds their value and criteria with the strongest contentions and strongest cross x will receive the higher points, thus (generally) the win.Points that are imperative for me in order to judge an LD debate :

Slow down on the Tags!
Must be clear with your value and criteria
Contention and it's value MUST BE crystal clear
I do not allow flex time
Speak at a reasonable pace
Time yourself
Argue on logic not emotions
Quotations have no meanings without explanations
Make logical and sensible arguments AND explain your arguments.
There is a difference between a passionate and an abrasive or condescending debater-check yourselves
Stay organized
Be respectful to your opponent
Construct a well impacted argument/s
The debater that most clearly present a logical argument AND effectively refute the opponent will be the victor **Cross X is very important to me and at times defines the winner
MOST OF ALL ENJOY YOURSELVES WHILE PERFECTING YOUR CRAFT

For PF I want the debaters to deliver their arguments with eloquence and logic, therefore, I don't allow spreading. I prefer that the debaters keep the questions and responses format in crossfire, so stay away from giving speeches at that time. It is not enough to simply advocate your position. You need to also analyze and rebut your opponents position.

While you do not advocate a policy action, you still need to explain not only why your position is the best course of action, but why your opponents advocacy is a bad idea. Also, make sure to be kind and respectful to each other in crossfire. If the round is close, classy wins.

In the final focus, crystalize your arguments one by one so it is obvious to a lay judge.

You as debaters should try to have an educational round but most of all have fun!

For speaker points: Clarity. Articulation. Politeness. Advocacy.

Alexandra Sencer Collegiate School

Ashveer Singh Marquette Univ HS

Last changed on Thu January 5, 2023 at 5:48 AM CDT

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

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

Short Version

I prefer traditional debate.

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

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

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

Give voters in the Final Focus. Please.

Long Version

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Staunton Hunter College

Last changed on Fri April 17, 2020 at 8:42 PM EDT

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

Harold Stenzel Sayville High School

Lily Sun Montgomery Blair High School

Ravi Upadhya Montville

Varun Venkatesh Scarsdale HS

Harry Wang Syosset HS

Ingrid Wang Princeton

Kathy Wang Stuyvesant HS

Last changed on Thu February 23, 2023 at 4:55 PM EDT

hullo, i'm kathy! any pronouns are fine.

email chain: kathywang098 [a] gmail.com

UPDATE FOR D8: i've been really out of the college policy scene for the past few years & this is the first time i'm judging at a tournament on the topic, so please keep that in mind! i think at this point it'd be helpful for y'all to slow down a little and err on overexplaining if you can - i'm very unfamiliar with the topic lit and haven't personally been doing any research for it at all. hoping some things will just be muscle memory, but i appreciate the patience regardless.

as you can see from the rest of this paradigm, a lot of my judging experience is with LD -- i've bolded anything of note/applicable in the ld paradigm below, but i'll try and consolidate everything here. feel free to also ask me any other questions, either through email or before round or however! here's a super quick paradigm:

- bg: i debated for nyu and graduated in 2020 and was quite a partner-hopper LOL. i was mostly-but-not-always a 2a and read lots of non-t affs, but have also been a 2n for like, disads and framework. in my time judging ld i have voted on everything from disads to performance affs to test case fiat, i don't think policy's gonna change that.

- straight policy: i've probably had the least experience in straight policy v policy rds, but if you make your link scenario clear i'll be able to follow! like i said, i haven't been doing topic prep or anything on antitrust so try to make any obscure acronyms clear for me too. policy debate for me comes down to a question of who can best control the scenario even when accounting for the possibility of the other side's links -- the more engagement and the more explicit comparison b/w your offense and your opponent's, the better. the worst thing in the world is two teams independently describing their own scenarios - big picture framing will take you far b/c i really don't want to be stuck with like, 4 different extinction scenarios and no way to delineate between them. win the probability of your scenario, win weighing on your impact, we are all happy.

funky cps are a go for me! theory is a go for me! (good theory is underrated in policy, but it's gotta be good).

- ks: go for it. always happy to hear a good methods throwdown, always happy to learn more ab the lit. innovative advocacies/alternatives are amazing and i love to hear them, but good k debate shouldn't have to rely on my preexisting knowledge of any body of literature. besides that, though, debate's your sandbox. vague advocacies have a very uphill battle in front of me, you should have a ready-to-go, instant, rehearsed, and clearly defined answer to "what does the world of the aff/alt look like and what exactly do we have to do to get there". not to say the alt can't be something like unintelligibility, but like... you should know what you're defending.

reading a k also doesn't mean you can't be techy. don't rely on me to make connections to the line by line and apply offense for you. yes this is about your 6 minute long 2nc k overview.

- fw v ks: i'm leaning more towards the procedural fairness is an internal link not a voter camp, but you can always convince me otherwise. fw and cap is no reason to not even bother attempting to answer the aff - you're 100% capable of generating analytics on the fly. i will be INCREDIBLY UNIMPRESSED with teams who read fw without even attempting to engage the aff in good faith. the more fw claims contextualize in round abuse the better they are. tvas are great tools and the more creative you can be with them the better. the less generic, the better. win a model of debate.

- ks v fw: no need to be resolutional at all but i think it's better if there's an attempt to be topical [i.e. somehow related to the topic area]. if you draw a link from the general area of the topic, that's ideal. if the aff is just, totally unrelated to alliances at all i'll have a lower threshold for voting on fw. general impact turns to their form either a) need to have the scope of their implication clarified or b) need interactions with specific offense from the shell clarified. i find that clash debates are very hard to win without some clearly defined counter interp ready. the less generic, the better. win a model of debate.

i can handle speed but slow down for online debate. feel free to ask me questions after the round, but the rfd is not your 3nr/3ar. if i cannot adequately explain an argument myself in the rfd, i will not vote on it and i have no problems w making that clear even if it's not satisfying for you or gives you closure. i'll do my best to put rfds on tabroom as well!

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

LD PARADIGM:

main paradigm/right b4 rd: i've judged nearly every style of debate within ld, so odds are i'll be okay with whatever you read. i'm less confident with dense phil debate and blippy theory debates (but really, what kind of judge isn't less confident with blippy theory...) and more read-up on k literature. i don't care if you don't defend the resolution, but i have reliably gone both ways on t-framework. i'm not coaching, so i'm unfamiliar with the topic - if you're going for more LARPy positions, please overallocate explanation on link-level arguments! also in general slow down bc a) i'm out of practice listening to spreading b) who knows how much latency verizon wants to put upon my humble network b/c they thrive in my suffering and know i'll be back on the 29th of each month to pay my internet bill regardless

lately i've found that i have a pretty high threshold of explanation for arguments, especially on theory, so please keep that in mind. my usual threshold when making decisions is "can i thoroughly reexplain your argument in the rfd and draw lines throughout the flow" -- if the answer is no, i won't count it in my decision. the larger the implication of an argument is, the higher the threshold for explanation is. you can still win off things like independent voters, but there must be some coherent warrant and impact (and honestly, warrant for why something is an independent voter/outweighs everything else in the first place, because that's also never there)

if something happens in a round that makes you feel unsafe and you don't feel comfortable expressing it out loud, please send me a separate email during the round and i will intervene without naming you.

my background:

i debated for stuyvesant hs from 2012-2016, and then debated college policy at nyu ("graduated" in 2020). i'm no longer coaching anyone, so i guess that means i'm pretty out of the activity now? i already even deleted my paradigm and made a joke one, so now i have to rewrite all this. :( if it matters at all, in hs i read more policy-esque or soft-left positions, and in college i read a lot of far-left ks, theory args, and occasionally high theory. besides that, i've judged a lot, so i've honestly seen it all especially because nobody thinks reading paradigms is cool anymore. F

misc:

- being tab is impossible but i do strive for less intervention. usually what i do when i make decisions is construct two ballots in my head - one for the aff, one for the neg - and vote on whichever one is more logical/coherent and requires less work

- a general rule of thumb: if you think you are the only person in the pool (or even debate as a whole) to read your position, tech implications should probably be overexplained at the very least

- i'm willing to disclose speaks, but also sometimes willing to not do that (avg is usually a 28.5) -- this does not apply to policy

- starting to think that rounds that come down to 1ar theory are literally irresolvable. like, it's just impossible. i'll evaluate them as well as you can expect someone to evaluate latebreaking theory that an entire round somehow hinges on even though affs are time-pressed/blippy and negs only have one speech and less than 15 minutes are spent on the only thing that matters in the round yknow? i mean, don't get me wrong, i still think it's one of the most strategic options for the aff, so don't take this as a "don't read 1ar theory." all i'm saying is, life's a gamble!

- can everyone lay off me for constantly rotating my head 90 degrees during a debate round. my ear faces you so i hear better but now it's just a habit and/or eye contact makes me feel awkward :((((

- things i won't vote on: blatantly offensive stuff like racism good or the sorts, double win/loss (i physically cannot), "give me [x] speaks" arguments.

- are indexicals making a comeback? please do not read indexicals in front of me. like, please don't. i keep thinking 2020 can't get any worse and then lders bring back INDEXICALS. what the heck!!

- i can't really process layers of audio - it gives me a really, really bad headache and scrambles my brain. not saying you can't play music or other audio, just not simultaneously while you speak b/c i won't be able to write anything down

- please give me a heads up for explicit discussions of self-harm or su*cide -- you can still read it, i'd just like to know it's coming

anyways, thanks for readin! above all i hope you have fun while debating and remember why you joined this activity and why you stay. feel free to reach out to me if you have any other questions ab this paradigm, or anything else!

Susan Wang Stuyvesant HS

Jack Wareham Oakwood School - North Hollywood

Andrew Welton Collegiate School

Marna Weston Oak Hall

Last changed on Sun June 16, 2024 at 3:29 PM EDT

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

TLDR

Condo is probably bad. I don't like tricks and rude stuff. These practices may lower your speaker points. I don't like people beating their opponents down in a disrespectful manner. These practices might also lower your speaker points. True champions find a way to win with style, finesse, and some measure of grace. Basically, "say what you mean, and mean what you say" in front of me. Kick outs and shifts are not received well. If you shift your position and the other team catches you, calls you on it, labels it a voter, impacts it, and you do not give that response serious consideration, you will have missed the opportunity to respond to something likely important in the decision. I prefer that debaters determine the issues in the round. My job is to evaluate how well, how clearly, how expertly, and how meaningfully the debaters present, refute, and summarize versus each other.

I like and am comfortable with crystal clear debaters and crystal-clear rebuttals. I am open to a lot of different types of discussions, and I'm excited to listen to what you bring to the debate space.

NO MATTER WHAT YOUR ARGUMENT, In a nutshell:

Tell Me What Your Argument Is

Tell Me Why I Should Prefer It

Tell Me Why If I Do Prefer Your Argument Why You Should Then Win The Debate---Some form of Impact Calculus/Weighting Magnitude, Probability and Time Frame-ish args are goods.

If you think you are really winning something, "sit on it" and explain why you win.

Updated 1/05/2024

Overview: I firmly believe that policy debate is first and foremost a communication activity. Consequently, oral presentation plays a large factor in my adjudication process. I focus on the “story” of the debate, but line-byline refutation can be a component of that. Know your order before you announce it. Don't change the order after you announce it. Clearly articulated arguments at any speed can be evaluated. Inarticulate utterings that cannot be understood cannot be evaluated. Especially in online debates. Slow down and be really clear on why you are winning. Be quick, but don't hurry. I will not tolerate rudeness. Cross X is binding. I don’t like “camp games” that steal time. I see you. Keep it to a minimum. If there is a mistake or misunderstanding just apologize. Saying you are sorry is often overlooked. You might clean it up well and still be in the debate. At the very least, you will save yourself low speaks if you make an honest effort to play it smart and on the level.

My paradigm biggies are as follows:

1. I agree that conditionality is "probably" bad. So, its "probably" not a bad idea to speak to this and support reasons why I might or might not vote on this---if it becomes an issue. Don’t just wait to see what I’ll do. In a vacuum of no direction on a debate argument, I am left to ignore the argument or evaluate by my own standards. I prefer to not do this. Its your debate. Clean it up. As far as just throwing out a bunch of stuff and then dropping it as a strategy---it does not usually go very well. I do not automatically judge kick. If you run 10 off, then win 10 off that do not contradict each other. Most importantly, be sure that you are clear as crystal even attempting it. When you time skew and then kick out, I am predisposed to vote for the other team if they argue time shew is a reason to reject the side that initiates such practices in the debate space. Absent compelling reasons why I should not do this--that's my predisposition. Again, its your debate so remember to tell me as the judge why I should prefer you style or point of view. Say what you mean and mean what you say is always best---as long as you are not being rude to your opponents. Practice civility always in debate rounds.

2. Topical Counterplans are probably not OK. If at the end of the round I have been effectively persuaded that there are two Affirmative teams, I'll probably vote Affirmative. Give me reasons to not do so, if this is part of your normal strategy. Explain why in a manner that includes what the AFF is doing and WHY even a topical CPLAN is preferred.

3. I prefer not to judge topicality debates. If you're ahead on it, explain to me why it’s important to care about this, or I might not understand why to vote on it. Again, compare your position to your opponents and why your side should win.

4. I enjoy case debates. Solidly clear, irrefutably presented and reasonably current inherency evidence could really win a debate. Really. Postdating sources is good. Supported evidence indicts are good. If you introduce an ethics challenge into a debate round, be prepared to win it. The penalty for challenging someone in such a manner seems to be leading toward the initiator losing the round if they lose their challenge.

5. Kritikal arguments on both AFF and NEG are fine, but pay close attention to the way you communicate your positions (clear and concise!).

6. The topic should be debated, but how you approach the resolution, and how you approach debate generally (content, style, etc.), is left up to the debaters.

7. If you're Negative, show me how your approach is specific to this Affirmative. Be thoughtful in explaining what a vote for your side means and why I should endorse it. Ask me to vote for your side. Don't completely on-face grant the 1AC in favor of pre-set tangentially related points and expect me to get why that means the Negative wins the debate. Be particularly clear on fairness and why ground is or isn't lost and warrants a decision. These are usually not presented clearly and powerfully. And without why they should matter, I tend to be persuaded by other issues

8. I appreciate when the AFF and NEG teams sit on the correct sides of the room with respect to the judge. Otherwise, I might want to vote for someone but accidentally vote for the wrong team. If you're not on the proper side of the room, at least say in your speech which side of the debate you represent and why you think your side should win the debate. That is taken for granted a lot. :)

Best,

Marna Weston

Janna White Poly Prep Country Day School

Brian Wiora Hire

Last changed on Sat March 7, 2020 at 6:27 PM EDT

****MUST READ: I do not evaluate fairness as a voter. If you run it in front of me, I will not vote on it. You have been warned.

Background

I am an assistant coach for Harrison High School. I debated for four years in LD at Greenhill from 2009-2013. I was a philosophy major in college and now teach Poetry at Columbia University. I judged semis at the TOC in 2019.

General

Debate is fun! I enjoy judging good debates full of a lot of nuanced clash and weighing. The best debaters, in my opinion, are clear, well versed on the topic and, above all, persuasive. I think unwarranted arguments, tricks/spikes, and unnecessary/multiple theory shells are bad for debate and an unpersuasive strategy. Above all, I am more likely to drop a claim, no matter how many times it is dropped/extended, than I am add a warrant or impact.

Things I like

-A philosophical framework debate (with standards as opposed to ROB).

-Plans/Counterplans/PICs/Disads

-A good topicality debate

Things I don't like and won't vote for

-Fairness as a voting issue. Fairness is not a voter because A) Debate is an inherently unfair activity B) Fairness is not an intrinsic reason why we do debate and C) If fairness were a voter, I would flip a coin to decide the round. If you are interested in running a fairness voter in front of me, I would suggest playing a game of Chutes and Ladders or Tic-Tac-Toe instead.

-Independent voters, as in those arguments that appeal to something outside of an explicit weighing mechanism (value criterion, ROB, or justified voter)

-Unwarranted arguments. Again, I am more likely to drop a claim than add a warrant

-Any argument appealing to the Role of the Ballot/Role of the Judge as an A priori. In general, I do not think any argument in debate is an A priori, but especially not arguments that rely on my status as a judge or educator.

-If a card has been "cut" by a debater (as in, the debater stops reading the card mid way through and then moves on to another card), I will not vote on warrants that were cut.

My Default Assumptions (unless proven otherwise in the round)

-I operate under an offense/defense paradigm.

-The Role of the Ballot is to decide which debater better justified their side of the resolution.

-Debate is good. Philosophy is good for debate. Policymaking is good for debate too.

-Education is a voter, but less persuasive to me than Advocacy Skills, Critical Thinking, etc.

-No RVIs on T.

-Performance debate is fine, but the best performances link back to the topic.

Any other issue should be resolved by the debaters

Garth Woodson Perry HS

Karen Xia Cambridge Rindge and Latin None

David Yastremski Ridge

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:25 PM EDT

David Yastremski
Director - Ridge High School
30+ years experience coaching and judging

LD/PF/PARLI
I'm considered a very traditional flow judge within the various competitive debate arenas. I appreciate slightly-higher than conversational rates as a maximum. I will afford you a 'clear' if necessary.

I do expect and reward debate with a clear framework of understanding. I also like direct application of your argument to clear and defined system(s). I don’t believe we exist in a vacuum – there must be context for me to consider and weigh an argument, and I recognize the resolution is created and should be interpreted within a particular context. Therefore, hypothetical worlds must be warranted as reasonable within a pragmatic context developed within the resolution. I appreciate creative, though plausible and non-abusive, House interpretations in Parliamentary rounds.

In LD and PF, all evidence must be clearly tagged and clearly linked to the grounds within your claims. In Parliamentary, examples should be true, contextually-defined, when appropriate, and directly linked to your claims. You can create hypothetical examples or indicate your personal beliefs on an issue; however, if you are unsure what a particular constitutional amendment or Supreme Court decision states, please avoid introducing it. Also, where tag-teaming is permitted, proceed with caution. One or two interjections is fine. More than that diminishes your partner's voice/skill and will be considered in speaker points and, if excessive, the RFD.

Crystallization is key to winning the round. Be sure you allow yourself ample time to establish clear grounds and warrants on all voters. I don’t consider arguments just because they are uttered; you must explain the ‘why’ and the ‘so what’ in order for me to weigh them in my decision, in other words, directly impact them to the framework/standards. I do appreciate clear signposting throughout the round in order to make the necessary links and applications to other arguments, and I will give you more speaker points if you do this effectively. Speaker points are also rewarded for competence, clarity, and camaraderie during the round. In LD and PF, I will not give below a 26 unless you're rude and/or abusive.

Overall, please remember, I may not be as well-read on the resolution as you are. I do not teach at camps; I don’t teach debate in any structured class, nor do I judge as regularly or frequently as others. I will work hard to reach the fairest decision in my capacity. I really enjoy judging rounds where the contestants make a concerted effort to connect with me and my paradigm. I don't enjoy rounds where I or my paradigm is ignored. Thanks for reading this far!! Best of luck in your round.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE:

I have 25+ years experience in Congressional 'Debate' and REALLY enjoy judging/parli'ing great rounds! I evaluate 'student congress' as a debate event; hence, if you are early in the cycle, I am looking for clear affirmative and negative grounds to establish clash and foundation for the remainder of the debate. If you speak later in the cycle, I expect extensions and refutations of what has already been established as significant issues in the debate (beyond just name dropping). I see each contribution on the affirmative and negative sides as extensions of the previous speeches presented; consequently, if there is a significant argument that has not been addressed to by opponents, I expect later speakers to build and expand on it to strengthen it. Likewise, if speakers on the other side do not respond to a significant issue, I will consider it a 'dropped argument' which will only increase the ranking of the student who initially made it, and lower the rankings of students who failed to recognize, respond or refute it; however, it is the duty of questioners to challenge opposing speakers thus reminding the room (including the judges) on significant arguments or issues that have gone unrefuted. In other words, students should flow the entire round and incorporate that information into their speeches and questions. I also highly encourage using the amendment process to make legislation better. Competitors who attempt it, with germane and purposeful language, will be rewarded on my ballot.

Most importantly, enjoy the unique experience of Congressional Debate. There are so many nuances in this event that the speech and debate other events cannot provide. Own and appreciate your opportunity by demonstrating your best effort in respectful dialogue and debate and be your best 'self' in the round. If you do, the rewards will far outweigh the effort.

EVIDENCE: All claims should be sufficiently warranted via credible evidence which ideally include both theoretical and empirical sources. I reward those who consider constitutional, democratic, economic, diplomatic frameworks, including a range of conservative to liberal ideologies, to justify their position which are further substantiated with empirical examples and data. All evidence should be verbally-cited with appropriate source and date. Students should always consider biases and special interests when choosing sources to cite in their speeches. I also encourage students to challenge evidence during refutations or questioning, as time and warrant allows.

PARTICIPATION: I reward participation in all forms: presiding, amending, questioning, flipping, and other forms of engagement that serve a clear purpose to the debate and fluent engagement within the round. One-sided debate indicates we should most likely move on to the next piece of legislation since we are ready to vote; therefore, I encourage students to stand for additional speeches if your competitors are not willing to flip, yet do not wish to move to previous question (as a matter of fact I will highly reward you for 'debating' provided that you are contributing to a meaningful debate of the issues). I expect congressional debaters to remain engaged in the round, no matter what your speaking order, therefore leaving the chamber for extended periods of time is highly discouraged and will be reflected in my final ranking. Arriving late or ending early is disrespectful to the chamber and event. Competitors who appear to bulldoze or disenfranchise others regarding matters of agenda-setting, agenda-amendments, speaking position/sides can also be penalized in ranking. I am not fond of splits before the round as I've seen many students, typically younger folks, coerced into flipping; hence, students should just be ready to debate with what they've prepared. If you are concerned with being dropped, I recommend exploring arguments on both sides of the bill/resolution.

PRESIDING OFFICER: Thank you for being willing to serve the chamber. I look highly upon students who run for PO. If elected, be sure you demonstrate equity and fairness in providing the optimum opportunity for every competitor to demonstrate their skills as a debater and participant in the chamber. I value POs who assert a respectful command and control of the room. Do not allow other competitors to take over without your guidance and appropriate permissions (even during breaks while others may be out of the room). Your procedures of recognizing speakers (including questioning) should be clearly communicated at the top of the round to promote transparency and a respect for all members of the chamber. Mistakes in recency or counting votes happen -- no big deal (just don't make it repetitive). Public spreadsheets are appreciated.

DELIVERY, STYLE and RHETORIC: Good delivery takes the form of an argument and audience-focused presentation style. Authorship/ Sponsorship/ first-negative speeches can be primarily read provided the competitor communicates a well-developed, constructed, and composed foundation of argument. These speeches should be framework and data rich -- and written with a rhetorical prowess that conveys a strong concern and commitment for their advocacy.

After the first speeches, I expect students to extend or refute what has been previously stated - even if offering new arguments. These speeches should be delivered extemporaneously with a nice balance of preparation and spontaneity, demonstrating an ability to adapt your advocacy and reasoning to what has been previously presented. Trivial or generic introductions/closings typically do not get rewarded in my rankings. I would much prefer a short, direct statement of position in the opening and a short, direct final appeal in the closing. Good rhetorical technique and composition in any speech is rewarded.

DECORUM & SUSPENSION OF THE RULES: I highly respect all forms of decorum within the round. I value your demonstration of respect for your colleagues referring to competitors by their titles (senator, representative) and indicated gender identifiers. Avoid deliberate gender-specific language "you guys, ladies and gentlemen" etc. I encourage any suspension of the rules, that are permitted by the tournament, which contribute to more meaningful dialogue, debate, and participation. Motions for a suspension of the rules which reflect a lack of decorum or limit opportunity are discouraged. I also find "I'm sure you can tell me" quite evasive and flippant as an answer.

Ming Yu Princeton

Yan Yuan Needham HS

Gillian Zipursky Hunter College

Last changed on Mon October 8, 2018 at 5:42 PM EDT

Hi my name is Gillian and I am a sophomore at Swarthmore college. I debated LD on the national circuit for Scarsdale High School for 4 years, qualifying to the TOC my junior and senior years.

If you are doing an email chain I'd be happy to be included. I won't follow along but I might look at stuff after the round. My email is gillian.zipursky@gmail.com

General (This is all you really need):

The round is yours not mine. I will evaluate any argument made in the round and will do my best to refrain from inserting my opinions, familiarities, and preferences into my decision. A two caveats on this:

1. An argument must have a warrant. I need to be able to isolate a reason for thinking that a claim is true in order to include it in my decision.

2. I will not evaluate clearly offensive arguments. This should be clear enough, but I guess you can kind of say it's my own discretion. Hopefully this won't come up.

In comparing arguments I will first look for explicit comparison. If there is none at all, I will look for places of implicit comparison (i.e. debaters make some claim that interacts arguments but does not sign post it as a comparative argument). Without implicit comparison, I will look for mitigation on one of the arguments. If an argument is mitigated then I guess I will think it is somewhat "less important".

I also have a low threshold for extensions. Just mention the argument.

Update for Bronx 2018:

I haven't judged since Princeton 2017 so I A. I have not heard speed for awhile so start a little slower. I will say slow, clear, and loud as many times as I need to but I might have already missed something by the time I say it. B. I don't know anything about the topic so you'll need to explain basic stuff. C. I am not up to date with all of the new circuit norms so just keep that in mind.

Defaults:

I will try to default to whatever the debaters assume in the round. If both debaters are only talking about extinction the whole round, I will assume that the round is about decreasing the risk of extinction even if it is never justified (although I strongly prefer for it to be justified). If I have to default to stuff because I have no idea what debaters are assuming I will assume:

1. Truth testing

2. Competing interps

3. drop the argument on theory and drop the debater on T

4. no RVIs

5. Theory>ROTB

**These defaults are NOT preferences but are in the worst case scenario when there is literally 0 justification on either side and no indication of agreement on a paradigm.**

Theory:

I think theory can be a strategy so I am fine with "frivolous" theory. Counter interps should have offense under competing interps. Weigh your arguments and impact them. You can read shells with out of round violations like disclosure but please have a clear violation and don't rely on me looking stuff up. On 1AR theory, I may have to do a higher level of my own comparison just because it happens in so few speeches.

Framework:

I love philosophy debates and am familiar with most of the common philosophy arguments in debate, but please warrant your claims. Comparison between frameworks makes framework debate better. I am open to debaters applying framework to pre fiat layers as long as they warrant the application (super interesting!).

Kritiks:

K debates are super interesting. I am somewhat familiar with most common Ks. For high theory, I know the basics but still explain your arguments thoroughly because it has been a while since a read any real continental philosophy. I am fine with non-topical affs but I am also fine with topicality. Just engage in that debate. I also will try my very best to be neutral on the question of theory vs K but I tended to be on the theory side as a debater. Lastly, I will not crossapply disadvantages to perms for you. I think that a conceded perm, even when the link is conceded, is a problem for the neg.

"Tricks":

They're fun. I don't have a bias against them.

LARP:

I don't know that much about the world so explain the relevant stuff to me. Don't assume I know the background. Weigh your arguments!

Speaks: Based on strategic choices and quality of arguments. "Prettiness" or a speech usually doesn't affect your speaks. I probably average mid 28s.

Have fun!

Login to Tabroom

New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament

2017 — Bronx, New York, NY/US

LD Debate Paradigm List

Judges