Pronouns: she/her ♀️

Email: nalan0815@gmail.com,

Please also include: damiendebate47@gmail.com

I debated policy debate for 3 years in high school 2008-2011 and have judged for 10+ years now.

I REALLY like to see impact calculus - "Even if..." statements are excellent! Remember: magitude⚠️, timeframe⏳️, probability ⚖️. I only ever give high speaker points to those that remember to do this. This should also help you remember to extend your impacts, and compare them with your opponent's as reasons for a judge to prefer your side.

• However, I don't like when both sides keep extending arguments/cards that say opposite things without also giving reasons to prefer one over the other. Tell me how the arguments interact, how they're talking about something different, etc.
• Be sure to extend arguments (especially your T voters) even if they're uncontested - because that gives me material for the reason for decision. If it's going to be in your last speech, it better be in the speech before it (tech > truth here). Otherwise, I give weight to the debater that points it out and runs theory to block it from coming up again or applying.

------------------------- Miscellaneous ----------------------------

Prep and CX: I do not count emailing /flashdriving as prep time unless it takes ~2+ minutes. Tag-team cross-ex is ok as long as both teams agree to it and you're not talking over your partner. Please keep track of your speech and prep time.

Full disclosure: Beyond the basic K's like Cap, Security, Biopow, Fem, etc., I'm not familiar with unique K's, and especially where FrameWork tends to be a mess, you might need a little more explanation on K solvency for me or I might get lost.

I often read along to the 1AC and 1NC to catch card-clipping, even checking the marked copies.

 I am familiar with all forms of debate and have a particular interest in LD, Public Forum and Parli. I debated on the national circuit in college and have been coaching for almost 10 years. I am fine with speed, as long as I can understand what you are saying. However, I am not a fan of extreme spreading and do not think it is a skill set that benefits competitive debate, nor is it a skill set that I believe will help students in their future lives. I am familiar with all forms of arguments, theory, etc. I am open to all of them as long as they are well articulated. To be honest I am not a fan of kritiks based on semantics.

I most greatly appreciate debate that uses logic and sound reasoning supported by relevant and credible sources. In LD make sure you are supporting your value and criterion with the rest of your case. I find it disappointing when a debater presents their value/criterion and then almost never references them again throughout the debate; novice mistake!

I believe I evaluate every round with fairness and expectations deserving of the division you are entered (novice/JV/open). Do not make up facts and/or evidence. If I feel like you present false evidence intentionally I will inform Tabroom and urge them to punish you accordingly. I definitely will increase speaker points for those who speak with respectful conviction and enthusiasm. If you sound bored, I will be twice as bored. I do not award wins to those who speak "pretty" just because they speak "pretty". I will increase your speaker points but I award wins based overwhelmingly on the logic and comparative analysis you offer.

Yes I want to be on the email chain mattconraddebate@gmail.com. Pronouns are he/him.

My judging philosophy should ultimately be considered a statement of biases, any of which can be overcome by good debating. The round is yours.

I’m a USC debate alum and have had kids in policy finals of the TOC, a number of nationally ranked LDers, and state champions in LD, Original Oratory, and Original Prose & Poetry while judging about a dozen California state championship final rounds across a variety of events and the Informative final at NIETOC. Outside of speech and debate, I write in Hollywood and have worked on the business side of show business, which is a nice way of saying that I care more about concrete impacts than I do about esoteric notions of “reframing our discourse.” No matter what you’re arguing, tell me what it is and why it matters in terms of dollars and lives.

Politically, I’m a moderate Clinton Democrat and try to be tabula rasa but I don’t really believe that such a thing is possible.

pls read the whole thing!:)

do what you are best at, and try to maintain good spirits while doing so!

the innate purpose of education is healthy, reflexive, and fruitful for any parties involved

at the end of the day, you are educating yourself to an extent that the average human will not reach, and you also have the ability to test that knowledge competitively with your peers- that's really an amazing thing, and something that should be remembered even in the heat of competition.

i'm not including any information about my debate history, as i am not currently coaching: far less (personally) concerned about the inner-workings of debate procedurals and standards being set within the community. on the flip-side, i am much more concerned about evaluating debates purely for the sake of deciding a winner, as well as being able to provide students with ample constructive criticism that allows them to elevate competitively, as well as foster more creative educational possibilities in future rounds, whether winner or loser.

and most of all, have fun- the more you can laugh and reflect on a round with a grin, on even your worst mistakes (or biggest successes), the more you will be able to be kind to yourself and become better, not at the expense of your mental health. and remember, never have fun at the negative expense of your opponent- a brilliant troll becomes ignorant the moment they become a bully.

peace & good education,

cheers!

she/they

put me on the chain - skylrharris917@gmail.com

Hi my name is Emma Limor and I’m a varsity debater at Harvard Westlake in California.

General

Speed is fine. I don't care if you sit or stand, feel free to lay down if that’s how you're most comfortable. I come into the round with very few rigid preconceptions about what arguments should be read. Nearly all of the defaults outlined below can be changed by explicit arguments to the contrary. I will not blatantly intervene against any position (save for those which are morally repugnant). 

T

I generally like T debates, but make sure you are being legitimate. Don’t just run T for the sake of it, make sure there is a real abuse. I will assume the aff is topical unless you tell me otherwise. If you tell me this is the highest layer of the debate then I’ll evaluate it that way. 

Ks

I like Ks. Understand it if you’re going to read it. Be clear on the link debate and how it applies to the aff. I will not vote on a K just because it’s a K. Make sure you have a clear alternative.

Counterplans

I love counterplans and think they’re great. Make sure it has a net benefit and is competitive. Perms are a test of competition and not an advocacy. 

DAs

They’re great. Read them. Run them well and be sure to explain why it outweighs.

Theory

Don’t read this unless you have a reason. I love legitimate theory such as condo and pics. I have a high threshold for frivolous theory. I default to competing interps and no RVIs, but I’ll vote on reasonability or RVIs if theory was abusive, and you make logical arguments on why I should. 

Performance Affs.

I don’t have a lot of experience with them, but will vote on them if not responded to correctly.

Tricks

I can’t wait to see what new things people think of. They’re fun. However, if you run tricks or any sort of cheaty argument I will give you a loss and 20 speaker points. It’s up to you if you want to run them. After all tricks are for kids!

General Rules

Be nice/ Don’t be rude

Don’t cheat

Make logical arguments

Don’t do things that make debate a hostile environment

Novices don’t need to disclose

paternalistic, sexist, racist, xenophobic, homophobic comments will justify your loss

Speaker Points

I will give you a 30 if you do a phenomenal job. I don’t have a problem giving you a 20 if you do something cheaty. Average will be 28.5. 

Extra speaker points: 

+.1 - +.5 if sassy (there is a difference between sassy and rude so plz don’t cross that line)

+0 - +1 if flowed (Showing me your flow will reward you (if decent/good))

+.1-+.3 if funny (Don’t make it awkward)

+.1 - +.5 if you bring me good food :)

Misc…

Don’t say judge too often please… (I know this is common, but it can possibly make the judge uncomfortable.)

I listen to cross-ex, but will not flow it unless something is a big problem (cross-ex arguments are only legitimate if extended in the next speech)

will disclose speaks and decision if asked and allowed to

Feel free to ask me any questions about the round and any improvements!

P.S. candy is my favorite type of food.

 I am a parent with 3 years of circuit judging experience. 

Speed is fine, be clear. If I have to say "clear" more than twice, I'll start docking speaks.

If you want to make me happy run policy-style args, though I'll vote on pretty much anything. Meaning, I'll vote on your non T Aff but you'll make me very sad. Everything else is fair game. I have a pretty high threshold for extensions. 

Don't be mean. Don't be racist, sexist, or a blatantly terrible person. 

**Conflicts for TOC 24: Harvard Westlake, Scarsdale, Westridge TW, Memorial DX, Notre Dame San Jose AG, San Mateo YR, Monta Vista KR, Los Altos AK, Amador Valley EM, Brophy TJ, Stanford OHS AY, Horace Greeley SG, Bellevue WL, Concord Carlisle FZ, St Agnes EH

**TOC Specific: if you're a senior and would not like to hear the RFD, just let me know!

Hi! I'm Sam. Harvard Westlake '21, Vanderbilt '25. Email chain please: samanthamcloughlin13@gmail.com. LD TOC qual 4x (octos soph year, skipped etoc junior year, quarters senior year), 20 bids, won some tournaments (Valley, Yale, Stanford, etc). I mostly read policy args, some basic T/theory, and some Ks/topical K affs (settler colonialism, fem IR, etc). I also coached for the past two years/am coaching this year, so I have some topic familiarity.

Everything in this paradigm (minus the hard and fast rules) is just a preference - my strongest belief about debate is that it should be a forum for ideological flexibility, creative thinking, and argumentative experimentation. I realized this paradigm was way too long so I tried to bold stuff for pre-round skimming.

Hard and Fast Rules--

If you are going too fast for me to tell if you are reading all the words in your cards, I will assume you're not. I will call clear and slow, please listen or we will all be sad.

Won't vote on any arg that makes debate unsafe. This includes any arg that denies the badness of racism/sexism/etc, or says death good (args like spark/wipeout = ok, cuz it doesn't deny the value of life, it's just fancy util maths that says extinction better preserves the value of life). If your opponent wins your argument is repugnant (absent any larger framing or judge instruction), I'll drop the argument, unless you presented your argument with the agreement that it was repugnant (ie, if you admit your position is racist, but attempt to say that doesn't matter), in which case I will consider your repugnance purposeful and drop you.

Ev ethics - stake the round on it (ie W30 to the person who is right and an L with the lowest possible speaks to the other) if evidence is misrepresented (an omitted section contradicts or meaningfully alters the meaning of the card). I think a good litmus test for misrepresentation is: does the article agree with the claims presented in the card? If it's missing a sentence or two at the beginning/end of a paragraph but it doesn't change the meaning of the card, you're better off reading it as theory. To make everyone's life easier, just cut ev well (this means full citations, full paragraphs, in alignment with the author's intent).

Clipping = an L with the lowest speaks I can give.

Speaks are my choice, not yours (put away 30 speaks theory).

For online debate, I expect that you record all your speeches in case you, your opponent, or I drops out.

Argument TLDRs--

Defaults: reasonability on theory, competing interps on t, drop the debater on t/theory, no RVIs, T>theory>everything else, comparative worlds, fairness + education are voters, policy presumption, epistemic confidence

^All those can be easily changed with a sentence.

K debate - Line by line >> long overviews. Winning overarching claims about the world is helpful, but you need to apply those claims to the specifics of your opponents arguments or else I will not do those interactions for you. Framework is important (honestly most of the times in K v policy debates, the person who wins fw wins the round). Links to the plan are preferred, but not necessary - the less specific your links, the more fw matters, and the more persuasive the permutation is. I also tend to think debate should be about arguments, not people, which means I'll likely be unpersuaded by personal attacks or "vote for me" arguments. I'm more persuaded by skills impacts on T Framework than fairness, and more persuaded by non topical affs that impact turn things than try to find a middle ground.

Policy - Yay! Zero risk not a thing but arguments still must be complete to be evaluated. Underdeveloping off in the 1nc = they get less weight in the 2nr. Rebuttal ev explanation > initial ev quality, but if your opponent's ev sucks and you point that out, that falls under the first category. Read your best evidence in the 1NC - I'll be persuaded by arguments that the 2NR doesn't get new evidence unless it's directly responsive to the 1AR. Big fan of creative counterplans <3(consult __ is usually not creative).

Theory - PICs and condo are probably good. Other CPs (international fiat, agent, process etc) are a bit more suspicious. All of this is up for debate. Descriptions of side bias are not standards. The more frivolous the shell = the truer reasonability and DTA are, and the lower the bar for answers. On that note, reasonability and DTA are under-utilized.

Philosophy - Not the area i'm the most comfortable in, but I'll try my best. I'd love to see a well explained phil debate, but I will not enjoy a blippy phil round that borders closer to tricks debate. I'd rather you leverage your syllogism to exclude consequences rather than relying on calc indicts. Debaters should take advantage of nonsensical contention args.

Tricks - I don't think a model of debate predicated on the avoidance of clash (ie relying on concessions) is an educational model. My test for whether an argument falls under this model of debate is: ask yourself if you would be willing to go for an argument if it was responded to competently. The same idea also extends to the formatting of your argument (ie you should delineate + thoroughly explain all your arguments with clear implications). I won't purposefully insert my personal beliefs about the value of tricks debates into the round, but it does mean that I'll probably be more receptive to arguments that indict tricks debate as a model. Some arguments are truer than others, and it's easier to win true arguments in front of me than false ones. I also default comparative worlds, and have given more than one RFD that boils down to "X trick was won but there's no truth testing ROB under which it matters." Up-layering tricky affs with Ks or strategic theory is smart, and when leveraged correctly make claims of new 2NR responses more persuasive.

Lay - I have respect for good lay debaters since I know I could never be one. That said, I will definitely evaluate the debate on a technical level regardless of the style. Good lay debaters can beat circuit debaters by strategically isolating key arguments. Circuit debaters vs lay debaters don't need to modify their style of debate, but should do everything they can to be accessible (explain stuff in CX, send docs, etc) (same applies to debates where there is a large skill gap).

Misc - My threshold for independent voters is high. Emphasizing this after a couple rounds where it's been relevant.

Rant Section--

Tech > truth, but separating the two is silly. The more counter-intuitive an argument, the higher the bar for winning it, and the lower the threshold for responses. Saying "nuclear war bad" probably requires less warranting than "nuclear war good" cuz the second one has the burden of proof to overcome the intuitive logical barrier to its truth value.

I'll deal with irresolvability using the "needs test" - the burden of proof falls on the side that "needs" to win the argument (ie the burden of proof is on the neg in the perm debate because the neg needs to beat the perm, but the aff doesn't need to win the perm).

I won't vote on arguments telling me to "evaluate the entire debate after X speech" that are introduced in X speech - it generates a contradiction. Also, the 2AR is after all the speeches before it - interpret this as you choose.

Likes/Dislikes--

Likes: plans bad 2NR on semantics if you understand the grammar behind it and are not reading someone else's blocks, creative and non-offensive policy impact turns, creative process CPs (no this is not the ICJ CP or consult the WTO), plan affs (yes I realize this contradicts with my first like), multiple shells bad, Ks with links to the plan, presumption/case presses vs non T affs, topical K affs, reasonability/DTA on frivolous theory, collapsing, flashing analytics

Dislikes: the grammar DA, RVIs, plans bad 2NR on semantics when you don't understand the grammar behind it, plans bad 2NR that's just reading off someone else's doc with no topic specific analysis, standard spec, buffet 2NRs, hidden args, non T affs that are an FYI not an advocacy, combo shells that don't solve their offense, "strat skew", "this argument is bad" [then doesn't explain why the argument is bad], "that's an independent voting issue" [doesn't explain why it's a voting issue past just the label] (this also applies to 1AR arguments not labelled as voting issues that magically become voting issues in the 2AR), "what's a floating PIK" "what's an a priori", being rude or interrupting your opponent (especially if you're more experienced or in a position of power) (at best it adds nothing at worse it's unkind)

edited: no text

My name is Landon Poon and I debate at Harvard-Westlake. I will mostly judge novice.

Contact Info

lpoon1@hwemail.com

Add me on Facebook

Please add me on the email chain

TL;DR

Don't read anything that is sketchy, unintelligent, or you don't understand. 

AC

·       I like T affs, but will listen to non-T affs, but if it is ridiculous, T-FW will be very persuasive

·       I like plans

Phil

·       don't read too much but will vote on it if I have to 

T

·       good arg but don't abuse it

·       I default to competing interps

·       Highest layer, before theory unless you make args why theory or something else comes first

DAs

·       these are great

·       explain the link and weigh

Ks

·       there are good Ks and bad Ks

·       If you don't understand it, don't read it

·       I need to understand the alt to vote on it

·       Explain the links

CPs

·       please read one

·       needs to compete either through net benefits or mutual exclusivity

Theory

·       I like theory but I will start to not like it if I think the theory is more abusive than what it claims the abuse is

·       Give me interpretations

Tricks

·       I strongly encourage you read tricks if you like 20s and Ls

Speed

·       clarity > speed

·       go as fast as you can until your clarity drops

How to get good speaks

·       add me to the email chain/send the doc

·       explain the case clearly

·       make good weighing args

How to get bad speaks

·       be rude

·       read tricks

·       clip cards

Extra stuff

I have a website, check it out here: http://earthquakeresponsecenter.org/

UPDATED: 4/11/2024

1998-2003: Competed at Fargo South HS (ND)

2003-2004: Assistant Debate Coach, Hopkins High School (MN)

2004-2010: Director of Debate, Hopkins High School (MN)

2010-2012: Assistant Debate Coach, Harvard-Westlake Upper School (CA)

2012-Present: Debate Program Head, Marlborough School (CA)

Email: adam.torson@marlborough.org

Pronouns: he/him/his

General Preferences and Decision Calculus

I no longer handle top speed very well, so it would be better if you went at about 75% of your fastest.

I like substantive and interesting debate. I like to see good strategic choices as long as they do not undermine the substantive component of the debate. I strongly dislike the intentional use of bad arguments to secure a strategic advantage; for example making an incomplete argument just to get it on the flow. I tend to be most impressed by debaters who adopt strategies that are positional, advancing a coherent advocacy rather than a scatter-shot of disconnected arguments, and those debaters are rewarded with higher speaker points.

I view debate resolutions as normative. I default to the assumption that the Affirmative has a burden to advocate a topical change in the status quo, and that the Negative has a burden to defend either the status quo or a competitive counter-plan or kritik alternative. I will vote for the debater with the greatest net risk of offense. Offense is a reason to adopt your advocacy; defense is a reason to doubt your opponent's argument. I virtually never vote on presumption or permissibility, because there is virtually always a risk of offense.

Moral Skepticism is not normative (it does not recommend a course of action), and so I will not vote for an entirely skeptical position. I rarely find that such positions amount to more than weak, skeptical defense that a reasonable decision maker would not find a sufficient reason to continue the status quo rather than enact the plan. Morally skeptical arguments may be relevant in determining the relative weight or significance of an offensive argument compared to other offense in the debate.

Framework

I am skeptical of impact exclusion. Debaters have a high bar to prove that I should categorically disregard an impact which an ordinary decision-maker would regard as relevant. I think that normative ethics are more helpfully and authentically deployed as a mode of argument comparison rather than argument exclusion. I will default to the assumption of a wide framework and epistemic modesty. I do not require a debater to provide or prove a comprehensive moral theory to regard impacts as relevant, though such theories may be a powerful form of impact comparison.

Arguments that deny the wrongness of atrocities like rape, genocide, and slavery, or that deny the badness of suffering or oppression more generally, are a steeply uphill climb in front of me. If a moral theory says that something we all agree is bad is not bad, that is evidence against the plausibility of the theory, not evidence that the bad thing is in fact good.

Theory

I default to evaluating theory as a matter of competing interpretations.

I am skeptical of RVIs in general and on topicality in particular.

I will apply a higher threshold to theory interpretations that do not reflect existing community norms and am particularly unlikely to drop the debater on them. Because your opponent could always have been marginally more fair and because debating irrelevant theory questions is not a good model of debate, I am likely to intervene against theoretical arguments which I deem to be frivolous.

Tricks and Triggers

Your goal should be to win by advancing substantive arguments that would decisively persuade a reasonable decision-maker, rather than on surprises or contrived manipulations of debate conventions. I am unlikely to vote on tricks, triggers, or other hidden arguments, and will apply a low threshold for answering them. You will score more highly and earn more sympathy the more your arguments resemble genuine academic work product.

Counterplan Status, Judge Kick, and Floating PIKs

The affirmative has the obligation to ask about the status of a counterplan or kritik alternative in cross-examination. If they do not, the advocacy may be conditional in the NR.

I default to the view that the Negative has to pick an advocacy to go for in the NR. If you do not explicitly kick a conditional counterplan or kritik alternative, then that is your advocacy. If you lose a permutation read against that advocacy, you lose the debate. I will not kick the advocacy for you and default to the status quo unless you win an argument for judge kick in the debate.

I am open to the argument that a kritik alternative can be a floating PIK, and that it may be explained as such in the NR. However, I will hold any ambiguity about the advocacy of the alternative against the negative. If the articulation of the position in the NC or in CX obfuscates what it does, or if the plain face meaning of the alternative would not allow enacting the Affirmative plan, I am unlikely to grant the alternative the solvency that would come from directly enacting the plan.

Non-Intervention

To the extent possible I will resolve the debate as though I were a reasonable decision-maker considering only the arguments advanced by the debaters in making my decision. On any issues not adequately resolved in this way, I will make reasonable assumptions about the relative persuasiveness of the arguments presented.

Speed

The speed at which you choose to speak will not affect my evaluation of your arguments, save for if that speed impairs your clarity and I cannot understand the argument. I prefer debate at a faster than conversational pace, provided that it is used to develop arguments well and not as a tactic to prevent your opponent from engaging your arguments. There is some speed at which I have a hard time following arguments, but I don't know how to describe it, so I will say "clear," though I prefer not to because the threshold for adequate clarity is very difficult to identify in the middle of a speech and it is hard to apply a standard consistently. For reasons surpassing understanding, most debaters don't respond when I say clear, but I strongly recommend that you do so. Also, when I say clear it means that I didn't understand the last thing you said, so if you want that argument to be evaluated I suggest repeating it. A good benchmark is to feel like you are going at 75% of your top speed; I am likely a significantly better judge at that pace.

Extensions

My threshold for sufficient extensions will vary based on the circumstances, e.g. if an argument has been conceded a somewhat shorter extension is generally appropriate.

Evidence

It is primarily the responsibility of debaters to engage in meaningful evidence comparison and analysis and to red flag evidence ethics issues. However, I will review speech documents and evaluate detailed disputes about evidence raised in the debate. I prefer to be included on an email chain or speech drop that includes the speech documents. If I have a substantial suspicion of an ethics violation (i.e. you have badly misrepresented the author, edited the card so as to blatantly change it's meaning, etc.), I will evaluate the full text of the card (not just the portion that was read in the round) to determine whether it was cut in context, etc.

Speaker Points

I use speaker points to evaluate your performance in relation to the rest of the field in a given round. At tournaments which have a more difficult pool of debaters, the same performance which may be above average on most weekends may well be average at that tournament. I am strongly disinclined to give debaters a score that they specifically ask for in the debate round, because I utilize points to evaluate debaters in relation to the rest of the field who do not have a voice in the round. I elect not to disclose speaker points, save where cases is doing so is necessary to explain the RFD. My range is approximately as follows:

30: Your performance in the round is likely to beat any debater in the field.

29.5: Your performance is substantially better than average - likely to beat most debaters in the field and competitive with students in the top tier.

29: Your performance is above average - likely to beat the majority of debaters in the field but unlikely to beat debaters in the top tier.

28.5: Your performance is approximately average - you are likely to have an equal number of wins and losses at the end of the tournament.

28: Your performance is below average - you are likely to beat the bottom 25% of competitors but unlikely to beat the average debater.

27.5: Your performance is substantially below average - you are competitive among the bottom 25% but likely to lose to other competitors

Below 26: I tend to reserve scores below 25 for penalizing debaters as explained below.

Rude or Unethical Actions

I will severely penalize debaters who are rude, offensive, or otherwise disrespectful during a round. I will severely penalize debaters who distort, miscut, misrepresent, or otherwise utilize evidence unethically.

Card Clipping

A debater has clipped a card when she does not read portions of evidence that are highlighted or bolded in the speech document so as to indicate that they were read, and does not verbally mark the card during the speech. Clipping is an unethical practice because you have misrepresented which arguments you made to your opponent and to me. If I determine that a debater has clipped cards, then that debater will lose.

To determine that clipping has occurred, the accusation needs to be verified by my own sensory observations to a high degree of certainty, a recording that verifies the clipping, or the debaters admission that they have clipped. If you believe that your opponent has clipped, you should raise your concern immediately after the speech in which it was read, and I will proceed to investigate. False accusations of clipping is a serious ethical violation as well. *If you accuse your opponent of clipping and that accusation is disconfirmed by the evidence, you will lose the debate.* You should only make this accusation if you are willing to stake the round on it.

Sometimes debaters speak so unclearly that it constitutes a negligent disregard for the danger of clipping. I am unlikely to drop a debater on this basis alone, but will significantly penalize speaker points and disregard arguments I did not understand. In such cases, it will generally be unreasonable to penalize a debater that has made a reasonable accusation of clipping.

Questions

I am happy to answer any questions on preferences or paradigm before the round. After the round I am happy to answer respectfully posed questions to clarify my reason for decision or offer advice on how to improve (subject to the time constraints of the tournament). Within the limits of reason, you may press points you don't understand or with which you disagree (though I will of course not change the ballot after a decision has been made). I am sympathetic to the fact that debaters are emotionally invested in the outcomes of debate rounds, but this does not justify haranguing judges or otherwise being rude. For that reason, failure to maintain the same level of respectfulness after the round that is generally expected during the round will result in severe penalization of speaker points.

Hey y'all hope you're having a good time in debating so far. My name is Javi Romero, a sophomore in High School and I will judging you for this round. I have you read my paradigm because I always tell different debaters different things so I hope this make it easier on you. 

A little About me: I'll keep this short and sweet for all you. I'm a music lover, will attend a music school for sure, started debate in Freshman year of High School and I regretted it at first but now I really appreciate my coach for overwriting my schedule. I'm just about always mad or depressed so do not be surprised by any bitter remarks.

Ok Now Let's Get to Debating

Stick to Case as much as you possibly can, I don't want to make a decision based off of poorly written and responding offs. 

DAs : I highly encourage you to read Disadvantages because they are some of the most effective negative arguments you can read.

CPs : I can't say I really enjoy Counterplans but being that it is a legitimate argument, it will definitely make an impression on my ballot.

Kritiks : I'm not exactly a fan of Kritiks due to my lack of understanding towards them, they don't exactly make a big impact on my ballot but I'll try my best to understand the K.

Theory and Philosophy: I adore a good theory or philosophical off case because it brings a new runner into the club but try to keep it reasonable please.

Topicality - Not a large fan of this due to the fact that when this is brought up, the entire debate focus becomes shifted to this but I will pay attention to it because it sometimes makes the difference.

Speaks will be affected by:
1. If you say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, trans-phobic, or  really anything that would offend a major group, (this will include cursing in round) you wouldn't be happy with your speaks, a max cap would be a 26.5.

2. Be Smart, if you know more about the topic than the others present, it would be reflected in the points because it takes a lot to know everything about what's going on in the debate. 

3. Please don't let your personal opinion make it's way into the debate because when this happens, you tend to become to blind to the debate.

4. Be Aggressive in CX, just do not take it too far to the point where all you're doing is yelling intelligibly.

OK now let us have a good round, please try to stay within the bounds of my Paradigm.

 I'm always here to help people out in Debate or in life in general, if there any questions

contact me at

(909) 660 - 1452

 javi.a.romero17@gmail.com

or jaromero20@damien-hs.edu  

Hi my name is George Zhang and I debated in LD at the Harvard-Westlake School in California.

My email is georgezhang369@gmail.com. Please add me to the email chain!

General: Speed is fine. Have fun - I generally don't care what you read except morally repugnant arguments. I read big-stick policy arguments my senior year and have read a little bit of Ks in the past.

Topicality: Good T debates are fun to judge. If it's messy, weighing and argument resolution factor a lot into my decision. The more frivolous the shell, the lower the standard for answering it. I default drop the debater, reasonability, and no RVI's unless you convince me otherwise.

Kritiks: Make sure you at least have a basic understanding of the literature when reading a K. Specific links to the AFF rather than generic state bad Ks are better. Be clear on how the link applies to the aff and explain your alternative.

Counterplans: Great. Cheaty generic counterplans are ok, but I prefer unique and interesting ones. Perms are a test of competition, not an advocacy. Make sure it competes and has a net benefit. Tell me if you want to judge kick.

DAs: Great. Weigh weigh weigh. I don't think terminal defense exists.

Theory: Condo, PICs, etc. are good, but I can be convinced otherwise if the NEG abuses it. I have a high threshold for frivolous theory. I default reasonability, drop the argument, and no RVIs unless otherwise stated. I won't vote on an RVI unless there was literally 0 mention of it.

K Affs: Explain the method and why you should win. I have difficulty voting for these AFFs because they don't explain what giving the ballot to you does. Education > Fairness and TVAs are nice for Framework. It's all about big picture and explaining what your model of debates look like.

Phil: Fine. Normally these debates devolve into tricks or theory so I'm generally not a big fan. I lean more towards util since indicts like induction fails have low thresholds for answers and other frameworks aren't super persuasive. That being said, people generally mishandle framework so if you do it well, great!

Tricks: I'm not a big fan especially since they always seem to make the debate extremely messy. I give more leeway for new responses to the opponent when blippy 1-liners are everywhere. You can read them, but expect lower speaks and a possible loss if you went for a bunch of aprioris and I have to wade through it. Saying "This is dumb" is sufficient for dumb argument that aren't warranted.

General Rules

Be nice/Don’t be rude

Don’t cheat

Make logical arguments

Don’t do things that make debate a hostile environment

Be nice to novices

Feel free to ask me any questions about the round and any improvements!

I am a Debate coach at Loyola High School. I primarily coach LD debate.

I see debate as a game of strategy. The debaters are responsible to define the rules of the game during the debate.

This means that debaters can run any argument (i.e. frameworks, theory, kritiks, disadvantages). I will assess how well the debaters frame the arguments, weigh the impacts, and compare the worlds of the Aff and Neg.

However, I am not a blank slate judge. I do come into the round with the assumption of weighing the offense and defense and determining which world had the more comparatively better way of looking at the round.

As for Speakers' points, I assess those issues based upon:

1. How well the speakers spoke to the room including vocal intonation, eye contact, posture.

2. I also look for the creativity of the argument and strategy.

High Speaker Points will be awarded to students who excel in both of these areas.

Debaters are always welcome to ask me more questions about my paradigm before a round begins. The purpose of debate is educational as well as competition. So, debaters should feel comfortable to interact with me before and after the round about how to do well in the round and after.