My Judging philopsophy is simple. I debated for the University of Oklahoma and became the First African-American Top Speaker of the National Debate Tournament in 2014. I understand every style of debate. I debated about Whiteness and could be classified as a performance debater. I vote for teams who explain clearly how thier plan/kritik works. More so the teams I usually vote for win because of their explanation of their impacts and the ways that those impacts are effectected by the other team. I prefer debater to explain thier arguments in full. I will not flow the rest of an argument that is not explained or in other words I will not do the debating for the debater. I like real world debates that talk about realistic impacts and not just Extinction and Nuclear War. I will Vote for T or any other argument if it is explained in a way that I believe is persuasive. All in all any debater can win in front of me they just need to clearly explain thier argument.  

Hi! I'm new to judging but not new to debate. I have debated for four years at Oakland Technical High school. 

I prefer debates that have a clear argument throughout the entire process. I prefer 2-3 offcase and sliming down to one rather than starting with 5. I like when debaters apply the warrants of their arguments to their analytics, it helps build your credibility to me.  I'm not a fan of Time skew strategies because it wastes my precious paper :). And it's a little unfair. 

I'm fine with Profanity, but keep the expletives to a minimum. I do believe in keeping the debate mostly professional, but a swear word to drive your point home once or twice will go unpunished. Don't swear too much or I'll have to doc speaks. Also swearing at someone or being generally rude will drop your speaks big time and make me not want to vote for you. Be nice to people. 

Heres how I feel about specific arguments:

T- Topicality debates are only interesting or compelling if the negative can prove that 1) the aff is actually untopical under their definition 2) Their has been actual strategic loss due to the aff's "untopical aff" (i.e. legitimate ground loss etc.) 3) of they prove why their interpretation of the resolution is better. Don't run T unless you are considering going for it in the 2NR, and I will deduct a little bit of speaker points if it is clear that it was a time skew argument. A good way to avoid that situation is if you include T in the block. 

Kritiks- I am a fan of Kritik's. I will vote for them, you just have to explain the alt, how it works, and why it is better than the aff. Not a fan of "reject the aff" alts, but will still vote if the Neg is convincing. Also clearly explaining your link story helps you a lot. I do think debate is a game and that fairness is important, so kritiks of Fiat will fall short with me unless the aff really mishandles it. 

K AFFs- Explain why critiquing the resolution as the affirmative is uniquely key. 

Theory- Boring. Please don't run theory unless the aff is really being abusive. If you can show me how they are being abusive I will vote for theory. 

Anything thats not here assume I'm fine with it because It's my fault for not informing you. 

Thanks for reading my paradigm!

Email: minnalkunnan@gmail.com

I debated for Cal Poly San Luis Obispo and Rutgers University under Policy Debate, APDA and BP formats (back in 2015 or so). Since then, I have coached/judged BAUDL tournaments and currently coach debate at Gabrielino High School.

1. ROB: I default to the role of a rhetorical critic of argument within a policy making paradigm. What this means is that I am almost just as interested in the manner in which you present your arguments as the content of the arguments themselves. It also means I will generally be interested in the practical implications of your advocacy and will not be satisfied with a purely theoretical approach. That being said, I can definitely be convinced to take a different approach to adjudication but please be explicit in telling me what that approach should be.

2. LITERATURE: Please do not assume that I am familiar with the literature you are reading. I have a general sensibility of the evidence we have chosen to use in debate but I am unlikely to be well versed in your specific authors. If you are advocating something abstract / philosophical please indicate that you actually understand the claims you are forwarding and do not rely on vague gestures and buzzwords. I will always prefer concrete and down to earth explanations of complex philosophical arguments that showcase your mastery of the material.

3. THEORY: If you are going to go for theory in the round please be very specific and clear about what abuse occurred and why it creates a bad debate. I prefer clarity and substantive clash in these debates and I am unlikely to vote on "it's not what you do it's what you justify" claims. I also generally do not enjoy debates where either side is attempting to win using a frivolous theory arguments or tricks.

4. SPEED: My ability to flow compared to the past has diminished. Feel free to go fast but please signpost and be articulate during sections of your speech you want me to pay closer attention to.

5. PROFESSIONALISM: Debate seems to encourage anti-social and fringe behaviors that I am increasingly intolerant of. I expect debaters to be professional when debating and will allocate low speaker points to debaters that I feel are being condescending, rude, obnoxious etc.

Feel free to ask me any more specific questions about my paradigm before the round begins.

Email: minnalkunnan@gmail.com

I debated for Cal Poly San Luis Obispo and Rutgers University under Policy Debate, APDA and BP formats (back in 2015 or so). Since then, I have coached/judged BAUDL tournaments and currently coach debate at Gabrielino High School.

1. ROB: I default to the role of a rhetorical critic of argument within a policy making paradigm. What this means is that I am almost just as interested in the manner in which you present your arguments as the content of the arguments themselves. It also means I will generally be interested in the practical implications of your advocacy and will not be satisfied with a purely theoretical approach. That being said, I can definitely be convinced to take a different approach to adjudication but please be explicit in telling me what that approach should be.

2. LITERATURE: Please do not assume that I am familiar with the literature you are reading. I have a general sensibility of the evidence we have chosen to use in debate but I am unlikely to be well versed in your specific authors. If you are advocating something abstract / philosophical please indicate that you actually understand the claims you are forwarding and do not rely on vague gestures and buzzwords. I will always prefer concrete and down to earth explanations of complex philosophical arguments that showcase your mastery of the material.

3. THEORY: If you are going to go for theory in the round please be very specific and clear about what abuse occurred and why it creates a bad debate. I prefer clarity and substantive clash in these debates and I am unlikely to vote on "it's not what you do it's what you justify" claims. I also generally do not enjoy debates where either side is attempting to win using a frivolous theory arguments or tricks.

4. SPEED: My ability to flow compared to the past has diminished. Feel free to go fast but please signpost and be articulate during sections of your speech you want me to pay closer attention to.

5. PROFESSIONALISM: Debate seems to encourage anti-social and fringe behaviors that I am increasingly intolerant of. I expect debaters to be professional when debating and will allocate low speaker points to debaters that I feel are being condescending, rude, obnoxious etc.

Feel free to ask me any more specific questions about my paradigm before the round begins.

My experience: Teacher/coach in a UDL for 8 years. Never debated. I guess you could say I am an experienced lay judge who is OK with spreading, K, framework and other stuff lay judges don't usually want to hear about. Please slow down for contentions/signposts/tags/cites. 

I copied Toni Nielson because I agree with everything she wrote in her paradigm:
"Here’s what I think helps make a debater successful – 

1. Details: evidence and analytics, aff and neg – the threshold for being as specific as humanly possible about your arg and opponent's arg remains the same; details demonstrate knowledge 
2. Direct organized refutation: Answer the other team and don’t make me guess about it – I hate guessing because it feels like intervention
3. Debating at a reasonable pace: I ain’t the quickest flow in the west, even when I was at my best. I intend on voting for arguments which draw considerable debates and not on voting for arguments that were a 10-15 seconds of a speech. If one team concedes an argument, it still has to be an important and relevant argument to be a round winner. 
4. Framing: tell me how you want me to see the round and why I shouldn’t see it your opponents way
5. Comparison: you aren’t debating in a vacuum – see your weakness & strengths in the debate and compare those to your opponent. I love when debaters know what they are losing and deal with it in a sophisticated way. 

Some style notes - I like to hear the internals of evidence so either slow down a little or be clear. I flow CX, but I do this for my own edification so if you want an arg you still have to make it in a speech. I often don't get the authors name the first time you read the ev. I figure if the card is an important extension you will say the name again (in the block or rebuttals) so I know what ev you are talking about. I rarely read a bunch of cards at the end of the debate. 

Now you are asking,
Can I go for politics/CP or is this a K judge? Yes to both; I don't care for this distinction ideologically anymore. I lean more in the K direction. My history of politics and CP debate is not nearly as sophisticated as my history of K debate.

Theory - lean negative in most instances. Topicality - lean affirmative in most instances. Framework - lean in the direction of the K. 

Truth v Tech - lean in the direction of truth. BUT gigantic caveat, debate, the skill, requires refuting arguments. So my lean in the direction of the truth is not a declaration to abandon refutation. I will and do vote on unanswered arguments, particularly ones of substance to the debate. 
Here's what I like: I like what you know things about. And if you don't know anything, but get through rounds cause you say a bunch and then the other team drops stuff - then I don't think you have a great strategy. Upside for you, I truly believe you do know something after working and prepping the debate on the topic. Do us both a favor: If what you know applies in this round, then debate that.

Good luck!"