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.

Currently a law student. I did PF for three years and have been coaching/judging on and off for Lake Highland for six years. My only request is that you extend arguments, not just author names.

Experience: I debated for four years at TASIS The American School in England, mostly LD and some PF, and coached there for two years. This is my second time judging at this tournament and I will be judging the JV rounds.

How I approach the debate:

I appreciate a strong, well-constructed argument that doesn’t try to be more complicated than it needs to be. This is not to say I don’t value complex arguments or frameworks, but I find it distracting when the focus of a debate strays too far away from the core arguments and value structures of each respective side. To this point, when using kritiks, extensions, disads, etc., be super clear. Make it easy for me to follow your argument, because if I am confused it is likely that I will not favor your side of the debate. Do not throw around jargon and buzzwords because they sound cool if you don’t actually understand them yourself or know how to properly use them. In terms of structuring your speech, I encourage off-time roadmapping. Make my job easy and lay out your plan of attack so that I can track your arguments and measure them up against the scales you have set. Similarly, impact calculus is also effective with me. Weigh the vital parts of your argument against those of your opponent’s, and explain in your own words why yours is ultimately better. When I say vital I mean important, but I also mean it literally: bring them to life for me. Why do your arguments carry more weight? Make your impact real!

Spreading: not into it. I’m fine with you talking quickly as long as it is not at the expense of content or comprehension. I understand that there is a lot of information to get through in a debate, but ultimately if your argument lacks clarity is difficult to understand, it will be hard for me to give you the win. Effective delivery is a component of rhetoric and enhances the content of your speeches.

jorman.antigua@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

specifics...

impact your arguments (duhh)

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

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

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

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

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

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

theory: sure

short & sweet

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

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.

 

Experienced LD debater, fairly progressive. Did LD for 4 years in HS, and spent some time coaching a parliamentary team in college. I now coach my local LD team as a side hustle. 

I vote off flow, not for the best debater. If I'm put in the position where I have to vote based off something ridiculous, but the decision is clear off the flow, I'll vote for the ridiculous stuff. Make sure you cover all of your opponents case to avoid such problems. I think the role of the judge is to be as Tabula Rasa as possible. That said I am open to pretty much any kind of argument you can make, Ks, Theory, ROB, etc.

I will admit I have a soft spot for troll cases, though again, I'll look to the flow.

Speed: A lot of people who try to spread can't do it well. Remember to pause and state the tags of your cards, contentions, subpoints, VCs, etc. Granted, now that its normal for judges to ask for cases before the round starts, this makes things a bit easier. Just don't spit words like a rusty machine gun and we should be okay.

Flex prep is fine.

Have fun.      

I am a College, Highschool, and Middle school debate judge. History includes three years high school competition experience (LD Debate) and over two years experience judging. My philosophy is simple: Debate the best way you can, give adequate analysis and deliver with persuasiveness. Voting usually involves Framework, 

My preferences are standing for speeches, cross-ex, rebuttals. Unorthodox arguments are fine. 

Background: Debated 3 years for Ft. Lauderdale High in LD on national and local circuits. Did one  summer of Policy. Currently at UM studying Biology.

Arguments I will understand:

Traditional/Stock Arguments

Kritiks

Role of the Ballot or Role of the Judge

Plans, Counter-plans, & Perms

Topicality (must have full shell for me to follow)

Spikes (make sure I hear the spike-slow down a bit to emphasize it)

Theory *(should be used in abusive situations not frivolously ie: I don`t buy time skew arguments)* 

I love creativity in debate and love creative arguments, but I don`t vote on creativity alone.

 

Things that will cost you the round:

Universally offensive arguments (ex:Hitler wasn`t bad or slavery was good) 

Being rude or overly aggressive to your opponent (I understand the excitement of debating but you should still treat your opponent with respect)

Frivolous Theory (ex: time skew, resolution is one sided, etc.)

 

How to win: Make sure I know what the most important arguments in the round are. Explain why you are winning (ex:how their framework is dropped, how you fit into both frameworks, how the K supersedes the Aff, etc.) 

 

Overall have fun and learn as much as you can from every round. Feel free to talk to me after the round about arguments or studying Bio at UM. : )

 

 

 

-1.5 years of progressive LD

-4 years of traditional LD

-run anything, flow judge

Update 10/1/2020

When I first started five years ago, most local tournaments were doing paper ballots. I can’t believe speech and debate was the first activity that went entirely online since the TOC before the pandemic! It’s a different new world...

I have already encountered various tech issues in the rounds I’ve judged thus far. Please be prepared with multiple devices - a phone and a computer and perhaps even one more back up. We will work it through together!

Good luck!

Update 11/25/2018

I have judged extensively in both LD and PF in the past year, and have grown to dislike the lack of civility in some rounds. Remember - speech and debate is about having fun! If you are the only person in the room having run, then you just lost a round.

Please note the following:

1. Fair warning - If you use language that doesn't belong to the classroom, you will automatically get a 25 in Speaker Points.

2. If you ask a question in rebuttal, please allow your opponents to answer your questions. I need to hear two sides - it wouldn't be a debate otherwise.

3. LD - No spreading. Debate, in any form, is about making a point. To me, that point has to be made with common sense. Please do not try to convince me you are smarter than everybody in the room by speaking too fast. If a smarter-than-average person cannot get your point, you lost the round. Period. If I cannot understand you, I cannot judge. You will get a 25. If you have two "tech" judges and me in the elimination rounds, and if you CHOOSE to spread "strategically", you will be dropped. Again, it wouldn't be a debate if a judge cannot understand you.

Background

I am an Assistant Principal at Princeton High School. I was Head Coach of the PHS Speech and Debate Team in the past five years.

Preferences

I can follow just about all fast speech by now. However, I have a strong preference for convincing arguments over speed or other stylistic elements of debates; I prefer strength and confidence over aggression without substance. I want to clear warrant to your claim, clear impacts and clear weighing. Simply put, convince me with common sense and logical reasoning.

Don't forget - this is about you having fun!

Good luck!

[Same as Ellie Boswell]

I debated 3 years of LD and 2 years of policy on the national circuit from 2007-2012 and attended 3 years of camp at VBI. I judged for my high school (Albuquerque Academy) on the national circuit in when I was in college, but Harvard will be my first tournament this year. My degree is in Middle Eastern and African History with a concentration in colonial and post colonial studies and I also took classes in gender and sexuality studies as well as critical race theory.

Here are some things I think you should know. Sorry its not more organized. If you have any questions after reading this you can contact me before the round at efboswell@gmail.com:

--I can take fast-paced, technical debate, but please, I beg you, for your own good make sure you are clear. If you mumble or swallow your words I will yell clear, but I really don't want to have to. I would much prefer to watch a clear, slow debate than one in which the discussion is muddled just so you can get a few more arguments out there. In the same vein, if you just don't want to spread or it's not your thing, I won't hold that against you. I also really hate to watch debaters being spread out. Please be kind to your opponent, not everyone has the same access to resources, coaching, camp, etc... Finally on this topic: even if you are both excellent at spreading please take your time in sign-posting, overviews, voting issues, summaries, etc...this is how you can ensure that I am following you.

--I will vote on any argument presented in the round as long as you give me a way to evaluate it. However, (and this is perhaps the most important things I will say here) please provide clear analysis on the framework level, including why I should prefer your framework. If you do not, I will be forced to intervene, which I don't want to do, and you don't want me to do, and my ballot may not seem fair because it probably won't be at that point; it will just be me picking whichever arguments I happen to like more on that particular day. I am aware that LD has been shifting towards policy (which was the case when I debated and now even more so.) However, that does not mean you do not have to do work warranting, extending, and linking back to your framework. Likewise if the aff runs a value-criterion framework and neg runs a counter plan text, both debaters need to engage on the the macro level framework debate (ie truth testing vs. policy-making/comp worlds paradigms) to establish what the burdens of the aff and neg are. That way I will know how you want me to evaluate the round!!!

--I enjoy critical debates, but I won't grant critical arguments any more weight in the round than any other. That being said, make sure that you have a very firm grasp on your authors and can articulate their ideas clearly. (Remember I studied a lot of this in college and unlike in high school I now actually know what these authors are saying--so be careful not to run them poorly or fudge what your authors say.) That being said, I really appreciate creativity and if you want to try going out on a limb with a particular author, idea, theory etc...I will probably enthusiastically follow you there so long as you lay out your thinking clearly. I would much rather watch a creative debate with arguments I've never heard before that challenge me and offer something different (even if these arguments have potential holes or problems) than a stock debate with rock solid logic.

--Speaking of stock debates, while I was once familiar with many of the arguments that debaters ran (topic specific and otherwise) I am definitely less so at this point. Even during my years as a debater, I watched the nature of LD change rapidly and I assume that it has continued to do so. Although I have some sense of how it has evolved since, I am by no means as well versed in current trends as I once was. As such, please don't assume that you don't need to explain an argument or position fully just because it is run frequently on the circuit. You should always be giving complete link stories regardless, but especially in my case if you don't want to risk losing me. (Hint: overviews and underviews would be particularly useful for this purpose.)

--If you do run critical positions make sure that you tell me how your arguments are functioning in the round (i.e. pre-fiat, post-fiat). If you run a K make sure you spend as much time of the link story as you do on the alt and make sure that you explain how you are accessing your alt and how it is functioning (in round, out of round, in society at large). I am am not at all opposed to arguments that function in round, in the debate world, or about the use of my ballot as a tool--in fact I'd be really happy to hear a good one. There are a lot of interventions that I would love to see made in the world of debate and am particularly compelled by genuine explanations of how that can happen in a round.

--Try to run theory only if you perceive there to be clear abuse in the round and not as a tactic. I will vote on theory if you win on it regardless, I would just prefer not to watch a theory debate.

--In your 2NR and 2AR be sure to give me voting reasons. This is the best way to ensure a win. Essentially, I want you to write my ballot for me. The mark of a good debate is that I have to do very little work in making my decision.

--Lastly, careful not to make offensive statements. I don't expect this to be a problem, but I will not tolerate clear racism, homophobia, or sexism in the round (obviously). I wish I didn't even have to say this, but I think these interventions are unfortunately necessary in the debate world--as they are in the real world.

As a debater I used to get really incredibly nervous before rounds. If you're one of those please remember that how you do in this round is not a reflection of who you are, how smart you are, or how far you're going to get in life. Trust me. I deeply believe in debate as a form of education, rather than as a sport. Let's please keep that spirit alive in the round!

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 16 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 8 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.

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.

Most other theory I evaluate in round. I don't tend to go for blippy theory arguments though!

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.

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:

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.

Background: I debated for 4 years at Durant High School in Durant, OK in LD. I went to state two consecutive years. I live for eloquent speakers. If you can present your points in a manner that suggests you have some kind of superior intelligence you immediately have the upper hand. My personal approach was dependent heavily on CX and speaking skills rather than framework.

Paradigm for LD:
I love philosophy but also love EVIDENCE. It is crucial to back up any philosophy you have if the resolution implies that it should/can be applied to the real world. Do NOT spread, if I can't understand you, I can't flow or adequately judge the round. Provide clash for God's sake. If you have no clash you have no debate and I have to judge in favor of the person that had the best framework. (If no clash is provided the Aff normally ALWAYS wins)


General Behavior: If you sound unsure of yourself, I automatically default to thinking you're BS'ing. Do not use team cases with me, I CAN TELL. Do not yell or act snobby to your opponent, that will result in me removing speaker points. I'm stingy with them (speaks) already so I would like you to EARN them.

Grant Brown (He/Him/His)

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

Head of Debate at the Brearley School

^ [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: 9/26/2023

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.

See wiki, Bruner, Joe.

Longer paradigm above on the wiki if you want more detail. I'm super verbose there, this is meant to be somewhat manageable for doing prefs quickly. Ask me questions whenever.

I'm a former LDer from a school you've never heard of (who leaned more towards progressive arguments but got obsessed with phil along the way), former college parli debater at Oxford (where I did PPE for ugrad), former LD/policy/PF coach (still coach some) for various NC schools, and current law student at Columbia who is pretty up-to-date with this activity and likes judging and participating in critical education. I am open to what you want to say - just explain and warrant it to me.

Read that case you really love and hope you are getting the right judge for! I'm prepared to evaluate any sort of coherent advocacy you want to put forward. I also defer pretty heavily to anything both debaters agree upon. I honestly hate seeing debaters have a case they put heart and soul into and instead running something they borrowed from a teammate or a camp labmate because they're afraid the judge won't like their actual stuff. And this happens all the time. So my #1 suggestion is you don't have to do that for me, I like pretty much everything that flies here whether you are into policy-making (I have come to think the textual act of writing statutes and their philosophical-historical significance is super interesting, so I get really hype for plans/cps that change the text of laws or the constitution), dense phil (if you teach me cool new phil i will go get from the library easy 29+), critical politics (my favorite modern philosopher is G.A. Cohen who is also a marxist historian), etc. I have even voted for brazenly non-topical stuff, my default position is skeptical but I can be persuaded with good warranting. But I would prefer affs at least be topical in a metaphorical or abstract way by creating a dialogue on the topic even if you don't want to advocate a policy.

So I like a good K, heavy phil done well, speed is cool but truth>tech, theory cool too but still truth>tech. What I mean by this is that while I do keep a detailed flow, I primarily use the flow as a tool to compare two distinct positions rather than voting off of any individual dropped statement. You can talk fast to reach a deeper, more interesting round but I am not really interested in voting for you because you had 11 links into extinction and only 10 of them got covered well in the 1AR. I tend to give importance to arguments based on what you yourself spend time on. And, even if you go all in on theory, some kind of cohesive advocacy is really important for me to evaluate you - What do you think this round is really about? What is the central question I am answering by signing the ballot? I do not want to decide which one of the 30 conflicts on the flow is the most important - I want you to do that for me by telling me how you want me to think about what is happening.

So yes I will vote on your model minority narrative, yes I will evaluate impacts under your elaborate fw that is 4 minutes of Kant and Descartes, it's all good, do your thing, just be prepared to defend it and explain to me why I should do it with real warrants that interact with your opponent's arguments and framework.

Respect one another, but zealously and aggressively engage one another. No personal attacks, but irony, wit, sarcasm, and absurdity can go a long way. I aim to counteract judges who discourage aggressive debating by women, ethnic minorities, and other marginalized groups. Put your heart of the flow and show some real love for justice or hatred of injustice. Your speaks will go up.

As far as Theory/Meta-theory/ROTB and kritikal frameworks go, I am open to you rebutting any presumptions I might hold with clear and warranted argumentation about why the way you want to debate and have me evaluate it is important, worthwhile, and deserving of recognition. I do have some limits on this (I don't think you will convince me education or advocacy skills are unimportant) but most people don't do anything too weird here.

This is your show now. Show me something exciting. Show me what people who love justice or hate injustice should be doing. Show who you are on the flow and in your words. Seriously. This is your show now.

Again, the wiki has a lot more about my likes, dislikes, background, how I evaluate specific args, etc.

This is my third year judging debate. I've judged a variety of debate and speech events. I have advanced degrees and certifications. I can follow most logical conversations and conflict. I have a background in theater and am a key note speaker at business events.

Things to consider: I like truth over tech. Be clear, especially if you spread, and flash your case to kymunicator@gmail.com. Signpost and summarize voters.

I can follow most speeds, but I want to understand the debate. If you speak too fast, I will say "slow." if I can understand you, I will say, "clear."

I'm okay with progressive arguments, but they should have a clear link to the resolution. They also should be clearly structured.

Time yourself. Be kind.

Updated Feb 2019

I debated LD for Walt Whitman High School for four years on the local and national circuits and qualified to TOC my junior and senior years. I’m now a senior on the Harvard team.

My goal is to write RFDs based entirely on comparison made by the debaters in the round, so the easiest way to get my ballot is to give me direct comparisons and weighing. I'll say clear/slow as many times as necessary. Plan to slow down for any short analytics, interpretations, or arguments that must be flowed verbatim so they're clear to everyone the first time around.

Feel free to ask me before the round if you have specific questions.

Misc:

- Because the Harvard tournament has a difficult 4-2 break, I will push in-round speaks in a direction that indicates whether I think you should make the break based on the quality of that round.

- If the content of your position is something graphic or reasonably foreseeable as potentially distressing, please be a good person and check whether all the other people in the room are okay hearing it.

- Be polite to people with different debate backgrounds than your own. Dominance and snark are great; you should be able to tell the difference between these and bullying. If you're uncomfortable with how your opponent is treating you, please say something about it. If you're asked by an opponent to be more respectful and don't make any effort, I'll be very unhappy.

- I have a very low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments -- for instance, if substance is conceded, pointing that out is sufficient for me to vote on it.

- Evaluating theory is most straightforward to me under competing interps. I'm happy to use anything else you justify, but you should be clear about what you want me to do with it.

- I will be sad if you use CX for a series of clarification questions, and annoyed if you use it for prep. I'm entertained by clever tricks I haven't seen before.

- Debate is a game—you should make arguments you enjoy and feel good about. If that's not working out, think about reaching out to someone to check in.

I debated for four years at Ladue Horton Watkins High School (in St. Louis, MO). On the debate side, I competed in LD; and on the events side I competed in duo interpretation, though I dabbled in congress, dramatic interp, and radio. I haven't competed/judged/flowed in almost four years, so bear with me and go a little slower than you normally might.

My judging generally comes down to a few points:

1. Most rounds come down to a few key issues. The competitor who identifies, articulates, and defends those arguments best will win the round.

2. Framework, framework, framework. The whole point of LD is the philosophical justification and framework level arguments. You could have the most well-thought-out contention level arguments, but without a solid framework on which to create and support them, you will have a difficult time convincing me you should win. To that end, I'm not really used to Ks and don't like them.

3. Do not assume that I know what you are talking about. It is your burden to explain, defend, and support your arguments with the proper evidence.

4. Lastly, a thorough analysis of what actually happens during the round is significantly more compelling than even the most well-prepared, "canned" arguments thrown in at the last second.

5. Be courteous and respectful, but sometimes a little bit of snark or sass is needed. Remember to have fun, that's why we're all here!

UPDATE: 2/14/2020, re: Harvard tournament - This will be my second tournament judging Congress; I judged previously at last month's Barkley Forum at Emory. In other years, here at Harvard, I've judged both PF and LD.

I have judged both PF and LD, on local circuits and at the Harvard National tournament, for the past three seasons and judged BQ @ the 2018 NSDA Nationals. I'm a former high school (Science) teacher, and love being involved with high schoolers again through Debate.

A few things:

-Although I've been judging for quite awhile now, I began as a parent judge, with no background in debate. After 3 years of judging and parenting a varsity LD debater, my technical knowledge has expanded tremendously, but still has limits. Know that I will judge you technically to the best of my ability. But ultimately, as judges, we are to award the round to the most convincing debater(s). You might have a technically perfect case, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you'll ultimately actually CONVINCE me.

- I'm not a fan of progressive debate strategies. IMO, spreading is a gimmick, and devalues the essence of debate. If I can't follow what you're saying, you're not communicating with me. And if you aren't communicating, what's the point? So, while a little speed is fine, if you see me stop flowing, you know you've lost me. Similarly I'm not a big fan of counterplans/Ks etc. either. BUT I'm always open to hearing them; sometimes they're awesome! (Just don't pull that if you're a 1st year novice debater going against another newbie. It's no fun to see a 14-yo kid get obliterated in only their second round ever because your varsity teammates shared their cases with you for the purpose of doing just that to your opponent. I've seen it - more than once - and it's really painful to watch and demoralizing for your opponent.)

- I WILL be flowing throughout the debate, so please organize/structure to make that easier for me - i.e. a clearly defined framework and contentions (signposts!), off-time road maps, voters etc.

- I like when opponents challenge evidence during CX, so that we ALL know the info is being accurately and honestly presented. Have your 'cards' ready!

- Typically I won't disclose at the end of the round, but will enter RFDs and speaker notes in Tabroom where I can better organize my thoughts.

- Demonstrating respectful behavior is huge for me. Sighing/eye-rolling behaviors are rude and disrespectful to your opponent. Be very cognizant about coming across as verbally abusive or condescending. Simply having the courage to come into the room and participate in the challenge of debate makes you worthy of MY respect, and your opponent's. I WILL deduct 'speaks' if this is a problem, or if really egregious, I will drop you.

- I'm very relaxed as a judge. I want you to be comfortable in the room with me, and am really proud to have gotten a lot of positive feedback from debaters about that. Introduce yourself. Feel free to joke/laugh. Smiles are great. Remember to have fun and ENJOY the experience!

I don't have experience in formal debate, but I do have extensive experience in analyzing the strength of ideas and delivery. I have had to judge in-class debates on topics ranging from history, philosophy, and religion, and have learned about rhetoric through my studies in Latin prose. My educational background has significant emphasis on discussion based learning, which requires students to immediately, succinctly, and persuasively convey evidence towards a specific conclusion. My views in LD debates is that delivery and structure are the most important part, not the conclusion of the speaker. Evidence that is reasonably persuasive and specific, as well as addressing potential attack points are critical, as well as organizing information logically for the judge to understand.

I have coached LD at Strake Jesuit in Houston, Tx since 2009. I judge a lot and do a decent amount of topic research. Mostly on the national/toc circuit but also locally. Feel free to ask questions before the round. Add me to email chains. Jchriscastillo@gmail.com.

I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. The best debaters will 1. Focus on argument explanation over argument quantity. 2. Provide clear judge instruction.

I do not flow off the doc.

Evidence:

1. I rarely read evidence after debates.
2. Evidence should be highlighted so it's grammatically coherent and makes a complete argument.
3. Smart analytics can beat bad evidence
4. Compare and talk about evidence, don't just read more cards

Theory:

1. I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types.
2. I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness.
3. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.

Non-T/Planless affs: I'm good with these. I'm most compelled by affirmatives that 1. Can explain what the role of the neg is 2. Explain why the ballot is key.

Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".

Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity. I do not disclose speaks.

Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. I will not vote on "evaluate after X speech" arguments.

Coach at Heights High School (TX)
Separately conflicted with: Archbishop Mitty SM, Carnegie Vanguard KF, Cypress Ranch KH, Langham Creek SB, Woodlands SP
Judging at TOC for: Heights EP, Heritage WT

Set up the email chain before the round starts and add me. The 1AC should be sent before the scheduled start time, and the 1AC should be ready to start their speech by the start time.

If I'm judging you in Policy: heightsdocs.policy@gmail.com
If I'm judging you in LD: heightsdocs.ld@gmail.com

I debated for Timothy Christian School in New Jersey for four years. I graduated from Rice University, am currently a teacher at Heights, and predominately coach policy and LD: my program competes through the Houston Urban Debate League and the Texas Forensic Association.

Pref Shortcuts

• Policy: 1
• T/Theory: 1-2
• Phil: 2
• Kritik (identity): 2
• Kritik (pomo): 3
• Tricks: Strike; I can and will cap your speaks at a 27, and if I'm on a panel I will be looking for a way to vote against you.

General

• Absent tricks or arguments that are morally objectionable, you should do what you are best at rather than over-adapting to my paradigm.
• Tech > Truth
• I will try to be tab and dislike intervening so please weigh arguments and compare evidence. It is in your advantage to write my ballot for me by explaining which layers come first and why you win those layers.
• I won't vote on anything that's not on my flow. I also won't vote on any arguments that I can't explain back to your opponent in the oral.
• Not the judge for cowardice. That includes but is not limited to questionable disclosure practices, taking prep to delete analytics, dodgy CX answers, and strategies rooted in argument avoidance.
• It is unlikely that I will vote on a blip in the 2NR/2AR, even if it is conceded. If you want an argument to be instrumental to my ballot, you should commit to it. Split 2NR/2ARs are generally bad. Although, hot take, in the right circumstances a 2NR split between 1:00 of case and the rest on T can be strategic.
• I presume neg; in the absence of offense in either direction, I am compelled by the Change Disad to the plan. However, presumption flips if the 2NR goes for a counter-advocacy that is a greater change from the status quo than the aff. It is unlikely, however, that I will try to justify a ballot in this way; I almost always err towards voting on risk of offense rather than presumption in the absence of presumption arguments made by debaters.
• If you want to ask your opponent what was or was not read, you need to take prep or CX time for it.
• I'm colorblind so speech docs that are highlighted in light blue/gray are difficult for me to read; yellow would be ideal because it's easiest for me to see. Also, if you're re-highlighting your opponent's evidence and the two colors are in the same area of the color wheel, I probably won't be able to differentiate between them. Don't read a shell on your opponent if they don't follow these instructions though - it's not that serious.
• You don't get to insert rehighlighting (or anything else, really); if you want me to evaluate it, you have to read it. Obviously doesn't apply to inserts of case cards that were already read in the 1AC for context on an off-case flow.
• Not fond of embedded clash; it's a recipe for judge intervention. I'll flow overviews and you should read them when you're extending a position, but long (0:30+) overviews that trade-off against substantive line-by-line work increase the probability that I'll either forget about an argument or misunderstand its implication.

Policy

• Given that I predominately coach policy debate, I am probably most comfortable adjudicating these rounds, but this is your space so you should make the arguments that you want to make in the style that you prefer.
• You should be cutting updates and the more specific the counterplan and the links on the disad the happier I'll be. The size/probability of the impact is a function of the strength/specificity of the link.
• Terminal defense is possible and more common than people seem to think.
• I think impact turns (dedev, cap good/bad, heg good/bad, wipeout, etc.) are underutilized and can make for interesting strategies.
• If a conditional advocacy makes it into the 2NR and you want me to kick it, you have to tell me. Also, I will not judge kick unless the negative wins an argument for why I should, and it will not be difficult for the affirmative to convince me otherwise.

Theory

• I default to competing interpretations.
• I default to no RVIs.
• You need to give me an impact/ballot story when you read a procedural, and the blippier/less-developed the argument is, the higher my threshold is for fleshing this out. Labeling something an "independent voter" or "is a voting issue" is rarely sufficient. These arguments generally implicate into an unjustified, background framework and don't operate at a higher layer absent an explicit warrant explaining why. You still have to answer these arguments if your opponent reads them - it's just that my threshold for voting for underdeveloped independent voters is higher.
• Because I am not a particularly good flower, theory rounds in my experience are challenging to follow because of the quantity of blippy analytical arguments. Please slow down for these debates, clearly label the shell, and number the arguments.
• Disclosure is good. I am largely unimpressed with counterinterpretations positing that some subset of debaters does not have to disclose, with the exception of novices or someone who is genuinely unaware of the wiki.
• "If you read theory against someone who is obviously a novice or a traditional debater who doesn't know how to answer it, I will not evaluate it under competing interps."
• I will not evaluate the debate after any speech that is not the 2AR.

Kritiks

• I have a solid conceptual understanding of kritks, given that I teach the structure and introductory literature to novices every year, but don't presume that I'll recognize the vocabulary from your specific literature base. I am not especially well-read in kritikal literature.
• Pretty good for policy v k debates, or phil v k. Less good for k v k debates.
• I appreciate kritikal debates which are heavy on case-specific link analysis paired with a comprehensive explanation of the alternative.
• I don't judge a terribly large number of k-aff v fw debates, but I've also coached both non-T performative and pure policy teams and so do not have strong ideological leanings here. Pretty middle of the road and could go either way depending on technical execution.

Philosphical Frameworks

• I believe that impacts are relevant insofar as they implicate to a framework, preferably one which is syllogistically warranted. My typical decision calculus, then, goes through the steps of a. determining which layer is the highest/most significant, b. identifying the framework through which offense is funneled through on that layer, and c. adjudicating the pieces of legitimate offense to that framework.
• You should assume if you're reading a philosophically dense position that I do not have a deep familiarity with your literature base; as such, you should probably moderate your speed and over-explain rather than under.
• I default to epistemic confidence.
• Better than many policy judges for phil strategies; I have no especial attachment to consequentialism, given that you are doing technical work on the line-by-line.

Speed

• Speed is generally fine, so long as its clear. I'd place my threshold for speed at a 9 out of 10 where a 10 is the fastest debater on the circuit, although that varies (+/- 1) depending on the type of argument being read.
• Slow down for and enunciate short analytics, taglines, and card authors; it would be especially helpful if you say "and" or "next" as you switch from one card to the next. I am not a particularly good flower so take that into account if you're reading a lot of analytical arguments. If you're reading at top-speed through a dump of blippy uncarded arguments I'll likely miss some. I won't backflow for you, so spread through blips on different flows without pausing at your own risk.
• If you push me after the RFD with "but how did you evaluate THIS analytic embedded in my 10-point dump?" I have no problem telling you that I a. forgot about it, b. missed it, or c. didn't have enough of an implication flowed/understood to draw lines to other flows for you.

Speaker Points

• A 28.5 or above means I think you're good enough to clear. I generally won't give below a 27; lower means I think you did something offensive, although depending on my general level of annoyance, it's possible I'll go under if the round is so bad it makes me want to go home.
• I award speaks based on quality of argumentation and strategic decision-making.
• I don't disclose speaks.
• I give out approximately one 30 a season, so it's probably not going to be you. If you're looking for a speaks fairy, pref someone else. Here are a few ways to get higher speaks in front of me, however:
• I routinely make mental predictions during prep time about what the optimal 2NR/2AR is. Give a different version of the speech than my prediction and convince me that my original projection was strategically inferior. Or, seamlessly execute on my prediction.
• Read a case-specific CP/Disad/PIC that I haven't seen before.
• Teach me something new that doesn't make me want to go home.
• Be kind to an opponent that you are more experienced than.
• If you have a speech impediment, please feel free to tell me. I debated with a lisp and am very sympathetic to debaters who have challenges with clarity. In this context, I will do my best to avoid awarding speaks on the basis of clarity.
• As a teacher and coach, I am committed to the value of debate as an educational activity. Please don't be rude, particularly if you're clearly better than your opponent. I won't hack against you if you go 5-off against someone you're substantively better than, but I don't have any objections to tanking your speaks if you intentionally exclude your opponent in this way.

Hi, I am a lay parent judge. Please speak slowly and very clearly, especially on taglines and weighing.

I debated LD for Lexington (MA) and graduated in 2015. I now coach LD at Walt Whitman (MD).

General Preferences:

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. I will say clear as many times as necessary but I will get frustrated if you don’t slow down and make an actual effort to be clear. Don’t start your speech at full speed because it can take me a few seconds to get used to your voice and be able to understand you spreading. I don’t read your speech docs while I flow, so be clear on advocacy texts, interpretations, tags, and author names.

I am very comfortable not voting for an argument because I could not understand it in the first speech even if it is crystal clear in your final speech. I am also very comfortable not voting for nonsense arguments, even if they are dropped.

If you are sharing docs, prep time stops when you save the document. Email only one compiled document. Don't compile speech docs or pull up files outside of prep time.

I went mostly for policy-type arguments in high school so I believe they are the debates that I am best at evaluating.

I am not the most well-read judge for a lot of philosophical debates. That said, I think that I can understand most frameworks as long as you present them clearly.

I enjoy good theory debates, but I think most of the theory debates I have ever seen are a form of argument avoidance. A lot of generic shells frustrate and bore me. I like when debaters read cards to support T standards. I think RVIs are logical. I don’t think textuality make any sense as a voter on topicality because as long as both debaters have a definition, they both are textual. From there, topicality is a question of whose interpretation is best for fairness, education, or advocacy skills. I won’t vote off of an offensive counterinterpretation unless you provide an RVI or have standards that justify the offensive plank of the interpretation.

I like kritikal debates and encourage you to read Ks in front of me. I don’t care if your aff is topical or not. I am, however, comfortable voting on T against non-topical affs.

Defaults:

In the absence of any arguments otherwise, this is how I will evaluate debates. This, however, is not an indication of preferences.

-Theory is an issue of reasonability.

-Aff does not get an RVI on theory.

-Theory is a reason to drop the argument.

-Theory is a question of norm setting.

-I will evaluate debates through comparative worlds.

-Neg defends the status quo.

-Counterplans are conditional and judge can kick the counterplan for the neg.

Arguments that I am not a fan of (but I will still vote on):

-Presumption and permissibility triggers

-Skepticism

-Meta-theory

-Affirmative framework choice and affirmative contention choice

-Theoretically justified frameworks

-Theory about case order (ethical frameworks first, role of the ballot first, etc.)

-Indexicals

-Most spikes

-Most a prioris

-Contingent standards

Arguments I won’t vote on (even if dropped):

-All neg theory arguments are counterinterps

-Evaluate the round after the 1AR or 2NR

-Resolved a priori

Here are the things you can do to get higher speaks:

-Spreading drills

-Provide a clear ballot story

-Be respectful

-Use all 3 minutes of CX asking questions. I’m okay with using prep time to continue CX, but I prefer that you don’t use CX time to prep.

-2NR and 2AR overviews

-Word economy

-Proper prioritization of flows

-Don't go for too many arguments in rebuttals.

-Don’t read obviously frivolous theory.

I don’t like disclosing your speaks while your opponent is present, but if you find me individually or email me (email given below) I will tell you what your speaks were.

Evidence ethics:

The round stops when an accusation of evidence ethics is made. This includes card clipping and misrepresenting evidence. I will evaluate the accusation to the best of my ability. If I find that a debater has cheated they will be given a loss and zero speaker points. If a debater makes a false accusation, they will lose. I have not yet figured out what to do for speaks in that scenario.

Contact Info:

preetham.chippada@gmail.com

I DON'T WANT TO SHAKE YOUR HAND PLEASE DON'T ASK

Now that that friendly introduction is over:

Email: maanik.chotalla@gmail.com

I'll disclose speaks if you ask.

Background: I debated LD for four years for Brophy College Preparatory in Arizona. Graduated in 2016. Current LD coach for Brophy College Preparatory.

TOC Update: I haven’t updated my paradigm in a few years and while my attitude towards debate hasn’t fundamentally changed the activity and norms within it have very much changed so I felt a need to write an update. At its core, I do believe this activity is still about speaking and so I do still value debaters being able to articulate and deliver. Yes I will still vote tech but I have very little patience for debaters who refuse to adapt and articulate. My preference is to not be reading your rebuttal off a document, if it isn’t on my flow I can’t vote for it. All that said—my advice to you is to go slightly below your max speed with me. I believe every judge embellishes their flowing ability to a degree and while I’m not awful at flowing I am certainly not as good as I used to be and I also have no competitive incentive like you do to be perfect on the flow. I will do my best but I am certainly going to be a cut under most judges that were former TOC competitors. I am simply in a spot in where debate is no longer my whole life (just a large part of it) and I have not been able to keep up with everything. Will do my best but if you are expecting a robot judge you will be disappointed.

Crash Course version:
-Go for whatever you want, I like all forms of argumentation
-Have fun, debate is an evolving activity and I'm all for hearing creative well-warranted arguments
-The round belongs to the debaters, do what you want within reason
-Tech > truth, extend your warrants, do impact analysis, weigh
-I default to competing interps but will go for reasonability if you tell me to
-For Ks please be prepared to explain your obscure lit to me, don't assume I'll know it because I promise you I won't. It will benefit you if you give an overview simplifying the K.
-If you run a theory shell that's fine but I don't really like it when a shell is read as a strictly strategic decision, it feels dirty. I'll probably still vote for you if you win the shell unless it's against a novice or someone who clearly had no idea how to respond to it.
-Default to epistemic confidence
-Good with speed
-Don't like tricks
-Don't be rude, the key to this activity is accessibility so please don't be rude to any debaters who are still learning the norms. This activity is supposed to be enjoyable for everyone

For the LARP/Policy Debater:
-You don't necessarily have to read a framework if you read a plan but if your opponent reads a framework I'm more likely to default to it unless you do a good job with the framework debate in the 1AR.
-If you run a framework it can be either philosophically or theoretically justified, I like hearing philosophy framing but that is just a personal preference
-Utilize your underview, I'm guessing you're reading it for a reason so don't waste your time not extending it.
-Running multiple counterplans is okay, prefer that you provide solvency
-Make sure your counterplan does not link yourself back into your DA, please

For the K Debater:
-Please label each section of your K (link/framing/impact/alt) it makes it more clear to me how the argument is supposed to function
-If you aren't running a typically organized K then please just explain the argument properly as to how I should evaluate it
-If your ROTB is pre-fiat you still need to respond to post-fiat framing to completely win framework debate
-Feel free to ask more questions before the round

For the traditional debater/everyone else
-Crash course version should cover everything. I have more below for the people who really want to read it but you can always ask more questions beforehand

More details:

1. General

I like debates which are good. Debaters who are witty, personable, and I daresay good speakers usually score higher on speaker points with me. I'll vote on any argument (So long as it isn't blatantly offensive or reprehensible in some way). I'm a big believer that the round should belong to the debaters, so do with the debate space what you wish.

I like framework debate a lot. This is what I did as a debater and I believe that it makes the round very streamlined. I always like hearing new and cool philosophies and seeing how they apply, so run whatever you want but please be prepared to explain them properly.

Please slow down on impacts and pause between tags and authors!! Yeah, I know everyone has the case right in front of them nowadays but I still want you slowing down and pausing between your authors and tags. Finally, for both of our sakes, please IMPACT to a weighing mechanism. I have seen too many rounds lacking impact analysis and weighing. It's possible it will lead to a decision you don't like if you don't impact well. I don't particularly care what weighing mechanism you impact to so long as you warrant to me that it's the more important one.

2. Theory/T

Run whatever shells you would like but nothing frivolous, please. I wouldn't recommend reading theory as strictly a strategic play in front of me but I will still evaluate it and vote on it if you prove there is actual abuse in round. I default to competing interps but will go with whatever you tell me. In general, I think you should layer theory as the most important issue in the round if you read it, otherwise what was the point in reading it?

Shells I will likely not vote on:
-Dress Code theory
-Font size theory
-Double-win theory (I'll probably just drop whoever initiated it)
-Frivolous shells unrelated to debate (i.e. lets play mario kart instead)
-Comic Sans theory
-This list will grow with time

3. Tricks

I don't like them. Don't run them. They make for bad debate.

4. Ks

I myself was never a K debater but I've now found myself really enjoying hearing them as an argument. I'd appreciate if you could label your K or section it off. I wasn't a K debater so I don't automatically know when the framing begins or when the impacts are etc. The biggest problem I usually see with Ks is that I don't understand the framing of the argument or how to use it as a weighing mechanism, so please help me so I can understand your argument as best as I can. I have dropped Ks because I just didn't understand the argument, err on the side of me not knowing if it is a complex/unconventional K.

5. Miscellaneous

I don't time flashing/making docs during the round but I expect it to take no longer than 30 seconds. Try to have a speech doc ready to go before each round. I'm good with flex prep. I don't care if you sit or stand. I'll hop on your email chain. Don't be rude, that should go without saying. Lastly, and I mean this seriously, please have fun with it. I really prefer voting for debaters who look like they're having a good time debating.

If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round or contact me via email

Please add me to the email chain dciocca@columbushs.com

I am a debate coach with experience judging at national tournaments at the novice and varsity levels. I prefer arguments to be well structured, articulated clearly (please no spreading but I can understand a considerably faster than conversational pace) and supported by convincing evidence. Please slow down on the tags so I can accurately flow. I don't mind listening to a unique or interesting argument but somehow you MUST link it back to the resolution if you are going to get my ballot.

Plans: All good, just make it relatable to the topic

Counter-plans: All good.

Theory: If there is significant violation or abuse in a round that warrants running theory, I will vote on it but generally not a fan of debating about debate.

Ks: Willing to listen to a good K as long there is a really strong and convincing link back. Not a fan of generic links or links of omission as an excuse to run the K you want to run.

DA: I'm fine with them, we are all good here

T: I think aff has an obligation to be somewhat topical and neg has the right to question whether aff is in fact being topical. That being said, while I generally will not vote on a straight RVI, running T for the sole purpose of creating a time suck for aff and then kicking it in the NR is not a strat that is going to sit well with me.

Conditional Arguments: Anything more than 2 conditional arguments is abusive and puts aff in an impossible situation in the 1AR. I will vote off “Condo bad” in these situations.

Disclosure: Seems like it gets run a lot for no purpose other than trying to get a cheap win. However, If the affirmative is reading a case that is so unique, such as a specific plan text, that the negative would have difficulty engaging with then disclosure is the fair thing to do.

Feel free to ask me if clarification is needed

I am a parent judge with experience judging at local and national tournaments at the varsity levels. I have also judged various speech events over the last five years as well. I enjoy speech judging as I love the variety of topics that are covered. My daughter competed for West Broward FL in LD for four years. She started off in PF so I have judged both. More LD than PF. My judging philosophy is simple. I believe that an ordinary citizen should be able to listen to the reasoned arguments of debaters and come to a logical conclusion as to who's argument and evidence is more persuasive. I prefer arguments to be well structured, articulated clearly (please no spreading but I can handle a little faster then conversational) and supported by convincing evidence.

Plans- I'm ok with basic topical plan texts, but nothing non-topical
Counter-plans- I'm okay with cps.

Be careful when arguing a Perm, there needs to be a clear explanation as to whether the Aff and the Neg plans are or are not mutually exclusive.

Ks- willing to listen to a K as long as there is a clear link, not some generic link of omission.
DAs- I am perfectly fine with them just again be clear and concise

When debating please make sure to sign post and slow down on your tags. That way I can make sure to get as much of your argument on the flow.

Tricks - NO

Theory - only in the case of legitimate abuse as I really hate theory debates.

Please ask questions if more clarification is needed.

I am open to seeing a number of different tactics employed in a round. Give me a weighing mechanism, evidence, and strong impact calculus.

Conflicts: Fenwick (IL). Pronouns are he/him. On the college circuit people generally write their name and pronouns on the board when they walk in a room, but don't worry if you don't want to disclose yours, it's totally up to you.

Harvard 2020 note: I haven't been in the loop with the topic that much, so don't assume I will know the generic arguments about nuclear arsenals.

TL;DR Summary: I try to be as tab as possible, just remember to impact and weigh your arguments. Well-warranted strategic theory/T is chill but frivolous theory is strongly discouraged. I'm familiar with lots of philosophical frameworks (bonus points for existentialism!), as well as K-debate that critiques aspects of capitalism, anti-blackness, ableism, and post-modernism. If you want more than this then read my paradigm please, it's sorted by topic. Speaks policy at the bottom. If you have any questions that aren’t answered in the paradigm, the best way to reach me is at icrowell@bu.edu.

My rules for debate:

1. Have fun! Run what interests YOU and I'll do my best to keep up. Winning should not be the highest priority, because if you don't internalize what you learn then your education is morally bankrupt.

2. Don't be an asshole and respect your opponent's wishes about things like speed. You can deconstruct any argument without being a jerk or pushing fascist ideas, and I assume everyone here is acting in good faith.

3. Please have a USB if you're going to be spreading. I am totally fine with email chains but sometimes the internet gets finnicky.

LD Judging Paradigm (last edited: 2/12/20)

I debated varsity Lincoln Douglas for three years at Fenwick High School (IL), with two years on the national circuit. Currently, I am a junior debating for Boston University’s American Parliamentary team.

My judging philosophy is to be as tab as possible. I’ll vote for the arguments that are best impacted and weighed in the round, so however you want to do that is up to you. I’m someone who hated/hates judges who intervene and inject their own biases in rounds, so I’ll do my best to not be that person.

Speed: I can follow speed pretty well, but I don't hear spreading outside of the high school debate circuit so I recommend 70-75% of your max speed. However, you can go faster if you signpost well. If you're cutting cards where you don't read at least some continuous text and lots of paragraphs are skipped, it will be hard for me to follow you. Overviews and good signposting make my job a hell of a lot easier (I’ll do my best, but as someone who is notorious for forgetting to signpost while I’m debating I know that it can be frustrating). Slowing down at author tags is highly recommended. Also, please note: rebuttals should not be spreading off prewritten blocks. Engage with your opponent’s warrants and responses, and don’t assume that 5 prewritten arguments will be sufficient to play defense. Ultimately, you should be able to explain your case extemping your warrants and responses, because if you can't, it likely means you're solely relying on jargon and speed to connect the thesis of your case, which almost always makes it harder for me to understand.

Flex prep is fine with me.

Traditional/Stock/Long Phil Framework Cases: I try to lump all of these together, because I do enjoy a well-executed classic framework debate. Stock and traditional debates can be incredibly well done if the framework arguments and contention/advocacy level arguments are well researched and extended in the round, and by no means will I avoid giving you high speaks simply because you decide to run a straightforward case. I’m currently a philosophy minor, so I should be able understand basically any framework as long as it’s explained well in case and in round. I’m familiar with classic Deontology/util, autonomy frameworks, political philosophy (Locke, Mill, Woller, Constitutionalism, Libertarianism, Rawls, international law, political discourse frameworks, etc.), Winter & Leighton, oppression/human dignity frameworks, normative frameworks, meta-ethics, etc. Seriously, go for anything if you don’t think it falls under high theory like Deleuze. Make sure your substance is concrete enough that your advocacy clearly impacts to the framework and gives me enough weighing/impact analysis for me to actually pick you up.

Policy (LARP): I think policy arguments are great, especially if there is some alternative framework that is not a generic util or consequentialism advocacy. My only requests is to please oh please leave your opponent some ground by not spec-ing them out of the debate. I do not want to be adjudicating Topicality debates because you wanted to be sneaky. That being said, creative plans and creative counterplans will enhance the debate and (if executed well) earn you high speaks. I am totally fine with Disads (including politics DAs), but making the impacts at least logically credulous within the link chains you give will make your argument more credible and certainly easier to comprehend. You can go for extinction and all that, just don't be lazy about it. Be sure to weigh impacts and compare between the possible policy outcomes present in the debate. Breaking down the two worlds and comparing impacts in your rebuttals will give me a clearer ballot.

Kritiks/Performace: I assume these cases are still huge on the circuit, and go for it. Kritiks are a valuable case form because they force us to analyze the practices that are present not only in the topic, but in the general world of debate. Just be aware that you shouldn't expect me to sympathize with you if you run a non-topical K and then get pulverized by someone who actually knows how to beat the K with T. If you are leaving the realm of the topic, T and theory arguments start to hold much more weight when discussing norm setting. K topics I’m at least mildly familiar with: Marxism/anti-Cap/anti-Neoliberalism, anti-Colonialism/Imperialism, anti-militarism, Foulcault/post-modernism, some anti-Blackness (Wilderson), some queer theory.

Side note: I really don't care whether you pick the weighing mechanism to be the Role of the Ballot or the Role of the Judge. I default to assuming ROB is the weighing mechanism, but they're both interrelated, so doing a quick clarification during CX if it really matters is all that's necessary for me to evaluate the round.

Theory/T: If you think there is legitimate abuse happening in a case, by all means run theory and/or T. I am also fine with picking up strategic theory or T if it’s well-run, because while I personally dislike it, I am in no position to sort which are "strategic" and "legitimate" shells. Frivolous theory is strongly discouraged: I'm not going to pick you up on the sixth blippy underview or third shell you read just because your opponent drops it. The rule they violate must actually be relevant and important to punishing abusive case construction. I default to no RVIs, drop the arg, and reasonability (I am of the outrageous opinion that analytical theoretical arguments can hold weight even if they are not structured in a 'standard' theory shell). I also default to no disclosure, and coming from a small school with little nat circuit presence, it'll very difficult for you to win disclosure in front of me. For T/theory vs. the K debates, while I am fine evaluating arguments about how theory comes before the role of the ballot, it's probably also a strategically advantageous idea to weigh your theory norms and impacts under a ROB as well.

High Theory (Deleuze and whatnot): I will do my best to evaluate a Deleuzian framework, but these theories need to be well explained for me to vote on. Don’t simply assume I’ll know your jargon either! I apologize for not being a great high theory, but I just don’t have a lot of experience facing it in rounds and I don’t want to be the reason that you got a loss because the framework was too complex for me to learn in a 45 minute round, so be sure about your case before you run it in front of me.

Existentialism: While I don’t expect to see many of these cases, if you want to run Nietzsche or other Existentialist philosophers, go for it. Apparently I’m moderately famous for running existentialist performance cases on the circuit, and I consider this philosophy my expertise so I love seeing it in round.

Speak policy: I’ll disclose speaks if you'd like. I will only assign low-point wins if the layering/weighing of arguments requires me to pick up something small while you're losing on major parts of the flow. Here is my scale with official guidance from the tournament directors:

Below 25 - You messed up and this is your punishment.

25 – Very very bad speech, but nothing mean or malicious (I promise you won't get speaks this low).

28 – Average varsity speeches, relative to my judging/competing experience.

28.8 – Well-executed round; all of your arguments were solid, and you had good case interaction, but I think you could have made some different strategic decisions or arguments to make your round better.

29.1 - Apparently Harvard is subject to massive speaks inflation, and this was what the lowest 4-2 breaking debaters were averaging last year. If I know what bracket you're in and I think you should definitely break I will adjust accordingly.

29.6+ – Well explained warrants, good time allocation, and excellent strategic choices. I can't think of any obvious flaws in your case or rebuttals, and your advocacy fits well within your framework that you've laid out for the debate.

30 – A 30 is perfect and should be rarely assigned. Quite literally an unbeatable speech. I have only seen a few ever, and only executed this maybe once or twice.

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

Hi, I’m Doron. I coach Ld for Mountain View/Los Altos (CA). I’m also a ph.d student in English at the University of Wisconsin. I have previously coached at Millburn High School (NJ) and UW (WI).

2023-24 is my 15th debate season (including competing for four years in high school). Generally speaking, I consider myself more of a traditional debate coach/judge these days. I don’t dislike circuit debate (most of my dissertation concerns the kinds of things debaters would refer to as “k lit”), but I do dislike judging it.

I find that I’m generally more likely to vote for debaters who:

- Demonstrate strong topic knowledge
- Make sound strategic decisions (knowing which arguments to go for and which to drop because they don’t matter/affect the ballot)
- Make proper extensions (i.e. don’t just tell me to extend something, also tell me why the extension matters)
- Demonstrate a sense of style/personality during the round. I.e. Make the round (or yourself) stand out.
- signpost exceptionally clearly during your rebuttal speeches—I think this is a hugely underrated skill in debate.
- Very explicitly weigh impacts back to the framework.
- Actually seem like they're having fun.

My paradigm has gone through several evolutions over time, but I find that going through all the technicalities is much more important for circuit debate than traditional debate, so I'll keep the document short. I’m also happy to answer any questions you might before the round starts.

I'm a traditional LD coach/judge. I coach CX, as well, but don't care to see CX-style argumentation (CPs, Ks, etc.) in LD (or PF) rounds. That includes CX-style speed. I look for who resolves clash by winning the substantive issues, preferably with a coherent story or clear voters in the rebuttals. I think your values framework is central to warranting how I should interpret the resolution, and any corresponding arguments you make about obligations of how to act should be internally linked to this framework.

In CX, I'm a real world policy maker judge. I see CX as a training ground for future policy makers and voting citizens, so I want to know if plan makes the world a better place or not. When it comes to weighing the round, I'm not swayed by the magnitude of impacts if they are logically absurd, and I'll accept analyticals that tell me why they are so. I'll vote on T but not if the plan is clearly topical. I'll listen to critical positions, but I am unlikely to vote for them unless they are impacted back to a real world impact. If I can't hear the warrant in a card because of your speed, I'm unlikely to find it persuasive.

Harvard '18; Harrison '14

I debated for Harrison on the national circuit. I used to coach and judge pretty frequently, but have become pretty inactive since 2016.

I have a high threshold for clarity, and I will drop you if I have to keep calling clear--I will not let you just re-explain things in later speeches. Be careful with new literature and debate strategies--I am happy and interested to hear them, but I am likely unfamiliar with them and will be hearing them for the first time when you read them. That means you need to be slower, not just what you think is clear.

I care much less about the types of arguments you run and much more about the way you run them--be clear, crystallize well, and clash with your opponent. I will vote on anything that has a claim, warrant, and impact, so long as it is not morally repugnant. That being said, I will be much happier with and give higher speaks to debaters who debate the topic and/or show creative, independent thinking. Perceptual dominance, making an attempt at being persuasive, and being kind and respectful will also be good for your speaks.

Ask me about any other specifics before the round.

I competed in high school speech and debate all four years back in the 1990s and have been judging Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum debate for the last eight years.

Well reasoned arguments and high quality evidence are more convincing to me than twenty evidence cards- quality not quantity please! Speech and Debate is fundamentally an oral communication event and if I can't understand you your arguments can't persuade me.

Although NSDA rules allow citing sources as "Jones 2020", if I need to weigh competing evidence, knowing that "Jones 2020" is from The Washington Post instead of Wikipedia is important.

If you can't find the evidence in 30 seconds, we will move along- Organization is part of the preparation for this event.

Learning how to organize your thoughts quickly and how to stay cool under pressure/cross examination is a terrific life skill- this is an amazing activity and will help you in your later professional life no matter your high school win-loss record.

I'm currently a junior at Harvard studying social anthropology on the premed track. I debated LD for 4 years throughout high school.

Some key points:

1) Please be clear and organized. Roadmapping and signposting are great—this ensures that I won't miss anything as I flow.

2) I'm pretty traditional when it comes to LD and am therefore more familiar with traditional arguments. I expect to hear a value and value criterion. I can deal with some speed, but I'm not a fan of spreading. If I can't understand you, I can't flow and I'll likely miss important arguments.

3) What I'll really be looking for is how you weigh your arguments & the value/value criterion debate. Clash is important, don't just argue across each other, really measure arguments against each other.

4) I'm fairly familiar with philosophers & values used in LD, but quick definitions are still appreciated. Please don't assume I'll automatically know what you're talking about.

Thanks!

I am a parent judge with considerable experience judging on the circuit. Please do not spread.

I have been a coach and consultant for the past 28 years and done every debate format available stateside and internationally. I also have taught at Stanford, ISD, Summit, UTD, UT, and Mean Green camps as a Curriculum Director and Senior Instructor. I think no matter what form of debate that you do, you must have a narrative that answers critical questions of who, what, when, where, why, how, and then what, and so what. Debaters do not need to be shy and need to be able to weigh and prioritize the issues of the day for me in what I ought to be evaluating. Tell me as a judge where I should flow things and how I ought to evaluate things. That's your job.

If you would like for me to look at a round through a policy lens, please justify to me why I ought to weigh that interpretation versus other alternatives. Conversely, if you want me to evaluate standards, those need to be clear in their reasoning why I ought to prioritize evaluation in that way.

In public forum, I need the summary to be a line by line comparison between both worlds where the stark differences exist and what issues need to be prioritized. Remember in the collapse, you cannot go for everything. Final focus needs to be a big pic concept for me. Feel free to use policy terms such as magnitude, scope, probability. I do evaluate evidence and expect you all to do the research accordingly but also understand how to analyze and synthesize it. Countering back with a card is not debating. The more complicated the link chain, the more probability you may lose your judge. Keep it tight and simple and very direct.

In LD, I still love my traditional Value and VC debate. I do really like a solid old school LD round. I am not big on K debate only because I think the K debate has changed so much that it becomes trendy and not a methodology that is truly educational and unique as it should be. Uniqueness is not the same as obscurity. Now, if you can provide a good solid link chain and evaluation method of the K, go for it. Don't assume my knowledge of the literature though because I don't have that amount of time in my life but I'm not above understanding a solidly good argument that is properly formatted. I think the quickest way to always get my vote is to write the ballot for me and also keep it simple. Trickery can make things messy. Messy debaters usually get Ls. So keep it simple, clean, solid debate with the basics of claim, warrant, impact, with some great cards and I'll be happy.

I don't think speed is ever necessary in any format so speak concisely, know how to master rhetoric, and be the master of persuasion that way. Please do not be rude to your opponent. Fight well and fight fair. First reason for me to down anyone is on burdens. Aff has burden of proof, neg has burden to clash unless it is WSD format where burdens exist on both sides to clash. If you have further questions, feel free to ask specifics.

In plat events, structure as well as uniqueness (not obscurity) is key to placing. Organization to a speech as well as a clear call to order is required in OO, Info, Persuasive. In LPs, answer the question if you want to place. Formatting and structure well an avoid giving me generic arguments and transitional phrases. Canned intros are not welcome in my world usually and will be frowned upon. Smart humor is always welcome however.

I want you all to learn, grow, have fun, and fight fair. Best of luck and love one another through this activity!!

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.

I am an LD coach in the CFL, but I have experience judging all debate events.

Value & Criterion - remember this is LD, not PF. Ultimately I am looking for you to tie all points in your case back to your value structure. Your value structure sets a standard for me to weigh the round. Be sure that your case upholds the standard established in your value structure.

Clarity, Logic, & IMPACT - Keep your arguments concise and to the point. Snowball effects and illogical conclusions will cause me to discount your arguments. I want to see impact!! Why is what you are arguing important? Why should I care? Evidence should be clear and concise, cited and applied correctly to your case.

Structure & Narrative: I like to see a clear narrative throughout your case. Why and how does your offense outweigh your opponents? I like you to give me clear voters that link back into the narrative of your offense.

QUALITY > Quantity - Speed does not win a round with me. Logical, original, well-thought out arguments will win your round. I will flow as you debate, and if I cannot understand you I can not flow your arguments. I can handle some speed, but if you spew out as many arguments as you can or barrel through reading your case, I will likely just drop my pen. A good debater can give clear, logical arguments in the time frame allotted without needing to speed read. Again, QUALITY is better than quantity.

Maturity & Civility - I will take points for arrogance, rudeness, or immaturity. There is never cause to be nasty or unkind to your opponent. If you cannot argue your side diplomatically and respectfully, your lack of professionalism will be reflected in speaker points.

A few notes on flowing....

If you call for a card in round, and then fail to bring it back up, I assume you conceded the point to your opponent. Depending on the specifics of the round I may dock points for this.

I do not flow the author's name of a card. If you continue to reference arguments by using the author's name as a tag, I won't know to which argument you are referring, and I won't be flowing it.

I do not flow CX but I am listening closely and I appreciate when you extend arguments or points from CX into rebuttal

I will use my flow in my decision making, but it will not be the only point of reference for my decision. There is something to be said for your style of communication and delivery as well as the arguments you make.

TLDR: I am pretty tab and will vote on anything so long as its not morally repugnant and you tell me why it matters.

I would like to be on the email chain; Katyaaehresman@gmail.com . please time yourselves, flashing isnt prep unless its egregious. Let me know what pronouns you use & pls abide be your opponents pronouns.

Extensions of an aff arent 'overviews to the 1ar'.. they are just on case.. you prob want me to extend them n the flow not in a clump... idk why this is a trend

on this - i tend to haave a higher threshold for extensions, you need a warrant and impact for me to vote on it.

If things get uncomfortable, you need to leave because of mental health/personal safety reasons etc. just message me or knock on the table & give me some look and you will be allowed to go get water/we can stop the round/whatever is best in that situation. Debate should be safe & accessible in order to get these ~portable skillz~ all the kids are talking about.

Short version: Give me some sort of framework to weigh offense under or tell me why the impacts that you are winning are the top layer and I will be happy. I try to do as little work for you as possible so if you didn’t do big picture analysis or weighing the I’ll have to cipher through flows to make a more arbitrary decision and then we are all sadbois. You can read anything you want, though I am probably better at evaluating K/Larp debates and worse at evaluating dense Phil/friv theory debates ~~~ do with that what you will. I care about how you treat one another in round so if you are being obnoxious or problematic in anyway to your opponent, I will start dropping your speaks and if its irredeemable then I won’t vote for you. *shrug emoji* If you are worried about your behavior then… err on the side of being nice?????

Long Version:

I think paradigms are supposed to be more like what sorts of strategies I like to see on each type of flow to help you W30 in front of me so these are things that make me very happy:

Ks:

• Great, love them
• Pls win some sort of link or a reason why me voting for you matters & WARRANT it - I will probably call you on just regurgitating tags if that’s all you do for extensions.. do work please
• Performance is fine, the resolution isn’t always necessary as a stasis point if you tell me why - but I don’t have a default on this.
• PIKs are fine, be clear on what exactly you (my ballot) is solving for
• Subsequently I can be persuaded by PIKs bad, again just warrant it and do top level weighing

K affs:

• Again, love these! Read a wide spectrum of them myself.
• Apply strategy/framing issues from the K section here too
• Win why either talking about the topic is bad, your approach to talking about the topic is better, why your method or approach is good etc. and importantly what happens when I sign aff on the ballot.
• Don’t shy away from your off in the 1AR - a big pet peeve of mine is when debaters invest a lot of work into a solid K aff that has warrants about why your pedagogy or performance comes first and then you kick it and go for theory or barely extend it and the round comes down to the neg flows… don’t be like this

Performance:

• This is great, I love this - go for whatever you feel like/want, make the round your own - again just warrant why its important and importantly what my role in endorsing your performance is/why the round is important for this medium.

DAs:

• Great, some of my favorite debates are really good topical, substantive larpy rounds
• Give me clear impact calculus/ an internal link story
• I don’t think there are really many paradigm issues surrounding DAs normally… ask me whatever

CPs/PICs:

• Great and super strategic
• CP/Pic theory also viable - I don’t really have a default on pics good/bad but am probably persuaded that its good to test the policy of the aff from different angles
• Analytic, actor, delay etc. Cps are fine - just warrant solvency & competitiveness and give me some sort of net benefit to your world
• This is true with DAs too but try to give me some comparative worlds weighing, again - tell me where & why to vote

Theory:

• Have a low threshold for frivolous theory, would prefer people to just have substantive debate but I am very receptive to engagement and in round abuse preventing topical clash
• Just warrant an abuse story
• Go slow on interps

T/framework:

• very open to this
• If you’re hitting a k aff then try to weigh offense from the shell under the k fw - do interactions or clear layering, these debates get v messy v quick

Phil:

• Slow down a bit on long analytic dumps
• Err towards over-explaining phil warrants

Speed/speaks:

• Go as fast as you want but emphasize clarity
• I give speaks based off of strategy not speaking quality but strategy requires me to flow it and so clarity is somewhat necessary for that
• I will tank your speaks if you are rude, aggressive, say something morally repugnant, demeaning to your opponent etc. so pls don’t do this

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.

I debated in the Eastern Missouri district for four years. During that time, I competed in LD, Domestic Extemp, and Oratory, but I have experience with policy debate. That being said, I can handle speed, but if it is not necessary to the arguments you're going to make then, I don't see the point. I have judged at many tournaments within my district, as well as the NCFL Grand National Tournament. In terms of what I like to see, I would prefer that your case have a value and value criterion, but if you don't I need to see real justification for why you do not have one. I would like to see that you extend your arguments, and impact calculus is also very crucial in my decision.

Conflicts: Concord Carlisle High School

I debated four years of high school LD and have judged a handful of rounds during my senior year. I am currently an undergraduate student majoring in philosophy and economics.

While I will try my best to evaluate all arguments, I will not vote on arguments that I find incomprehensible. It's the responsibility of the debater to make sure that I am understanding your arguments the first time around.

I am okay with some speed, but make sure that it does not detract from your ability to communicate clearly. I will be sure to shout "clear" when I need you to slow down, but I'll only do this a couple of times before leaving you to your own devices.

I prefer philosophical framework debate and/or empirical debate with strong evidence comparison. If done well, I am likely to be generous with speaker points. I don't feel strongly either way about critiques, theory, or other non-traditional arguments, but I don't like frivolous theory. If these arguments are clever and well explained, I'll give high speaks as well. Do whatever you feel comfortable with, just make sure you understand what you're talking about enough to explain it clearly to me.

I think debate should be educational and fun. Use your common sense, be polite, and do your best! If you have any specific questions, please feel free ask me before the round.

For both LD and PF, I'm a very traditional judge. Extreme speed, overuse of jargon, and trickery are not appreciated and could cost you the round. Win the round on the strength of your argument, the veracity of your evidence, and the clarity of your presentation. I will disclose ONLY if required by the tournament host. I will offer no oral critiques. Both of those are the purpose of the ballot.

Do not offer to flash your cases. First, I don't really understand what that means as I used a pencil and paper during my debating career. Second, I should not have to read them to decide a winner-this is supposed to be about verbal debate that "lay" people can understand.

As a general rule, I don't listen to anything you are saying during the cross examination periods. I strongly believe this time is just for the two competitors to discuss their cases and seek clarification on issues. If something meaningful does come up in CX, make sure to include it in one of your rebuttal speeches.

Lincoln Douglas:

I view LD as a values-driven debate, and therefore prioritize core value and value criterion arguments. The debater who best establishes and defends the connection between their CV and VC, as well as addresses the shortcomings of their opponent's framework will win. I find little use for evidence-based arguments unless it directly explains or supports a debater's value framework, and often ignore evidence when making decisions.

Public Forum:

I flow the rounds and appreciate careful and reasonably-paced speaking, good evidence, and knowledge of your sources.

For evidence: quality over quantity. Understand your evidence. Ideally you should be able to:

- explain any expert opinion you cite (rather than just stating it),

- understand where a statistic comes from (how a study was done, what its limitations are etc),

- defend the relevance of any empirical evidence you present, and

- be sure you’re not misrepresenting evidence.

Do not heavily rely on esoteric counter-plans or kritques, but that does not mean I will not entertain them when used appropriately and well. I don't mind "out there" arguments-make them mean something and be sure to weigh them.

I dislike extensions, as in "extend our first contention/impacts." I prefer debaters who take the time to explain why dropping a contention or impact matters within the context of the debate and how I ought to weigh it.

Conflicts: Desert Vista, Chandler Prep

Yes email chain: rsferdowsian@gmail.com

I debated at Chandler Prep for 3 years and currently debate for ASU

LD-specific section at the bottom

General:

- I don't care what types of arguments you read, as long as they're (a) well-explained and warranted and (b) well-impacted out (by which I broadly mean implication-work as to why winning your args wins you my ballot, not just straight impact-calc)

- Framing is key, especially in the last 2 rebuttals - you're not going to win everything, so tell me what's most important for my decision and deal with what the other team is saying is most important

- I default to an offense-defense paradigm unless told otherwise

- I won't judge kick unless 2nr says so. For both sides: don't let the 'judge kick good/bad' debate start in the 2nr/2ar, esp. if the status of the CP is clarified earlier. The neg should say 'status quo is always a logical option' or even something more explicit in the 2nc for 'judge kick good' not to be new in the 2nr; similarly, aff should say judge kick bad before the 2ar, even when not extending condo bad as such in the 1ar. If the first times I hear the words judge kick are in last two rebuttals, I'll be forced to actually evaluate all the new 2ar args, so don't let that happen neg

- I might not know as much as you about the intricate, technical aspects of the topic, so be clear and slow on topic-specific phrases/acronyms, especially with T

Case:

- 2acs are generally terrible on case, the block should point this out, exploit it, and protect itself from new 1ar stuff

- Good case debating by the neg (and aff) = good speaks

Topicality v policy affs:

- I default competing interps. I've personally never understood intuitively or theoretically how one would decide whether an aff is "reasonably" T or not, so if you're going for reasonability on the aff, make sure you are very clear on what that means/how judges would determine reasonability under that frame or I'll be persuaded by the neg saying reasonability is arbitrary

- I usually view the relative interpretations as 'advocacies' the provide uniqueness for/solve each side's offense and the standards on both sides as net benefits/advantages to that standard/disads to the other, like a CP+DA debate. (If you don't want me to view it that way you should tell me). This means that impact calc is super important, eg "aff ground outweighs limits", "precision outweighs", etc.

Theory:

- I'd love to hear a super in-depth "condo bad" debate, if the aff goes for this and does it well I'll probably give pretty good speaks

(Personal opinion: condo is good; being neg is hard; but I can be easily persuaded otherwise.)

- Everything else: I default to rejecting the argument, not the team; if you want me to reject the team, explain why it's justified/what the (preferably in-round, not just potential) abuse is

- The CP+DA thing from the Topicality section above applies here too, which means interpretations matter a lot (a good example of this is that the aff going for "states CPs with uniformity are not allowed, non-uniform states CPs are allowed" would solve a lot of neg offense while also allowing you to go for unique offense to uniformity being uneducational, cheating, etc.)

Disads:

- "DA turns case" is important and should be answered in the 1ar

- "DA solves case" is underutilized

-*Impact calc* - not just magnitude/probability/TF but also filtering arguments (e.g. 'heg solves everything'), filters for evidence-quality ('prefer our empirics over speculation'), etc.

- Again, I default offense-defense but I am ok with concluding that there is 0% risk of a DA. It's really important for the aff to be explicit when doing this (e.g. say something like "offense defense is bad for policymaking and decision-making")

Counterplans:

- I'm probably much more open to theoretically cheating CPs than most judges, just win the theory debate (for this, confer above on Topicality).

- Really techy CPs should be explained in the 2nc/1nr to a certain dumbed-down level

Ks v Policy Affs:

- FW matters a lot; the negative needs to set up a framing for the debate that shifts the question the ballot is answering away from whether the plan is better than the status quo/some competitive option, or at least provides a very specific set of criteria about how that question should be answered (e.g. ontological come first, reps first, etc.). Make sure to be clear about *what winning framework means for how I write my ballot*; i.e. does it mean I refuse to evaluate the consequences of the plan altogether? or just that the way in which I evaluate it changes? or something else?

- If you don't make FW args in the 2nc (at least implicitly), 2ac args like "Perm: double bind", "alt fails/is utopian", "state inevitable", or "extinction outweighs" become serious threats if extended well by the aff.

- The 2nc/2nr should explain your theory of how the world works and explain why I should think it's true relative to their policymaking stuff - isolating a specific section of the flow where you explain your theory (especially with high-theory kritiks), or just weaving it into the Line by Line, can go a long way

- Examples are always good for K debate, in all its different components

- Aff args I find true/persuasive: extinction outweighs, institutions matter, debate is a game, perm (if alt is explained as a CP instead of as a framework argument).

- I honestly don't care if you're going to read a long 2nc overview, but please be honest about it before the speech so I can get a new sheet of paper (I'll probably flow on paper, not laptop); I try hard to maintain the Line by line would prefer you just be up-front about it.

FW versus K affs:

- I have read K affs against FW, but I have also read FW against K affs, so I'd like to think I'm not too ideological when it comes to these debates. My voting record in these debates is probably ~60/40 in favor of the neg on FW, usually due to a lack of well-warranted arguments as to why the neg's model is bad (instead of buzzwords) as well as a lack of answer to significant defensive claims like TVA/SSD.

- Impact framing is paramount in these debates: the impacts the two teams are going for are often radically different -- e.g., how should I weigh a slight risk of unfairness against a risk of the neg's model of debate being a bit neoliberal/racist/X-ist? I'll probably end up voting for whoever does a better job answering these types of questions

- For the neg: TVA is important but Switch side is really underutilized as a defensive argument imo.

- Fairness can be an impact in and of itself if you explain why, although, all else being even, it's probably not the best 2nr impact in front of me since it begs the question of the value of the game it supports.

- Better neg impacts to FW for me: clash, dogmatism, truth-testing, even institutions good offense

- Limits and ground are (probably) just internal links, not impacts

- For the aff: *explain a clear vision of what your model of debate looks like under your interp*.

- I'm down for the extremist K strats that just impact turn every standard the neg goes for, but I'm also down for running more to the middle and explaining why your model is still topical/debatable 'enough' but with some significant net benefits over theirs. If you're doing the latter, your interp should be super well-explained in the context of their limits/predictability offense

K v K:

- These can be some of the best or some of the worst debates - worst when neither side gets beyond tagline extensions, best when each side speaks as if they were an actual scholar in whatever field they're deploying, doing comparative analysis of the other team's theories in relation to their own

- Impact calc and framing is crucial, esp. in rounds where both sides are discussing some identity-related oppression impacts. This doesn't mean saying certain lives or groups matter more than others, it's precisely to avoid that: you all should discuss your theories of the world in ways that don't put me in the position of having to 'pit' certain lives against one another, otherwise I'll have a rough time and so will you

- I'm down for not giving the aff a perm in these debates, BUT it's got to be explained much further than "no perms in a methods debate" - that's not a warranted argument. To win this, the neg should explain why perms in debates where no one advocates gov. action are uneducational, unfair, incoherent, bad for radical pedagogy, etc. and, ideally, also provide an alternate model for what the burden of rejoinder looks like if the neg doesn't have to win that the K is an opportunity cost to the aff.

- Cf. "K v Policy Aff" section above on long 2nc Overviews

***LD-Specific***

1. Fair warning: I tend to vote neg... a lot, seemingly too much, usually on technical concessions in the 2ar (damn speech structures).

To deal with this if you're aff:

- make sure you win your case - I've noticed I have a tendency to vote neg on presumption when the NR makes some circumvention args that the 2AR just straight-up drops in the last speech.

- also, make sure you frame the debate for me such that, even if there are some tech-y drops, I'm more likely to vote for you

2. Full disclosure: I don't get LD theory, like, at all. I don't really get RVI's, I don't know how they function, and I'm convinced most LD'ers don't either, so generally, if theory is your thing, just be very clear on these three components of theory debates: (a) interps, (b) violations, and (c) standards. As long as that basic template is there in some form, I can do my best.

Random things:

- I probably won't read that many cards unless it's brought up in the debate or I'm stealing your cites

- Flashing isn't prep but be quick

- Clipping means you lose and will get bad speaks; I'll try to follow whatever the tournament procedure is for this

- Extra speaks to anyone who brings me some flavored iced coffee beverage/bothered to read this far down.

Good luck!

I'm Judy and I participated in 4 years of LD debate for The Meadows School. I recently graduated from Wellesley College.

Short Version:

"If you have no h8rs, you are doing something wrong." Tim Alderete

K's and Policy style arguments in general are Kool

I have a higher threshold for bad theory "This probably means you think I’m 'Interventionist.'"

However I do not mind theory debates as long as they are good theory debates (i.e. pls don't run date theory in front of me)

"I can handle the speed" but with online tournaments please keep spreading to a minimum.

Long version:

I like K's but if you don't understand it don't run it. If you can't explain it then there's no way your opponent or I will understand, thus I'm more likely to drop you. As my coach Tim Alderete said, "Good K debates are some of the best debates I've ever judged. Bad K debates are some of the worst debates I've judged."

I won't extend arguments for you. When you extend your arguments you must explain the warrant or else I won't give you credence.

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.

I am a parent judge, and have judged for two years on the local and national circuit. 
I would consider myself a traditional flow judge. I'm not comfortable with judging a progressive round (i.e. kritiks, theory, plans, spreading etc...) 

Framework.

• I am open to hearing different frameworks, however I personally have not read the literature behind many of these frameworks. That being said make sure you explain your framework carefully. Don't just rush through and expect me to perfectly follow. I will judge the round based on your ability to maintain your framework via your value and value criterion and supporting contention level offense.
• I enjoy both a good philosophical framework debate and a good contention/substance debate. If you engage in the philosophical debate, make sure to make your weighing is clear and explain how your framework is better or your opponents is wrong etc. Short and blippy framework arguments are not the way to win the framework debate. CLEAR EXPLANATION IS KEY.

Substance/Contention 

• I see evidence as a way of proving the validity of your arguments/claims, not claims/arguments themselves. Don't run a chain of evidence and names and expect me to vote for it.
• Logical arguments are valid in my view, however don't make crazy assertions and expect me to agree with them.
• Far stretched arguments links to plausibility and topicality must be clear and evident. If you plan on running something unique make sure to explain it well. I enjoy hearing unique and different arguments/perspectives, however make sure to explain the link well.

Argumentation (rebuttal)

• When making extensions don't tell me to extend John Smith 15, summarize what I'm extending and why should I care that your opponent dropped/conceded to this argument. Extensions are meaningless unless you tell me why I care. I will not put in the impacts for you.
• Don't make the argument "my study is better" or "this argument is not plausible" or "drop this." Give me a reason why. Im not saying i won't vote off argument weighing, but if you don't provide a reason why you opponents argument is wrong or yours is better, I won't do the work for you.
• Im not looking to blocks to every card brought up, but rather can you effectively refute the argument the card is supporting. Cards are not arguments, but rather back up your arguments validity.

Speaker Points

• On average, I give 27-29 speaker points.
• to get a 30 in round
  • 1. clearly articulate your words
  • 2. arguments must be well organized
  • 3. word economy
  • 4. Good overall argumentation
  • 5. clear thought process (Can i tell where you are going with what you are saying or is it unorganized and incoherent)

Policy like arguments.
Im a more traditional judge, i never did the activity personally, however that does not mean that i will not be open to hearing different types of arguments such as plans and counter plans. 
Im not familiar with the particular structures of plans/counterplans; however, I am open to listening and judging these.

Policy Arguments I can't Judge. 

• Theory: I don't have enough experience to judge theory.
• Kritiks: Im not familiar with how to judge/the literature behind kritik arguments.
• Spreading: I see spreading as a harmful aspect to debate with no out of round positive benefits. Spreading will lower your speaks and most likely result in me being unable to flow the round.

I'm looking forward to seeing you in round for a good debate.

For the email chain and any contact you need - 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.

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?

harvard '20, wilson '16
furtado [at] college.harvard.edu

i debated four years on the natcir, first 3 in policy, last in ld. i bid in policy and qualified to the toc in ld at harvard semis without a coach or team - so i am sympathetic to small schools. the following paradigm is for ld, but can be applied to policy.

cheat sheet
larp/policy: 1 - 2
k: 1 - 2
fwk: 3 - 5
theory: 4 - S

hot new paradigm updates!! (2/15/20):

• i flow the words coming out of your mouth. emailing out a speech doc is not a substitute for words coming out of your mouth. corollary: i don't look at screenshots on docs.

• if your AC baits theory, your speaks are capped at a 28 and you will almost certainly get a low point win. (note: K affs aren't baiting theory, ACs that spend 2 minutes on substance and then 4 on the underview are)

general
my paradigm is a default, most of it can be easily changed by arguments in round. i vote based on the flow.

• please, please, slow down on author citations.
• i compare worlds to evaluate who won.
• i default offense/defense. i don't think terminal defense is a thing. (this preference is not strict, but it is hard for me to evaluate the round using a different paradigm)
• i believe in the post/pre-fiat distinction. i find it hard to be convinced that post-fiat offense should be evaluated on the same layer as theory or reps.
• i don't vote on rep. i don't care if you are the top debater in the country: if you lose the round, you lose. even if I wanted to vote on rep, I'm so bad with names I probably wouldn't be able to remember who is who. i still vote for top debaters more, because they are generally better.
• i have a very low threshold for extensions of dropped arguments, particularly in LARP debates.
• tech > truth, at least as much as possible. i am not interventionist.

larp
i debated policy, so go for it. CPs are cool, DAs are cool, etc.

• i have a low threshold on answering theoretical objections to politics da.
• link can control the direction of UQ, UQ can't control the direction of the link.

K
this is what i mostly read, i'm familiar with a fair bit of literature.

• i like topic-specific links.
• ROTJ is cool but not essential, especially against a util aff.
• spend time explaining how the K interacts with the framework. most Ks rely on a somewhat assumed util framework and you need to justify either why util is true or framework/ideal theory debates are bad.

framework

• i am epistemically uncertain regarding moral truths.
• i understand different moral frameworks and some meta-ethical justifications for them. however, I mostly read util during my career.
• skep is fine, try not to read it against Ks or soft-left impacts though. you need to explain to me why skep isn't just defense.

theory
theory is a necessary evil. unnecessary theory initiation is bad for your speaks. with that in mind, here are my thoughts:

• i default reasonability - that means if you don't win competing interps and i think the counter-interp is reasonable, you lose the argument (and the round if there is an RVI).
• i default "drop the arg" on theory, "drop the debater" on T
• i am open to RVIs, but don't read new 2AR RVIs.
• if it happened out of round, i do not care. i won't look at screenshots. you can usually win the disclosure theory debate in front of me by pointing out that there's no way to judge out of round conduct. that said, i browse the wiki and disclosure practices will definitely impact the speaks you get.

speaks/misc
28.5 means i think you should clear.

here are things that impact your speaks:

• disclosure on the wiki will bump it up.
• friv theory initiation will lower it.
• racism/sexism/ableism/etc. will tank it.
• being a jerk will lower it. i don't judge debate just to watch high schoolers be dicks to each other.

I did not participate in Debate in high school due to other commitments, but I did converse with friends about their Public Forum and Policy cases as well as sit in on a couple practices.

During my winter break, I volunteered to judge for both LD and Public Forum for our local meet, of which I judged 2 rounds for each.

My decision is based greatly on the value and criterion, as well as how strongly the contentions support said value. I do find delivery to be important in regards to sounding confident in one's own standing, but I do not let this affect weigh heavily in my decision.

I write down key arguments brought up during the round, and I decide the winner based off of how well the student supported their position in the context of their criterion.

Updated 25 August 2019

TL;DR: Parent judge (arghh/ yipeee/ whatever-you-feel). I am able to flow most common types of args (but not dense phil/Ks) delivered at normal speed. I value logical args/ rebuttals, even if purely analytical.

Spreading: I will likely miss some args but will do my best to follow along with any speech docs you share. I strongly recommend you slow down for your tags and crucial points, especially if extemporaneous. Do signpost.

Case Debate: I expect a basic level of case debate in addition to whatever else you may choose to run.

Theory: I am unlikely to view it favorably unless you can show a timely pre-round good faith effort to avoid citing the violation in question. Unless it is a completely unexpected/ egregious in-round violation, the burden is on you to have engaged in pre-round communications if it could have voided the need for a theory debate.

Warrants: Incontrovertible, objective, data based cards are more potent than opinions/ claims. If I call for a card, I am also checking the text you minimized/ did not read.

ROB/ ROJ: Unless proven otherwise, all args will be viewed as a strategy to win a HS debate round and not as an altruistic endeavor to effect societal/ policy change.

Hi! I debated for four years at Scarsdale High School. I won't vote on arguments that are unwarranted or clearly offensive. But aside from that, do whatever you want. Theory, K's, LARP, Framework, etc. are all fine. Just make sure to start off slow and to thoroughly explain dense arguments. Have fun!

Hello! I do not judge much, so my paradigm will be brief, but hopefully informative. I have a background in Congressional, Extemporaneous, and Lincoln-Douglas Debate primarily in the state of Wisconsin. The Wisconsin circuit is distinctly more traditional than the national circuit and that is what I expect and reward in a round. I am a flow judge, I will be a fair judge, but I am a lay judge in the sense that I am not a fan of progressive argumentation or spreading. I will work with what is presented before me, but please consider that my experiences and strengths do not rest with progressive debate and I will have a tough time understanding it.

I value professional and respectful debates and will, in part, award speaker points on the environment you create and how you treat your opponent. Please be kind.

Thanks and good luck!

I have been doing debate since middle school, where I did LD. Freshman and sophomore year of high school I did Public Forum, Student Congress, and some forensic events. Junior and senior year of high school I competed on a collegiate debate team and made it to nationals in LD. I am willing to vote on anything but I want to hear a proven impact.

I have been judging and coaching Lincoln-Douglas debate for 5 years. Based on what I’ve learned and my interpretation of the unique aspects of Lincoln-Douglas debate, the following describes my judging paradigm.

Lincoln-Douglas DSebate debate is a clash of values. The value represents a means to a world “as it should be.” Thus, the debater that proves persuasively that their case would advance the world to a point that is closer to what it should be best will likely win the round. Here are some specific points that I believe are important to help persuade me:

1. Analysis – The debater will clearly present a logical argument and also effectively refute the opponent’s case. A better case will also leave me with fewer unanswered questions about the case and the connections between its evidence and argument. A better case will also demonstrate clearly the debater's thoughtfulness in preparing a well-rounded case capable of sustaining itself in the face of a persistent inquisition about its evidence-based arguments and its ability to persuade me to believe that their case renders the world a better place than the alternative being presented in the round.
2. Proof – There should be a sufficient quantity of high-quality evidence to support the case. More evidence is not always better. Connections between contentions and values should be explicit and clear.
3. Organization - There should be a logical and orderly presentation throughout the round.
4. Refutation/ Clash – The better debater will demonstrate the ability to critically analyze the opponent’s arguments and develop clear and logical responses with the effective use of evidence and examples.
5. Delivery – The speech must be understandable, interesting, and persuasive. An LD debater should demonstrate effective oral communication skills including effective reading; clear and understandable delivery; persuasive vocal argumentation; presence; and eye contact. “Spreading” during rounds is discouraged for this reason – instead of overwhelming your opponent with speed that renders you unintelligible, a superior ability to identify and present the best arguments concisely is a much better representation of analytical acumen and the intent of LD debate.

The above criteria apply to progressive debaters as well. For any debaters who wish to advance a progressive case: please understand that I will likely find it difficult to understand and judge your progressive case as effectively as a more experienced judge. Do not interpret my difficulty in judging a progressive case on its merits as a sign of disrespect or disinterest. Conversely, I am typically quite fascinated by such cases. However, my interest in and respect for well-developed progressive cases does not render my ability to judge them reasonably or adequately any more likely. For any progressive cases, please note, therefore, that while I will do my best to judge your case, there is likely to be much of it that I struggle to integrate into my evaluation, try as I might.

Good luck to all competitors. I look forward to observing, critiquing, and judging your rounds.

Best,

JH

I debated for 4 years in the Eastern Missouri NSDA District. I mainly focused on events (Domestic Extemp), but I did compete in LD at around 10 tournaments. I recently judged PuF at a local tournament, but I haven't had much judging experience otherwise.

Things I like:

Selection of a value criterion that successfully measures value / arguments that are supported by reputable and varied sources / clear, medium-paced speech / incorporating responses during cross-ex into later speeches

Things I don't like:

Unnecessary aggression, especially during cross-ex / dropping arguments / speeches that are well under the time limit / use of "canned" (corny) phrases or examples

Things that take precedence as I make my final decision:

Content (i.e., cogent and well-defended arguments + ability to address and dismantle most of the opponent's arguments) over presentation/style

I have been a litigation attorney in Florida for 24 years. Today I mainly handle appeals in Florida state court, which is a similar but abbreviated form of alternating debate with interruptions and questions from the judges (for example, 10 minute opening/15 minute answer/5 minute rebuttal). Like debaters, lawyers are limited to a specific time.

I have judged high school debate at the Harvard Forensics tournament for the last two years, including on 3-judge elimination panels. Generally, I have a distaste for overly technical arguments which don't actually tend to show that the speaker is right or the opponent is wrong. I cannot accept "spreading" because (1) it is something that would never, ever happen in court, a meaningful debate, or argument on television in a county or city commission meeting, state legislature, Congress, or anywhere else in the real world; and (2) it is impossible for me to follow, take notes and evaluate the presentation. Speaking too fast also suggests a panicked or rushed delivery that just isn't effective.

I think making eye contact and calm, respectful but confident, conversational (not flippant, sarcastic, informal or casual) style is the most effective way to make a persuasive case for anything. Instead of speaking too fast with too many words, a winning debater chooses words well and is concise and direct.

A speaker should look me in the eye and convey logically why their case is right; what support they have for their argument; why the opponent's arguments are flawed/illogical/wrong; and why the opponent's supporting authority is flawed or reliance thereon is misplaced or illogical.

Hello! I have been debating since my sophomore year of high school, primarily in parliamentary-style debate. I’m currently a member of the Tufts Debate Society, which competes on the American Parliamentary Debate Association circuit (APDA). Altogether, I’ve been judging and debating for around six years. I have taught a variety of debate formats to high school debate classes, including LD, but have not formally judged LD rounds. Regardless of format, I approach debates as a tabula rasa judge.

Because I’m not overly familiar with the norms of the style and this season’s topic, please try to explain very specific jargon the first time you mention it. General debate concepts and terms are fine. :)

Fast speaking is also fine - APDA has its fair share of that - but I genuinely cannot understand spreading, so try not to do that.

Updated Jan 2020

tl;dr:
I'm tab and will vote on anything.

General Things:

I debated for four years in high school and continued onto 4 years of college debate. I don't frequently judge on the circuit, so I'd appreciate if you'd slow down. That being said, if I say “louder”, that means speak louder, not slow down. I won’t feel comfortable voting on something that I’m not sure if I heard.

I'm open to a wide variety of argumentative styles and approaches.

I’m tab. I’ll listen to almost anything you tell me, but if I genuinely feel uncomfortable (because you’re saying something racist/sexist/etc.) I’ll stop flowing.

Extensions:

I have an exceedingly low threshhold for extensions.

If something is dropped, I’ll grant you it if you just explicitly point it out.

I’m amenable to voting off of tricks, but if I don’t think the argument was flowable the first time, I’ll listen to responses in the NR/2AR. That being said, I think most arguments are flowable most of the time.

Framework and Ks:

I’m familiar with framework and I studied Philosophy at Harvard. Since leaving high school, I’ve become convinced by Sophia Caldera’s stance on comparing frameworks:

• The round runs into an obvious problem when both debaters tell me some framework warrant "precludes everything." Please give me specific comparison or weighing between framework arguments instead of relying on concessions of overhyped analytics.

I’m interested in well-fleshed out framework debates between framework and the K, as well as well-warranted theory interactions.

I don't know what "link harder into the K" means. Do you mean that your opponent has done or said something that indicates that there is a second, independently sufficient way in which they link into the K? Or do you mean that they're repeating the action that caused them to link into it in the first place? Am I supposed to judge differently if someone links "hard" into the K as opposed to "a moderate amount" or "just a little bit"? Be clear and specific.

Theory:

Slow down on interps. Please make clear arguments for whatever paradigm issues you want me to use on theory.

I have no preconceptions about whether fairness or education is more important.

For some reason, someone runs disclosure theory in front of me in probably half the rounds I judge. I don't really like disclosure theory, but I find that I often pick it up and speak it well. If it's well-executed and wins the round, I'll pick it up and speak it well. But I still don't like it. That probably tells you something about the kind of judge that I am.

Other:

I don’t like passive aggression in the CX. If you’re gonna critical of your opponent’s arguments, be open about it. If you are passive aggressive, it won’t affect your speaks or whether or not you win or lose, but I might be sarcastic during my RFD.

I do not care about your attire, accent, or school. Be respectful. But also feel free to indict or challenge what exactly "being respectful" means.

I pay attention during CX.

Speech times are probably the only "rule" I'll always enforce. I can be flexible on other things that other judges might take to be unchangeable. For example, you could convince me that you should be allowed to bring up something from the AC in the 2AR even if it wasn't extended in the 1AR, if it's well explained (in the AC, or maybe even the 1AR).

Have questions? Ask me.

There’s a rumor going around (started by me, here) that I’ll give you slightly higher speaks for referencing RuPaul’s Drag Race.

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.

Little Rock Central High School

Please include me on the email chain: Courtney.Hornsby@lrsd.org

I most frequently judge congressional debate and Lincoln Douglas.

For policy—I default to comparative advantage. Write my ballot for me. I flow thoroughly, and speed is fine, but I will let you know about clarity.

For LD: I can judge most styles; do what you do best but make sure you thoroughly explain your arguments. Blippy theory arguments, tricks, and frivolous arguments are things I’m not inclined to vote on. I prefer substance and rarely vote on things I don’t understand.. Speed is fine but clarity is more important. Above all, debate is a communicative activity so judge instruction is key.

I am Laura Hottenstein, a lay judge for local tournaments in Tampa, Fl. My experience is with LD. My preferences are as follows:

No spreading. I need you to speak clearly.

No progressive, no technical.

Signpost.

At the end of the day I am looking to see who has convinced me of their argument. Please be respectful.

I was a Lincoln-Douglas debater for three years as a member of the Cary Academy debate team. I err on the side of traditional judging, although I am open to novel arguments and a departure from the traditional value framework.

The winning side will be whichever makes the most compelling argument that is clearly linked to a thoughtful consideration of the resolution.

Giving clear voting issues is always beneficial, especially if you can make them into a cohesive appeal for your side (instead of a list of dropped cards with no clearly explained impact).

Absolutely no spreading (a moderately brisk pace is fine, although it may result in lower speaks if it detracts from your presentation style - I am very comfortable awarding low-point wins).

Ensure your argument isn't just based on evidence but reality.

Please don't speak fast at the expense of your clarity. If you fit 20 minutes of speech into 6 minutes then I probably will understand 0 minutes.

I appreciate a dynamic, well-executed debate so intonation is useful, but not at the expense of enunciation.

I debated LD for four years for the Hockaday School (TX) and qualified twice to the TFA State Debate Tournament. Please feel free to ask me any questions about my paradigm before the round!

General:

- Speed is fine, but please be clear. I don't mind saying clear, slow, etc. as long as I can see you're trying to adapt.

- Please slow down for card names, theory/T interps, and plan/alt texts. If I don't know what your advocacy or interpretation is, it'll make it a lot harder for me to vote for you.

- Warrant / make good arguments!

- Make extensions with clear claim, warrants, and impacts. Even if it's a dropped argument, you still need to extend it if you want me to vote for you.

- Generally, just run whatever you like to debate. I'll vote on pretty much everything as long as it's justified and clearly explained to me.

- If you're being extremely rude, racist, sexist or offensive in round, I will drop you as well as dock your speaks.

Director of Speech and Debate at Lake Highland Prep - Orlando, FL

Email chain info: njohnston@lhps.org

The Paradigm:
Debate is meant to be a fun activity! I think you should do whatever you need to do to ride your own personal happiness train. So have a good time in our rounds. That said, remember that riding your happiness train shouldn't limit someone else's ability to ride their's. So be kind. Have fun, learn stuff, don't be a jerk though.

I've been around debate for over 15 years. You can read whatever arguments in front of me and I'm happy to evaluate them. I'm fine if you want to LARP, read Ks, be a phil debater, do more trad stuff, or whatever else. I'm good with theory as long as you're generating genuine, in-round abuse stories. Frivolous theory and tricks are not something I'm interested in listening to. If I'm judging you online, go like 50% of your max spreading because hearing online is difficult. I'd like to be on email chains, but we all should accept that SpeechDrop is better and use it more. Otherwise, do whatever you want.

Rankings:
K - 1
Phil - 2
Policy - 1
High theory - 2.5 (it'll be ok but I'm going to need you to help me understand if its too far off the wall)
Theory - 1 (but the good kind), 4 (for the bad, friv kind)
Tricks - you should probably strike me

The Feels:
I'm somewhat ideologically opposed to judge prefs. As someone who values the educative nature of our events, I think judge adaptation is important. To that end, I see judge paradigms as a good way for you to know how to adapt to any given judge in any given round. Thus, in theory, you would think that I am a fan of judge paradigms. My concern with them arises when we are no longer using them to allow students the opportunity to adapt to their judges, but rather they exist to exclude members from the potential audience that a competitor may have to perform in front of (granted I think there is real value in strikes and conflicts for a whole host of reasons, but prefs certainly feed into the aforementioned problem). I'm not sure this little rant has anything to do with how you should pref/strike me, view my paradigm, etc. It kind of makes me not want to post anything here, but I feel like my obligation as a potential educator for anyone that wants to voice an argument in front of me outweighs my concerns with our MPJ system. I just think it is something important and a conversation we should be having. This is my way of helping the subject not be invisible.

I was a Circuit Debater for 4 years.

Run whatever you want I have no preference

Speed: I haven't been judging for a couple of years now so I'd say start off at 90%. I'll say clear twice before I start docking speaks.

Theory/T: Not a huge fan only run it if there's actual abuse.

K's: Was a big K debater in HS.

Don't be a jerk, be respectful

If you have any questions just ask!

Have fun!

shihab.joseph@gmail.com

I have been judging LD and PF events for 7 years. As a Parent Judge, I expect participants to speak clearly to ensure I can understand them. If you speak too fast, I will state "clear" to indicate you need to slow down.

The merits of the arguments you present, and only those presented, will form the basis of my decision.

Please be polite to other participants.

I come from a circuit LD background, BUT I have not judged on the circuit in several years.

Debated LD for Apple Valley High School for four years, class of '09.
Worked at various summer institutes from 2009-2014.

I have not flowed speed in awhile, and wasn't that great with it to begin with, so proceed with caution. I will yell clear once. Slow down for tags and author names.

I strongly prefer debates centered around the topic as a question of comparative worlds/ policymaking, ideally rooted in good evidence from the topic literature. If you are choosing to approach the topic differently, the burden of responsibility is on you to explain and clearly develop your ballot story. I won't vote for anything that I don't understand, or if I don't understand the function of the argument within the round.

Don't be tricky or shady.

I have a fairly high threshold for what constitutes a complete extension-- make sure that you're re-explaining a developed and warranted link story in your rebuttals.

I am willing to listen to theory debates, but I am not excited about it and prefer to see theory used as a check on actual abuse. Be very explicit in terms of the function of your theory arguments. I am frankly not particularly interested in spending my free time thinking about all of the nuances of various theory debate norms and practices, so make arguments about how I should evaluate things rather than making assumptions about how I ought to be doing it.

The things we say in debate rounds matter. I can't stand rudeness, and I will drop you if you run offensive arguments. I will not accept advocacies or frameworks (that the debater admits) say that suffering, genocide, etc. are good.

Be nice to one another. Be smart. If you have any specific questions feel free to ask before the round. Good luck!

I debated for four years for Timothy Christian School and graduated in 2014.

**NEW: PLEASE READ**

What makes me really happy and engaged in rounds: Cases with a strong, unique framework, and that tell a story or paint a picture that appeals to emotion, logic, and intuition. Debaters who extend their frameworks, actively impact arguments back to them, and use their frameworks to exclude their opponents arguments when possible.

What makes me really sad and bored in rounds: Generic util frameworks like "maximizing well-being", "maximizing happiness", "societal well-being", which lead to debaters to try to cover too much in the round and then eventually mutually agree implicitly or explicitly that whoever achieves X wins the round.

**LD**

I value substance and clash (engaging with and actually addressing the warrant of your opponent's argument, weighing, etc.)
I'll evaluate any argument or position as long as it's well-warranted and you give me a working method of evaluation.

Theory is fine as long as you prove that there is actual abuse in the round.

I don't want a line-by-line off-time roadmap. Give me a general roadmap (e.g. "Framework, AC, NC") then signpost (e.g. "Contention 1 subpoint A", "the Neg f/w", "their second contention", etc.) as you debate.

Please confirm with your opponent that you're both okay with flex-prep, evidence sharing, etc. before the round starts.

**Varsity LD**

I have not judged varsity much in the past couple years. It is safe to assume that I have little to no familiarity with circuit arguments. If you run circuit-type arguments, I will do my best to evaluate your position, but it is your burden to be absolutely clear about what is happening in the round. I can evaluate new information, but I don't know all the technicalities associated with circuit arguments.

**All LD**

Please give me a method of evaluation for the round, and link contention level arguments into whichever method you think is winning in the round. Please weigh arguments. I'll flow new arguments and analyses in second rebuttal speeches but I won't vote on them. I generally accept new cross applications, since those involve pre-existing arguments.

I assign speaker points on a 25-30 point scale. Speaker points will reflect how I perceived your ability to make and extend effective arguments, and strategize overall. (25 - completely unprepared, 26 - below average, 27 - average, 28 - good, 29 - very well-done, 30 - excellent; offensive arguments may go below a 25; I don't believe I've ever given lower than a 26 before, and my average is probably around a 28; I try to be a little more lenient with novice speaks, but this doesn't always happen; I also try to assign speaks relatively, based on previous rounds within the tournament)

Good arguments and extensions include a claim, warrant(s), and impact(s). I'll give some leeway to aff extensions, but they must include more than the label ("the value criterion," "Contention 2," "the impact," "[insert card name]"). If an argument is dependent on another argument, you should extend all relevant parts to make your point. If you're the Neg debater and have ample time to do so, I expect a thorough extension of all relevant points. If you're the Aff, please at least extend the claims of the underlying points and explain the important one as needed.

If you are a more experienced debater obviously facing a novice or non-native English speaker, and I detect abuse (spreading, tricks, etc.), this will probably reflect in your speaks.

I won't say you can't spread, but just know that the faster you go and less clear you are, the greater risk you run of me not understanding your arguments. The faster you go, the more I'm just listening for key words and less I'm actually trying to understand what you're saying. If you are going to spread, start slow then speed up. Slow down for tags and card names and anything you really want me to understand/write down. I'll say clear if I don't understand you, and if I say it twice you should consider permanently slowing down.

Recently debaters have started sharing cases via email/USB? This is fine, but don't bother asking me to share your case with me in advance. I'll evaluate the round based on my interpretation of what happened in speeches - if both debaters are clear, my interpretation should be pretty close to what actually happened in the round. I only call for evidence after the round if I feel I need it to make my decision, but this doesn't happen often. If I couldn't understand your evidence/I didn't evaluate it the way you wanted me to, you probably weren't as clear in the round as I needed you to be.

Overall, I'm pretty technical (or I try my best to be at least), but when the round is unclear or very close, I'll probably end up looking for the easiest way to evaluate and judge the round. With that said, if you can appeal to both being technical and giving me an easy way to judge the round, not only will I probably consider your arguments more positively, it will probably also reflect well in your speaks.

Side note: You can ask me to time your speeches/prep for you, but based on experience, I've learned that I am generally a poor time-keeper. I highly prefer debaters to time themselves and each other, and especially keep track of prep-time. If you at least want me to write down your remaining prep time, I will do that for you, just let me know.

**PF**

I've judged PF many times now in the past couple years; I understand PF debate is supposed to appeal to persuading the general public, but like LD, I evaluate the round pretty technically. I also get that there isn't exactly a framework structure in PF, but at least give me some sort of method of evaluation. After all, there must be something that you're trying to achieve. So make that goal explicit, and link back to it throughout the round.

The problem I've had with most PF rounds is that clash/weighing is done poorly, so the round ends up unnecessarily close, making it very difficult for me to make a decision. Please, as best as you can, don't let this happen!

As with LD, I am not a good time keeper, and am even worse with PF. Everyone should keep track of their own time and each other's time.

**ALL**

I will dock speaks for unprofessional dress. I'm fine with casual professional dress and I'm pretty reasonable overall, but you should not come tournaments in sweats and sneakers. If you have special circumstances that prevented you from dressing appropriately and you're worried that I am going to dock your speaks, you can notify me before the round - pass me a note or something if it's a private issue.

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

Overview

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

Evidence Ethics/ Clipping Cards/ etc.

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

Speaks:

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

Post- Round

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

Hi -- I'm a parent and a lay judge. I did not debate in high school, nor in college. I've been judging for a few years. Two years of MS parli, one year of HS PF and one year of HS LD. In PF, I'm looking for the most persuasive argument you can make.

In all formats, I am partial to empirical arguments. While LD is about morals and ethics, and while PF is about topicality, I am helped in both cases by seeing how an idea or an argument is applied in the real world.

In LD, I can understand about 90% of the words you say if you spread, but I have trouble processing your cases at that speed - it's just a bunch of words I mostly recognize. You can talk fast, though, and being a New Yorker I will understand that, at least.

Good luck!

Priya Kukreja (she/they)

priyapkukreja@gmail.com

Hello! My paradigm was wiped (sigh) so here is a TLDR for NYC PF:

Background - I debated in Lincoln Douglas in Nebraska and on the National Circuit from 2014 to 2017. I have experiencing judging PF but I am not an expert with the format - please carry arguments through and articulate why I should vote for you clearly at the end of the round. I cannot do any work for you on the flow, so clash and impacting your arguments is key!

Westside LD:

I feel most comfortable judging critical and phil/framework debate. I'm happy to evaluate T/theory or policy arguments too, but you'll have to slow down, be clear about every part of the argument, and be explicit about the function it serves in the round. Please give me a way to weigh the impacts, e.g. value/criterion, standard, ROTB, etc.

Clash! Engage with your opponents argument. Impact your arguments to your fw/rotb. Take the last few seconds of your final speech to tell me why I should vote for you.

Speed - Stay around 6/10 and you should be just fine. Slow down on tags and author names. Please don't be rude.

Debate is a wonderful opportunity to learn and build community, please treat it as such!

Harvard 2024 Update: Hi! I took time away from debate in 2020 to focus on mental health. It’s been a while, so I may be rusty and have certainly not kept up with new trends and developments in “the meta”. Please start at 70% top speed if it’s round 1-2. And please be kind to each other. I’ve missed debate and I’m excited to come out of “retirement” to judge again.

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. I’ll call for evidence if I need it; no need to put me on the email chain.

Do

• 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

I am a publishing professional and ESL teacher with a provisional certificate in English (grades 9-12). From 2009 to 2012, I served as a replacement teacher in the Princeton Public Schools, and in my final year, taught English and journalism at Princeton High School. Prior to teaching, I was enrolled in a doctoral program in modern history and literature at Drew University, finishing with my M. Phil. in European intellectual history. I currently work in the design department at Princeton University Press.

As a freshman in high school, I participated in forensics, competing in the area of duo performance. I am delighted to join the National Speech and Debate Association as a judge. Because I am a newcomer to debate, I prefer that the debaters present their arguments clearly and carefully. I have no experience with spreading, and will likely lose track of any argument that is emitted in rapid bursts. Quality over quantity, please.

General: 

-No spreading 

-I don't appreciate aggression 

-Always signpost, but no cliches 

-I don't recognize arguments composed of lengthy and convoluted link chains 

-I only call for evidence if I have reason to believe it is being misconstrued 

-Do not ask me what it takes to get a 30. A 30 means you were perfect. I have only given a 30 three times throughout my years of judging.

-I really appreciate a clear framework 

 

At the end of the round, the winner of the debate is the team that sustains their arguments, meaning that, I expect anything you want me to vote on to be in summary and final focus. I think that frontlines should be made as early as rebuttal (if speaking second), but will be accepted in summary. Lastly, weighing is very important to me. Please begin to weigh in summary, but seal the deal in final focus. Even if you are only winning on one argument, but you extend it into summary and final focus and explain why the impacts of that argument are the most important in that round; you will receive my ballot.  

I graduated in 2014 from Lexington High School, where I was on the debate team for four years. I stopped debating my senior year and transitioned to being an assistant teacher in the novice class because I didn't like the highly technical/esoteric nature of LD.  

I don't have a problem with speed, but it is probably in your best interest to slow down. I've been out of the activity for a while and the faster you speak, the more likely it is that I will miss something important. 

I'm a really conceptual, big-picture person, so take the time at the end of your rebuttals to explain to me where each of your arguments fall in relation to other arguments in the round. If both debaters extend a bunch of separate arguments and do zero weighing then I won't know what to do and you will probably not be happy with my decision.

I would really rather not vote on blippy/tricky/dumb arguments, but I will if I have to, as long as you have clearly extended them. I won't vote on something that I do not understand. I also don't appreciate frivolous theory - I would much prefer a substantive debate. If you do decide to read theory, be slow and clear.

I have zero tolerance for offensive arguments. It's easy in debate rounds to forget that you are casually mentioning the real suffering of real people. I also really dislike rude or arrogant debaters, so please just be nice. 

Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC

Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com

BACKGROUND
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).

CLIFF NOTES

- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.

- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.

- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot

- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me

- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.

- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.

- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PF

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should bevery good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.

- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.

- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.

OTHER THINGS

- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.

- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.

kurtisjlee@gmail.com

3 Years Highschool PFD Debate

3 Years College Policy Debate

(Policy)

1. I'm fine with speed. Obviously if you're forcing it and sound off and you dont see me flowing then you need to slow down (which you and your partner should be observing anyway).

2. You will benefit greatly by slowing down on tag lines and reading plans, and flipping between flows.

(PFD + Policy)

I'm really big on the technical side of debate. That means clearly outlining and discussing the:

1. Impact Calculus

-Timeframe
-Magnitude
-Probability
-How your impacts relate to your opponent's impacts
-How these impacts actually happen, the full story behind them, paint a picture. ELI5

2. Links

-They do X so they link, is not a link.

-I weight links pretty heavily in arguments so I prefer when debates spend time to contextualize the links within the story of the debate

3. Uniqueness

-Usually not an issue but i've been surprised before, often gets assumed

4. Internal Link

-Im very skeptical of you just arriving at extinction. I mainly ran policy arguments so I know how ridiculously easy it is to just fit in 16 extinction scenarios in your constructed speech but I need to see that internal link debate fleshed out.

5. Open to any kritiks/performance but the above bullets apply even more so. I do not like when teams brush over the technical side of debate just because they arent running nuclear war. Arguments are still arguments and logic is still logic.

6. Framework - I lean towards debate being a game. That being said, there are obviously millions of ways to debate within that framework.

Anything else just ask.

Kurtis Lee

For LD I look for a strong value/criterion that is established and clearly connected to the contentions. I also like it when a debater attacks the opponents V/C, but also shows how their case achieves it. Clear clash and overview is important. 

Hi! I'm Derek Liles, the Executive Director of Dallas Urban Debate. I look forward to judging you.

Things I used to be: Debate Coach at Law Magnet (2016-19), Director of Programs at Dallas Urban Debate (2012-2016), Debater at UTSA (2007-2012), Debater at Dallas Jesuit (2003-2007).

Please add me to the email chain: dzliles@gmail.com.

<.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.>

Reactive, mostly grouchy updates for Spring 2018:

1) Clash: Paperless prep is great, but...I feel like in-round clash and judge adaptation is subpar these days. Learn. To. Flow. On that note, you are under no obligation to send analytic arguments when I am judging.

2) Prep time: I think that any time that is not speech time is prep time (barring things like the time it takes your speech to travel through magic tubes and arrive in the other teams' computer). However, I can't be bothered to enforce a prep policy except in the worst cases, so I'll stick to using speaker points to incentivize best practice. Bonus points to people who run a tight ship when it comes to prep time use. Minus points for those who dilly dally. Generally speaking, prep stealing occurs when you use time from some cosmic bank of prep time beyond your allotted 8 minutes. Specific scenarios that irk me: (a) "pre cx" where you ask what evidence was read - that's CX time (b) adding ev mid speech and sending it without taking prep (c) organizing flows/blocks after prep has ceased...more may be added later.

3) Stop asking me if I disclose speaker points. More than half of you don't even disclose your 1NCs. I will subtract speaker points if you ask me and my ballot hasn't already been submitted.

4) Stop throwing all of your arguments at the wall and hoping I work it out for you. Thoughtfully select a strategic end game and present me with a definitive victory path - don't leave it up to me to find it amongst the weeds. Scott Deatherage, late director of Northwestern Debate, says it best:

"CHOOSE. Choose...The first most essential lesson of effective rebutting is choice making. No matter the speech; be it the 1NR or the 2AR or any point in between...Young debaters, so anxious, every argument they think to be important, especially in rebuttals...instead it is the best arguments and the strongest points that make the effective rebutalist the winning champion in the debate...You...must in the end decide on an effective strategy for the judge. Choose for them what is the best avenue to prove conclusively that the coherent set or complete package of arguments you present as a totality in the last speech constitutes a way, a road, an avenue by which they achieve the effective end of concluding for the [aff/neg]."

<.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.>

General info about me and my feelings about debate:

Some overarching ideas will shape my answer to just about any question you could have about my predispositions: I've been around debate a long time and have judged/coached/debated from just about every angle. I debated at the national level in college (elims at CEDA/NDT). I have a background in policy argument from high school, but shifted very aggressively towards kritikal literature in college...that is to say, I'm receptive and fairly knowledgeable about most approaches to the topic at hand.

I think debate is best when teams effectively clash with each other, so I like when teams prioritize depth over breadth in their strategies and take time to flow/directly engage each others' ideas. I think preparation makes for good debate, so I default to the belief that teams should engage in some form of disclosure (it helped me prep at my small college team, I'm biased). I believe the value of debate comes mostly from the form of analysis it teaches you to make - less so the content of what you are advocating (barring some extreme circumstances). Make your argument as best you can and I will be happy to judge you. I'm not here to tell you what arguments to read.

I tend to be unmotivated to vote on theory - debate should be hard and focused on substantive issues. It's easy to convince me to reject the argument, not the team - so in front of me, you will be better off using theory to close doors on key components of your opponents' strategies. If you plan to go for theory, develop your objection early, rather than starting with a 10 second blip. Theory seems like even more of a cheap shot when it becomes a serious issue only in the last speech.

Bad arguments: Some arguments - impact turns that have "jumped the shark," ASPEC, contrived scenarios, etc. - are just bad (at least I think so). I feel like we all know when it's a bad argument, and if you don't, my reactions will probably make it clear how I feel. I'm likely to intervene or allow a lot of flexibility for your opponents to add arguments in rebuttals against them. "It's not new if it's true!"

Speaker points: I generally range between 28-29.5. Some things (not described in update section) that affect my calculus:

• Act like you want to be here - after judging several rounds, nothing is more refreshing than watching someone who is passionate, engaged, friendly, etc. I also appreciate humor, and unlike some people, respect the beauty of punny wordplay.
• I think debate is a communication activity - lack of clarity in terms of speaking style or strategic endpoint will impact your speaker points and my ability to give your argument the consideration it's due. Concerning speed, start at 80% so I can warm up to your voice and ease into full tilt over 30 seconds.
• I prefer strategic depth over breadth. See rant at top - but in more detail: if starting with several sheets of paper, I'd prefer you resolutely condense the debate to a handful of core issues by the end. Less moving parts = less for me to resolve after the round = less likely I'll have to resolve it for you = more likely you control my perception of what happened in the debate. This also means you need to actively close doors in the last speeches, and I reward debaters who find unique ways to cross-apply concessions to their advantage.
• AFF side bias/musings of a slighted 2N - I think 2ARs get away with murder when it comes to resuscitating advantages that were completely absent or barely in the 2AC & 1AR. I will have no hesitation to entirely dismiss or assign overwhelmingly low risk to advantages that re-appear/weren't fully developed until the 2AR.
• I am very open to the idea that there is zero risk of an argument/averse to the ".01% risk of extinction = extinction" form of impact calculus - sometimes, it only takes a smart analytic/CX question about an internal link to get me to reject a preposterous terminal impact. If I'm smirking while flowing, it means you're doing well and can probably expect me to back you up in the post-round.
• Bad evidence - old man moment: there are so many terrible cards in debate. Speaker points to anyone who publicly shames bad ev & the people that read it.

Small soapbox moment: I try to be attentive to the ways in which normative structures of gender, sexuality, race (and so on) affect student participation in this activity. Debate should be fun, respectful and accessible. Our activity shouldn't lose voices out of a stubborn commitment to remaining aloof of these dynamics, so don't participate in those systems in round and we're good.

I look forward to judging you!
Questions? Email me: dzliles@gmail.com

Edmond North High School '17, Harvard College '21

I debated at Edmond North High School for 4 years in LD. My circuit and debating style was more on the traditional side. I would prefer a value/criterion/standards debate with good weighing throughout.

My threshold for speed is lower, so if you're going to spread, you'll need to flash me or add me to the email chain. Make sure tags are really clear. I'll say clear if necessary.

That being said, I am familiar with progressive arguments and will vote for them as long as they are articulated and weighed well. Make sure you tell me how to evaluate the round, and please explain all your arguments. Not a fan of theory, but if there's real abuse you can run it.

Have fun with the round, but always be respectful. Also, feel free to ask me any questions before the round.

Updated for Harvard 2018, 2/12/2019. Only two updates since my last paradigm, both just in the quick summary section.

Quick Summary

I did high school national circuit LD. Generally read what you're best at. I like framework and substance, but I'll try to be as tab as possible (eg I don't love frivolous theory but you won't get docked speaks for it and you can definitely still win on it). I err towards theory over the K, I don't like tricks but the more obvious/less shady you are about it the more likely I'll be to vote on it. Be respectful and have fun!

Personal preference of mine: Please extend all arguments with at least a claim and a warrant, even if it's dropped. Exceptions to this would be things like plan texts & interps since I think those are more just advocacies/positions, not arguments. I won't ignore unwarranted extensions, but I will feel comfortable using that as a tiebreaker if I'm not sure how to resolve conflicting claims or if your opponent points it out.

Update: I haven't touched debate in a year, ever since the last Harvard tournament, so I'm probably rusty on all the normal debate skills like flowing and I'm definitely not up to date on recent trends or the current topic. I'm certainly not ancient since I was actively coaching/judging just last year, but yeah not as fresh as I used to be. On the upside, I think I know a lot more now about Kant, legal philosophy, and some social justice issues than I used to since I'm still majoring in philosophy/involved with some social justice work.

Update: Even more than before I really hope and think debate should be a fun activity, and I really hope you have a good time in the round! That doesn't mean I don't respect the competitive or educational elements of it, but yeah I hope no one worries too much and everything will be fine. Be considerate and respectful and we'll all have a good time!

General

Debated for 3 years for Concord-Carlisle High School (MA), both locally and nationally but mostly national circuit my junior and senior year. I graduated high school in 2016 and now do parliamentary debate with the Harvard College Debating Union.

Feel free to ask me anything specific before the round, I know that it's not always easy to read paradigms right after you get pairings.

Speed

I was never great at flowing, but I did debate on the national circuit just last year so I can probably flow you if you’re just reasonably fast. If you flash/send me speech docs I’ll definitely be able to flow a lot better.

Please slow down on short analytics, like everyone says it, so please do it. If I don't get the argument down I won't feel comfortable voting on it.

I'll yell clear and speed as many times as necessary, but after the 5th time I'll probably start docking speaks.

If you have any speaking issues, feel free to do whatever is necessary for you to speak comfortably, basically what Ben Koh says on the topic.

Framework

Analytic philosophical framework cases are definitely my favorite form of debate. I'm fairly familiar with most common LD frameworks, but still please over-explain framework justifications and interaction. Good framework debates will get you extra speaks.

I'm not that familiar with continental philosophy, so explain it more. I want to hear the actual warrants.

I don't really like theoretical justifications for standards, but you can still read them.

I like framework against the K/ideal theory good arguments. I think those arguments are more true than not so I'm probably biased in that direction.

I think applying framework arguments to theory is pretty cool as long as it makes sense.

Policy/LARP

Plans, counter-plans and disads are all cool. I'm not super familiar with all the policy jargon so also just err towards over-explaining. I don't really care if your extinction scenarios are ridiculous as long as you have the evidence, but the more realistic scenarios are probably more compelling. Well-researched and unique plans, cp's and disads are impressive.

Generic util frameworks are fine, nuanced util frameworks are better.

Theory/Topicality

Theory is hard to flow for me, especially the voters, so please slow down on short/blippy arguments or just make your arguments not blippy.

Frivolous theory is fine as long as you can clearly articulate the abuse story.

I default reasonability, RVI, drop the debater, and spirit of the interp. Please make these arguments on the voter section.

I like it when people go for defensive strategies on theory, like reasonability with a good brightline, drop the arg, I meet's, or even epistemic modesty between theory and substance.

I err towards theory/topicality over the K mainly because I think I understand the whole "fair/topical version of the Aff/case exists, fairness is necessary for engagement" arguments better. That said you still need to do all the work in round.

If you see your round boiling down to a 2NR dump vs. 2AR answers to the dump (exp. 2N says 1AR theory bad, 2A says 1AR theory okay; 2N says meta-theory same layer as theory, 2A says meta-theory first etc.) please do weighing and if possible meta-weighing since those rounds are near-impossible to resolve.

Kritiks/Performance

K's are really cool. I think identity politics are a nice/valuable part of debate, and I've recently come around to think that a lot of high theory actually does make sense. That said, I'm not very experienced with a lot of K literature, so try to over-explain the syllogism of the K.

For performance, I didn't debate many of these rounds in high school, but I'd be excited to judge this type of debate if you can do it well. I'm a pretty sentimental person so I might legit start tearing up if you're reading a really sad narrative. Persuasive speaking/ethos is good for speaks, but perceptual dominance won't make me more likely to vote for you.

I usually will not vote on arguments like "my role of the ballot says they need a methodology and they didn't provide an explicit method so drop them on face" so long as your opponent has at least tried to engage on the K debate (eg read a framework NC and turns, even if they never explicitly said it was a method). I think these arguments are typically either not well-warranted or not thoroughly extended. If you want me to consider it an actual voting issue, spend more time fleshing out the warrants and impacts.

I've heard/seen that high theory is in this year which is totally cool, I just don't have a lot of background in this. If you want to go for Foucault or Deleuze be my guest, but please slow down even more on taglines or even do something like a short 15 second explanation of the general syllogism of the K - I promise you the time tradeoff will be worth it since otherwise I might legitimately not understand what the K is saying.

If you're reading a complex K with language I haven't heard before please spend a little more time explaining what the alt is or what the thesis of the K is. The simpler it is, the more I'll be able to understand it and vote on it.

Tricks

I don't really like tricks, but if you can execute them really well that can still be impressive. I'm more likely to vote on tricks that are made explicit/obvious when they're read and that are more just clever arguments than shitty unwarranted statements.

Skep is fine, skep/permissibility/presumption triggers are fine as long as you give a good reason for why something actually triggers it.

Even though I won't dock speaks for bad arguments like all neg interps are counter interps, coin flip theory, whatever, if you're reading really frivolous theory against a clearly not abusive case please just don't.

Speaker Points

I'll try to average a 28-28.5. I'll give speaks on strat and efficiency mainly. I'll also factor in to a lesser degree well-developed/interesting cases & arguments, smart CX's, and ethos/persuasiveness (ethos won't get you docked speaks, but if you're especially good at it I think it deserves a bit of a boost).

So far I've given speaks from 28-29.6. I don't really have the heart to give people lower than 28, but if you want to get in the high 29's you just have to be really good (see rep-hacking section two paragraphs below). Still working on normalizing my speaks more.

You really don't need to read the next two paragraphs, they're just kinda all my thoughts on speaks:

On the one hand, I think judges are often too critical of debaters, asking them why they didn't do such an "obvious" strategic thing even though when you're in the moment debating it isn't really that obvious. In that sense, I think I'll lean to the side of giving higher speaks to people. On the other hand, speaker points are seriously inflated and after debating locally for a while and being a kinda mediocre national circuit debater, I think I mentally just don't perceive speaker points the same as some others, like flat 29's seem good to me while I know some Varsity debaters would disagree.

Also, rep-hacking is definitely a thing when it comes to speaker points. To be fair to everyone, even if you're normally a great debater, if you seriously fuck up in a round you'll still get not-so-great speaks. That said, if you're a top debater don't be worried about being punished, since you're probably going to get good speaks normally based on technical skills like efficiency.

Misc.

1. Disclosure theory is fine, but I don't really mind if you disclose or not. I'm definitely sympathetic to small school debaters not disclosing.

2. Evidence ethics violations should be dealt with out of round. I'd seriously prefer it for you to stop the round, present whatever evidence you have of it happening, and then I'll go to tab to help make the correct decision.

3. Prep ends when you finish putting the speech doc together. If you normally don't read from a speech doc and only need for it your opponent, you can end prep before you put the speech doc together but then I expect you to not use the speech doc at all in your speech. As I mentioned above, I'd love to have speech doc's emailed or flashed to me so I can flow better.

4. Be respectful! Trigger warnings are good, but trigger warning theory is debatable (I'd prefer it if you just reminded your opponent). Don't impact-turn oppression, don't read skep against the K (for most identity politics K's at least), consider the implications of your arguments. If you do or say something offensive out of genuine ignorance, I hope that we can all take it as an opportunity to learn and I won't necessarily drop you if it was a genuine mistake and you're willing to apologize and learn. Otherwise, expect a loss with horrible speaks if you're disrespectful or offensive.

5. Absent arguments to the contrary, I presume aff for side bias.

6. Be nice to your opponent. If you're an experienced debater hitting a first- or second-year debater, please at least flash them your case so they can follow. I don't feel quite as strongly about this but I mostly agree with Marshall Thompson's view on the issue.

7. Biggest debate influences are probably my former coach Jacob Nails and the other people in the Nails Squad (Henry Wu, Justin Kim, Parker Kelly) Bonus speaks if you make good jokes or puns about any of them.

Have fun!

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

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

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

I am Debate coach as well as a High School Social Studies teacher.

If you spread (i.e. speak very quickly), I will vote against you, no matter how convincing your arguments. The purpose of debating is to prepare students with speaking skills that will be useful in their adult lives. This is not speed chess.

I also find the use of debate lingo unconvincing. No presidential candidate ever referred to "cards" instead of the actual facts; nor did one ever talk about "extending the flow." Speak the substance of your argument; don't use code.

Be nice pre/post round and during cx, I think debate should be as accessible as possible.

I think theory is a necessary strategic tool, but I don't feel that comfortable judging blippy theory debates. Err on the side of slightly over explaining key args, esp when responding to spikes and underviews.

I think performances are cool, but I don't have much experience with them. Framework debates are cool, but also err on over explaining the impact of args.

Plan texts, CPs, DAs are cool. 1-Off Case and Multi-Off strats are cool. Burden structures are fine but probs not against debaters you know are inexperienced.

I am a parent judge and have been participating in local and national high school LD debates since 2018. I prefer sound evidence, compelling arguments and solid voter issues. I enjoy LD debates and hope we all have fun!

I debated 4 years for Scarsdale High School and qualled to the TOC my senior year. I am currently a junior at Harvard.

Backrground:
I have been judging one tournament a year since I graduated from Scarsdale. Though I have not kept up with what's hip in debate, I will try my best to be as tab as possible and understand whatever you want to throw out. Debate is ultimately about the debaters, and so I'm happy watching any kind of round you want to have. I'm equally happy voting on an AFC/plan aff as a non-topical aff as an aff that goes for condo logic. If you clearly win an argument on the flow, I'll be happy to vote for it.

Though I hope my background does not influence how I judge, for the sake of transparency, I figure I should say that I primarily debated Ks/framework/tricks when I was a debater and was never much of a larper or theory debater. To be clear: I do not believe that this background impacts my judging. I have no preference between different kinds of argumentation.

Misc:

Please slow down on tags/interps/important texts/etc. Really, slow down. I have flowed at exactly two tournaments since TOC 2015. If you want me to catch a particular wording, the way to ensure that happens is to say it slower. I’ll also say slow/clear as needed. I won’t dock speaks if I’m saying slow/clear but you should probably make sure I caught your argument.

You can extend dropped arguments by just repeating the tag/impact. I think the argument has to be mentioned in every speech though, meaning if it wasn’t extended into the 1AR, I won’t evaluate it in the 2AR. This is the best way I know to deal with dropped arguments, but I am happy to hear alternative perspectives before a round happens.

Feel free to ask questions before the round, especially about newer norms. My job is to help the debate between the debaters occur, not to be an obstacle for the debaters to overcome.

Hey y'all, I'm Adejoke. I did LD debate for four years in High school at two different schools (Bettendorf & North Atlanta) and currently do College Policy at NYU.

email - adejokemason@gmail.com

Short version (I know some of yall are reading this seconds before round. good luck b)

Speed: go as fast as you want but be clear. i'll say clear twice before i stop

Run what you want and what you're best at, that'll probably be the best way to get my ballot. Know your literature base and make sure you can explain it, don't assume I already know what you're talking about or that i'll fill in gaps for you even if I do.

Don't be racist because i'll drop you

Long Version: This is mostly my paradigm for LD but lots of it extends to policy as well

Policy/CPs/DAs etc.: Go for it, make sure the link stories actually make sense, fully explain, but otherwise you're golden

K's: On high theory K's, I'm totally fine with them but I will say I'm not as familiar with some of the literature so definitely be prepared to explain. That being said, I do enjoy them and am willing to listen and vote on them, just don't assume I know more than I do. When it comes to more identity politics based K's, I'm also very much fine with those. I am pretty familiar with some of that literature, but once again that doesn't mean i'll do your work for you. When these are well articulated though, I adore them. Don't pull out your Race K's just because I'm here though, run what you like

Philosophy: Long philosophy frameworks are also something I'm less familiar with depending on the author, but there are quite a few I also know pretty well. So the same goes for all the others, explain this clearly especially if there is a long link chain and be able to answer questions and you should be fine.

Theory/Topicality: I wasn't the biggest fan of Theory in high school, which means that I tend not to side with theory that I view as frivolous. What I mean by that is, I may be easier than most to convince of a no abuse or no impact story in a round. This, however, doesn't mean I dont think there is valid abuse nor does it mean that I won't vote on theory. It's not like I have never won a theory round and thought it legitimate, it just means if your go to strategy is running a theory shell regardless of genuine abuse in round, you may have an uphill battle. Same goes for topicality. But if you defend your shell well and can show me the abuse then I'm more than willing to vote for it. To add to this, since being in college and dealing with T I find both less frivolous and better articulated, I’m even more willing to vote for it when well done & genuine

Performance/Non T affs: I think these are a really great way to introduce creativity and fun into debate and I adore them. I think they also can be very success in impacting the debate space. However, I do need to see a justification as to why the performance and non t nature of the aff is important/has an impact. If no one challenges it then of course there is no need to continue to explain, but if someone presents another way to structure debate I want to see a justification as to why yours beats theirs. I think there are countless legitimate justifications for this so this should be easy to accomplish: i just want to see a good debate about why we should structure debate in either way

a few more notes:

I love when debaters do what they love. Don't read something you don't know much about or hate because you think it'll make me happy or because I did something similar in high school - do what fits you. I'm pretty much willing to vote on anything as long as its well defended. Don't assume i err towards the way you view debate but show me why I should especially if its challenged. Know your literature base and show me that.

Please frame and weigh. Like, please. Give me a clear reason why your world is superior, why your impacts are bigger, why I should view this round the way you want me to etc. so that i can have a coherent rfd instead of a clash-less debate im supposed to decipher. I think the most important thing to me in the last speeches is being given a very clear ballot story

I love when arguments are specifically tailored to whatever they're attacking, so the more specific and less generic you can be, the better. I'm definitely a bigger fan of more quality arguments than a generic dump

I really enjoy creativity particularly in solutions. I like for rounds to be fun and comfortable and not aggressively formal.

Being blatantly racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic etc. won't go well in front of me, so be aware of that.

Experience:

I debated from 2012-2016 on the regional and national level for Timothy Christian School. I competed mostly in LD but did do some PF late senior year for fun. That being said, I have not been very involved in debate for a while and thus am not fresh with high-level argumentation.

LD

Argumentation:

I will definitely be able to able to understand generic framework contention level debate.

WARNING: Again, I haven't been involved much with debate since graduating and norms/common arguments change. Therefore, if you decide to run T's, DA's, any kind of critical argument etc. make sure you are explaining yourself clearly and outlining what level of the debate comes first, second, etc. You may have do a little extra work explaining how I should view the round. That said I'll be a little lenient on extensions if you are spending that other time with some round overview/crystallization. Make sure again to do a good job of breaking down under what framework I am evaluating the round and where specifically I am voting.

Sorry if you disagree with my decision.

Spreading:

Please don't spread. I am cool with quicker than normal speaking, but I have not been involved in debate much really since graduating.

I am not going to vote for an argument I don't understand whether it be because of its complexity of said argument/lack of proper explanation or whether it be because it was read/said too fast for me to understand, so let that be a warning.

I would recommend not trying to do anything too "fancy" to avoid all of us being uncomfortable at the end of the round if I give my RFD. If you are used to a specific type of argument I am not saying you cannot run said argument, just understand where I am coming from and explain everything, specifically what I am voting off of very, very clearly.

PF

Argumentation:

I think PF breaks down more simply with a util/consequence based framework. If you disagree make the argument and if it makes sense and is extended ill buy it no problem. I do not think I'll have any issue with any type of argumentation so that should be good. Just make sure you are being clear where on the flow I am voting for you and please please please weigh so its not just both teams extending arguments across the flow with no clear/given relative impact.

Speed:

Fast PF speed is totally ok for me

Current coach/DOF at Lindale High School.

For email chains: mckenziera @ lisdeagles.net

CX - This is where I have spent the majority of my time judging. While I am comfortable judging any type of round, my preference is a more traditional round. Debate rounds that are more progressive (kritikal affs, performance, etc...) are totally fine, but you'll do best to slow down and go for depth over breadth here. I think that judges are best when they adapt to the round in front of them. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

LD - Despite judging policy debate most, I was raised in a traditional value and criterion centric area. Still, I think that policy debates in LD are valuable. See my notes above about progressive argumentation. They're fine, but you'll probably need to do a few things to make it more digestible for me. Again, though, you do you. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

PF - I judge only a few PF rounds a year. I'm not up-to-date on the trends that may be occurring. I naturally struggle with the time restraints in PF. I generally feel like teams often go for breadth instead of depth, which I think makes debate blippy and requires more judge intervention. I'd rather not hear 20 "cards" in a four minute speech. Framework is the most reliable way to construct a ballot. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

Congress - Speeches should have structure, refutation, research, and style. Jerky Parliamentary Procedure devalues your position in the round.

Speech - Structure and content are valued equally. I appreciate, next, things that make you stand out in a positive way.

Interp - Should have a purpose/function. There's a social implication behind a lot of what we perform. I value great introductions and real characters.

I have judged several regional and national circuit tournaments, but I have never been a debater myself. I have a strong preference for the traditional style of debate because it's what I can readily understand and flow. If you spread or use progressive debating approaches like Kritiks or plans/counterplans, I may not appreciate many of the technical nuances and that certainly will not be to your advantage.

I look for both content and style - good eye contact, posture, enunciation, delivery are also important factors for me, in addition to your framework and arguments.

Lastly, keep it courteous - if I see you being rude or disrespectful to your opponent, that won't win you any points in my book. Have fun and good luck!

My name is Anna Moneymaker and I am a parent judge from Newsome High School in Lithia Florida. I have never judged Lincoln Douglas, however I judged a few, local level, Public Forum rounds. My preference is no spreading, theory, or technical arguments. I am a 100% lay judge and you must make slow and clearly articulated arguments for me to follow the round. I am not interested in joining an email chain or receiving a speech document. My preference at this time is to judge a slow, traditional round.
If your strategy is to use spreading, theory, or technical arguments, I suggest for you to not select me as a preferred judge.

TL;DR: I will listen to anything short of oppression good, and have experience reading pretty much everything. I haven't judged since Harvard last year, so I may take a bit of time to get used to spreading.

I debated at Collegiate for four years and qualified to ToC my senior year reading almost exclusively "creatively topical" affirmatives, and negating with a lot of Wilderson, but also some T and LARP. I am extremely receptive to creative reasons I should give you more speaks, but tend to give speaks on the lower side otherwise. I have no real preferences in terms of how I will evaluate the winner of a round and would much prefer you debate how you're comfortable debating than seeing you read an author you're unfamiliar with. Despite my own experience debating, I have taken the side of T in the vast majority of rounds I have judged. The most important thing to me is that you and your opponent have fun and show some creativity - I don't want to see the 17th iteration of Truth Testing and a bunch of NIBs from a negative (although I will vote for it if you win it), and I really prefer not to vote on the same topicality dump everyone reads against "questionably topical" AFFs. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask before the round!

One more important thing - spreading is hard, so I'll say clear as many times as I need to, but be aware the more I have to do it, the more frustrated I will get and likely the lower your speaks will get. Additionally, I will not backflow - if I didn't hear it, I'm not considering it, so it is really in your best interest to slow down or clear up if I ask.

Last thing, if it matters to any of you, here is a list of coaches who were influential to me as a debater/as a person in general: Tillman Huett, Elijah Smith, Benjamin Koh, Tom Evnen, Phoebe Kuo, Abdul Beretay, Devane Murphy.

Hey, please add me to the email chain crownmonthly@gmail.com.If you really don't want to read this I'm tech > truth, Warranted Card Extension > Card Spam and really only dislike hearing meme arguments which are not intended to win the round.

PF and LD specific stuff at the bottom. All the argument specific stuff still applies to both activities.

How to win in front of me:
Explain to me why I should vote for you and don't make me do work. I've noticed that I take "the path of least resistance" when voting; this means 9/10 I will make the decision that requires no work from me. You can do this by signposting and roadmapping so that my flow stays as clean as possible. You can also do this by actually flowing the other team and not just their speech doc. Too often debaters will scream for 5 minutes about a dropped perm when the other team answered it with analytics and those were not flown. Please don't be this team.

Online Debate Update

If you know you have connection/tech problems, then please record your speeches so that if you disconnect or experience poor internet the speech does not need to be stopped. Also please go a bit slower than your max speed on analytics because between mic quality and internet quality it can be tough to hear+flow everything if you go the same speed as cards on analytics.

Argumentation...

Theory/Topicality:

By default theory and topicality are voters and come aprior unless there is no offense on the flow. Should be clear what the interpretation, violation, voter, and impact are. I generally love theory debates but like with any judge you have to dedicate the time into it if you would like to win. Lastly you don't need to prove in round abuse to win but it REALLY helps and you probably won't win unless you can do this.

Framework:

I feel framework should be argued in almost any debate as I will not do work for a team. Unless the debate is policy aff v da+cp then you should probably be reading framework. I default to utilitarianism and will view myself as a policy maker unless told otherwise. This is not to say I lean toward these arguments (in fact I think util is weak and policy maker framing is weaker than that) but unless I explicitly hear "interpretation", "role of the judge", or "role of the ballot," I have to default to something. Now here I would like to note that Theory, Topicality, and Framework all interact with each other and you as the debater should see these interactions and use them to win. Please view these flows wholistically.

DA/CP:

I am comfortable voting on these as I believe every judge is but I beg you (unless it's a politics debate) please do not just read more cards but explain why you're authors disprove thier's. Not much else to say here besides impact calc please.

K:

I am a philosophy and political science major graduate so please read whatever you would like as far as literature goes; I have probably read it or debated it at some point so seriously don't be afraid. Now my openness also leaves you with a burden of really understanding the argument you are reading. Please leave the cards and explain the thought process, while I have voted on poorly run K's before those teams never do get high speaker points.

K Affs:

Look above for maybe a bit more, but I will always be open to voting and have voted on K affs of all kinds. I tend to think the neg has a difficult time winning policy framework against K affs for two reasons; first they debate framework/topicality most every round and will be better versed, and second framework/topicality tends to get turned rather heavily and costs teams rounds. With that said I have voted on framework/topicality it just tends to be the only argument the neg goes for in these cases.

Perms:

Perms are a test of competition unless I am told otherwise and 3+ perms is probably abusive but that's for theory.

Judge Intervention:

So I will only intervene if the 2AR makes new arguments I will ignore them as there is no 3NR. Ethics and evidence violations should be handled by tab or tournament procedures.

Speaks:

• What gets you good speaks:
  • Making it easier for me to flow
  • Demonstrate that you are flowing by ear and not off the doc.
  • Making things interesting
  • Clear spreading
  • Productive CX

• What hurts your speaks:
  • Wasting CX, Speech or Prep Time
  • Showing up later than check-in time (I would even vote on a well run theory argument - timeless is important)
  • Being really boring
  • Being rude

PF Specific

• I am much more lenient about dropped arguments than in any other form of debate. Rebuttals should acknowledge each link chain if they want to have answers in the summary. By the end of summary no new arguments should made. 1st and 2nd crossfire are binding speeches, but grand crossfire cannot be used to make new arguments. *these are just my defaults and in round you can argue to have me evaluate differently
• If you want me to vote on theory I need a Voting Issue and Impact - also probably best you spend the full of Final Focus on it.
• Make clear in final focus which authors have made the arguments you expect me to vote on - not necessary, but will help you win more rounds in front of me.
• In out-rounds where you have me and 2 lay judges on the panel I understand you will adapt down. To still be able to judge fairly I will resolve disputes still being had in final focus and assume impacts exist even where there are only internal links if both teams are debating like the impacts exist.
• Please share all evidence you plan to read in a speech with me your opponents before you give the speech. I understand it is not the norm in PF, but teams who do this will receive bonus speaker points from me for reading this far and making my life easier.

LD Specific

• 2AR should extend anything from the 1AR that they want me to vote on. I will try and make decisions using only the content extended into or made in the NR and 2AR.
• Don't just read theory because you think I want to hear it. Do read theory because your opponent has done or could do something that triggers in round abuse.
• Dropped arguments are true arguments, but my flow dictates what true means for my ballot - say things more than once if you think they could win/lose you the round if they are not flown.

Quick Bio

I did 3 years of policy debate in the RI Urban Debate League. Been judging since 2014. As a debater I typically ran policy affs and went for K's on the neg (Cap and Nietzsche mostly) but I also really enjoyed splitting the block CP/DA for the 2NC and K/Case for the 1NR. Despite all of this I had to have gone for theory in 40% of my rounds, mostly condo bad.

I am ok with traditional or progressive. I am a tabula rasa judge who will buy your argument if you defend it. Speed, I prefer slow to moderate.

Background: 4 years LD at Brophy College Prep in Phoenix, AZ
Graduated 2016

krishnamuruganaz@gmail.com for your email chains

Truthfully, I think I'm basically a fossil in this community. I graduated years ago and don't really compete in college. I judge maybe two tournaments out of the year at most. At this point, my paradigm has become a series of opinions about debate that maybe not alot of people share.

Anyways, first things first: DONT SHAKE MY HAND

I honestly hate when people do that.

Actual paradigm stuff:

Personally, I don't think the judge is an educator. Really, all I'm contractually obligated to do is listen to you speak for an hour and then sign a ballot. I'm a glorified scoreboard. Any educating I do occurs after I sign and submit the ballot. That basically means I'm gonna evaluate your arguments as points. Whether or not you score higher points depend on if you link to your framework well and have solid impacts. If have a solid story from why I care about your framework to why that means I vote for you, then I'll probably vote for you. I'm pretty good at understanding arguments, but dontd assume I'll get everything. If you don't explain your argument clearly, I'll be sad. I really just don't wanna think. If I don't have to think, I'll like you more.

Speed is maybe fine? Given a speech doc, I can keep up easy. But I'm an ancient 20 something years old now and I have 0 incentive to be able to keep up with your speed now

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Kritiks are cool. Run your crazy shit, just don't read any offensive stuff.

Theory is dumb but I'll vote on it. That being said, I'm of the opinion that theory as it's run now is more abusive as opposed to actually checking abuse. If I can find an excuse not to vote on theory, I won't vote on theory. I default to reasonability and RVIs

PICs are stupid but honestly kinda funny to listen to. I'll totally vote on one with no regrets.

Tricks are bad for debate. Fuck you if you read these.

If I didn't mention something, just assume I'm cool with it.

Speaks:

25-26: not great, missing extensions, super unclear, probably undercovered a bunch, made me sad because it doesn't seem like you care about the activity

26-27: same as the above except you didn't make me sad because you like debate and it's obvious you're trying

27-28: a few mistakes here and there but good extensions and a clear understanding of what arguments you were going for. Most people probably end up here

28-29: quality extensions and some really interesting arguments. Tbh probably the same as 27-28 except I thought your case was cool and unique

29-30: I think you're gonna go far in the tournament. Wrapped up everything neatly in a bow for me and I don't have to think at all. also probably gets a smiley face on your ballot

I am the coach at Lake Travis High School in Austin, Texas.

Policy: 

Speed:
I'm fine with speed and any argument style. I'll say clear or slow if needed, start off slower at the beginning of your speech so I can get used to your speed and voice. You probably won't be too fast for me but gauge your speed - I make pretty evident facial expressions if I am lost. I ran a lot of CRT during my high school career, favoring Afropess, so I am comfortable with a lot of critical theory but far left lit like Deleuze or Virilio will need more explanations. Really do whatever in front of me, I'm pretty tab - you can do 1off k or 8 off policy making args as long as you impact and provide a clear framing.

Speaker Points:
My scale is 25-30. I have given few 25s and 30s this year and average about 28.5/29. Here is a rough outline of my scale;
25 - you said something racist, sexist, homophobic etc., were rude or demeaning to your opponent and/or make the debate space unsafe
26-27 - You tried. You dropped some pretty big things on the flow, had inconsistent speed/clarity, didn't impact things out on my flow etc.
27.5-28.5 - you were clear but behind on the top layers of the flow but had decent delivery
28.5-29.5 - you probably deserve to break and you are average/above average. This is the most common speaks I give so don't be surprised if this is what you get.
30 - literal mic drop. You will probably win the tournament if you get a 30. Props.

Theory:
This is fine. Do it if theres abuse. I'm prob not the most receptive to frivolous theory.

Topicality:
I used to have a sticker that said "Topicality is a Timesuck" but my paradigm on this front has probably changed. Especially on this topic I think Topicality is a pretty good litmus test at weighing arguments and offense but I don't think I would hedge my bets entirely on T with me as a judge. I think policy ignores a lot of standards comparison/clash that it probably needed to have an in-depth T debate leaving me mostly disappointed a lot of the time. T probably isn't enough to win you a debate round on neg so if you are going all in on T you probably aren't winning unless your opponent drastically mishandles it. Overall not a huge fan.

CPs:
Do it, I'm receptive. A strategically ran CP/PIC is probably a good strat in front of me as long as you weigh under a given policy fw. They're good if you run them well.

DisAds:
Im fine with it - I am more receptive to specific links/internal links and won't just sign a ballot if you have a big stick impact. On this note, I am probably decently persuaded by a 2AC that does a lot of impact defense. However, defense isn't enough to win on the flow here.

Ks:
Probably my favorite style of argumentation. My kids run a lot of fem and critical/performance stuff so I am familiar with the way kritiks exist & their debate application. Make sure you articulate the alt well and the impact story following the links. I am fine with K affs as long as you emphasize the framing and why my ballot is important.

Performance:
Do it. I am very receptive to this style and write/work with a lot of this on my team. Impact the ballot story well and you will do better in my eyes. Performance is cool and I am a big fan. (Don't forget to extend the performance and embody it all the way through...people don't do this enough and it makes me sad.)
Have fun, make good choices. Framework is the most important thing to me so impact things under it and you'll do great in my eyes. Debate is supposed to be enjoyable and educational so make it that way.

LD:

Pretty much the same as above but I do think the neg in LD seems to warrant an advocacy, especially in Value/Criterion debates or in truth testing the resolution. I default to an offense-defense paradigm a lot here because of a lack of framework weighing. FW is a pretty easy way to get my ballot in LD, I would suggest leveraging this on other arguments as well.

Shaker Heights HS 2011-2015, Harvard University 2015-

No experience in debate but was in Model UN and Model Congress in both high school and college. Experience in and studying social theory and political philosophy. No spreading please!

Background: I debated LD for Corona del Sol HS in Phoenix from 2008-2011.

- Weigh impacts as clearly possible - this is the most important thing. (You don't necessarily have to use a value/criterion structure, but some standard for evaluating impacts is necessary.)
- Signposting - do it.
- Speed: I went fast when I was a debater but I haven't flowed a debate in around six years. Going moderately fast is probably fine, but avoid your top speeds, and prioritize clarity over speed.
- I have a relatively high threshold for theory. If you choose to run theory, make sure it is well developed.
- Critiques are fine, but go slower than you would for other arguments, and explain the argument and its implications clearly.

**Updated October 31, 2023

Hello everyone!

My judging history will show that I’ve primarily tabbed at tournaments since the pandemic started. However, I’ve been keeping up with topic discussions across LD, PF, and Policy and am looking forward to judging you all!

I’ve been in the debate world for over a decade now, and have been coaching with Lexington since 2016. Starting this academic year, I also teach Varsity LD and Novice PF at LHS. I was trained in policy debate but have also judged mainly policy and LD since 2016. I also judge PF at some tournaments along with practice debates on every topic.

TLDR: I want you to debate what you’re best at unless it’s offensive or exclusionary. I try to have very limited intervention and rely on framing and weighing in the round to frame my ballot. Telling me how to vote and keeping my flow clean is the fastest way to my ballot. Please have fun and be kind to one another.

Email: debatejn@gmail.com

ONLINE DEBATE NOTES

In an online world, you should reduce your speed to about 75%-80%. It’s difficult for me to say clear in a way that doesn’t totally disrupt your speech and throw you off, so focusing on clarity and efficiency are especially important.

I usually use two monitors, with my flow on the second monitor, so when I’m looking to the side, I’m looking at the flow or my ballot.

MORE IN DEPTH GENERAL NOTES

If your argument isn’t on my flow, I can’t evaluate it. Keeping my flow clean, repeating important points, and being clear can decide the round. I flow by ear and have your speech doc primarily for author names, so make sure your tags/arguments/analytics are clear. I default to tech over truth and debate being a competitive and educational activity. That being said, how I evaluate a debate is up for debate. The threshold for answering arguments without warrants is low, and I don’t find blippy arguments to be particularly persuasive.

LD PARADIGM

In general: Please also look at my policy paradigm for argument specific information! I take my flow seriously but am really not a fan of blippy arguments. I’m fine with speed and theoretical debates. I am not the best judge for affs with tricks. I don’t like when theory is spread through and need it to be well-articulated and impacted. I have a decent philosophy background, but please assume that I do not know and err on over-explaining your lit.

On Framework: In LD, I default to framework as a lens to evaluate impacts in the round. However, I am willing to (and will) evaluate framework as the only impact to the round. Framework debates tend to get really messy, so I ask that you try to go top-down when possible. Please try to collapse arguments when you can and get as much clash on the flow as possible.

A note on fairness as a voter: I am willing to vote on fairness, but I tend to think of fairness as more of an internal link to an impact.

On T: I default to competing interpretations. If you’re going for T, please make sure that you’re weighing your standards against your opponent’s. In evaluating debates, I default to T before theory.

On Theory: I lean towards granting 1AR theory for abusive strats. However, I am not a fan of frivolous theory and would prefer clash on substantive areas of the debate. In general, I do not feel that I can adjudicate something that happened outside of the round.

On RVIs: I think RVIs have morphed into a way of saying "I'm fair but having to prove that I'm being fair means that I should win", which I don't particularly enjoy. If you’re going for an RVI, make sure it’s convincing and reasonable. Further, please make sure that if you’re going for an RVI that you spend sufficient time on it.

On Ks: I think that the NR is a difficult speech - answering the first indicts on a K and then having to collapse and go for the K is tricky. Please make sure that you're using your time effectively - what is the world of the alt and why is my ballot key to resolving the impacts that you outline?

PF PARADIGM

In general: I rely on my flow to decide the round. Keeping my flow clean is the best path to my ballot, so please make sure that your speeches are organized and weigh your arguments against your opponents.

On Paraphrasing: I would also prefer that you do not paraphrase evidence. However, if you must, please slow down on your analytical blocks so that I can effectively flow your arguments - if you read 25 words straight that you want on my flow, I can't type quickly enough to do that, even when I'm a pretty fast typer in general. Please also make sure that you take care to not misrepresent your evidence.

General Comments On LD/Policy Arguments: While I will evaluate the round based on my flow, I want PF to be PF. Please do not feel that you need to adapt to my LD/Policy background when I’m in the back of the room.

On PF Theory: It's a thing, now. I don't particularly love it, but I do judge based off of my flow, so I will vote on it. However, I really, really, really dislike frivolous theory (feel free to look at my LD and Policy paradigms on this subject), so please make sure that if you're reading theory in a round, you are making it relevant to the debate at hand.

POLICY PARADIGM

On Framework: ROBs and ROJs should be extended and explained within the context of the round. Interpretations and framing how I need to evaluate the round are the easiest path to my ballot. Please weigh your standards against your opponent’s and tell me why your model of debate works best. While I will vote on fairness as a voter, I tend to default to it as an internal link to another impact, i.e. education.

One off FW: These rounds tend to get messy. Please slow down for the analytics. The best path to my ballot is creating fewer, well-articulated arguments that directly clash with your opponent’s.

On Theory and T: Make sure you make it a priority if you want me to vote on it. If you’re going for T, it should be the majority of your 2NR. Please have clearly articulated standards and voters. I typically default to competing interpretations, so make sure you clearly articulate why your interpretation is best for debate. In general, I do not feel that I can adjudicate something that happened outside of the round.

On DA/CP: Explain why your evidence outweighs their evidence and please use impact calc.

On K-Affs: Make sure you’re weighing the impacts of your aff against tech stuff the neg articulates. Coming from the 1AC, I need a clear articulation of your solvency mechanism and the role of ballot / judge.

Hitting K-Affs on neg: PLEASE give me clash on the aff flow

On Ks: Make sure that you’re winning framing for these arguments. I really enjoy well-articulated link walls and think that they can take you far. I’m maybe not the best judge for high theory debates, but I have some experience with most authors you will read in most cases and should be able to hold my own if it’s well articulated. I need to understand the world of the alt, how it outweighs case impacts, and what the ballot resolves.

One off Ks: These rounds tend to get very nuanced, especially if it’s a K v K debate. Please have me put framework on another flow and go line by line.

I did LD for 3 years at Cambridge Rindge and Latin (MA), graduating in 2016. I almost exclusively competed on the national circuit, and qualled to TOC senior year.

HARVARD 2021 UPDATE: I will not be judging probably any prelims, but I will be in the elim pool. I haven't judged on this topic, so please explain any topic-specific references. I also truly cannot flow anymore, so pref accordingly.

I used to have a fair number of preferences & thoughts about this activity, but I'm far enough out that most of those preferences have faded. I will listen to anything that is not horribly messed up and try to intervene as little as possible. Please be nice to each other!

Extraneous things that may/may not be relevant to you:

• My flowing ability has significantly regressed over time, which means I'm probably not the judge for a very fast tricks debate (though a slow one is fine). Similarly, you should significantly slow down for theory interps and other important analytics.
• I won’t call for cards unless 1) there’s a genuine dispute over what the card says or 2) I fell asleep/experienced a comparable loss of consciousness and missed it
• I read a fair number of Ks back in the day, but you should not take that to mean (a) I know what you're talking about or (b) you do not need to explain your arguments
• The fastest way to lose my ballot is to concede a bunch of preempts in favor of reading a few cards that "implicitly answer" those preempts. Please just make implicit comparisons explicit, so I don't have to drop you on a silly argument because you didn't pay lip service to it. This is particularly relevant to topicality debates.
• I was fairly flex as a debater, and appreciate well-designed neg strategies that capitalize on a variety of styles.
• If you say "game over" in your speech, it's "game over" for your speaks! :)

Have fun, be nice to each other, and feel free to ask me any extra questions before round.

Email: spencer.orlowski@gmail.com

please add me to the email chain

New Paradigm 4/26/24

Top level thoughts

I have voted on pretty much everything. I prefer depth and clash to running from debate. Engaging will be rewarded.

Don’t be a jerk to your opponent or me. We are all giving up lots of free time to be here. I won't vote on oppressive arguments.

I think preparation is the cornerstone of the value this activity offers. You shouldn’t rely on theory to avoid reading.

I don't think it’s possible to be tab, but I try not to intervene. Arguments must have a warrant or they aren’t an argument. This applies to all debate styles. (Ex. "6-7-4-6-3" is not a full argument)

I shouldn’t have to have background on your argument to understand it. I have read and seen a lot, but that will be irrelevant to my decision. I won’t fill in gaps for you.

I think most debates are way closer and more subjective than people give them credit for.

Collapsing is a good idea generally.

I will not flow off the doc. That is cheating.

Don’t let my preferences determine your strategy. I’m here for you! Don't over adapt to me.

General thoughts on arguments

Ks: My favorite literature. I have a fair bit of experience with most lit bases commonly read and I really enjoy clash and k v ks debates. I wish I saw more K v K debates. I dislike long overviews and super generic links. I think critical literature is great, but I think you should at least attempt to tie it to the topic if possible. Spec advantage links are great. I will vote on non-T affs and I will vote on T.

Policy Args: I have the most experience evaluating these arguments (I debated them for 8 years). I think comparing evidence and links is more important than generic impact weighing. Turns are OP, and I will vote on smart analytics. I only really read evidence if debaters don’t give me a good mechanism to avoid it. I tend to default to offense/defense paradigm, but I’m open to whatever framing you want to read.

Frameworks: I find phil frameworks interesting and fun. I wish these debates were a bit deeper and used actual phil warrants instead of just extending tricky drops. I think LD is a really great opportunity to get into normative ethics.

Theory – I find frivolous theory a bit annoying (despite what my pf teams might have you believe), but I flow these debates pretty thoroughly and evaluate them pretty objectively. I will accept intuitive responses even if they are light on proper terminology. (i.e not explicitly saying the word counter-interp)

Tricks – Lots of different tricks that I view differently. Things like determinism and skep are better than mis-defining words or 15 spikes. I find good apriories interesting. I have a fairly low bar for intuitive responses. I will probably not vote on “evaluate after x speech”. If I cant flow it I wont vote on it. Hiding one-line paradoxes in tiny text after cards is obviously a waste of everyone's time

For PF

2^nd rebuttal should collapse and frontline

If it takes you longer than a min to produce evidence, it doesn't exist. I think you should just send all cards before you read them.

If I think you inappropriately paraphrased, I will ignore evidence. Read cards to avoid me thinking your paraphrasing is bad.

Use email chains. Send cases and cards before you start your speech. Stop wasting everyone's time with outdated norms

LD Paradigm -- substantial revisions April 2018:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9uh69u3gaqcoh22/LD%20Paradigm.docx

LD Judging Record:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6yyg8kg6n0elx6d/LD%20Judging%20Record.xlsx

Policy Paradigm:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8r16qjhhzyfyb4g/Policy%20Paradigm.docx

boston latin academy '17

smith college '21

email: maryannepas@gmail.com (yes, pls add me to the chain!)

i am a senior in college and have been judging on and off since i graduated high school. i did policy debate, mostly reading k arguments. i have not done any research for this topic so i would really appreciate explanations of topic-specific minutiae & acronyms

TLDR:

do what you do best unless it is offensive. to get my ballot, all you gotta do is tell me how to vote, how to evaluate the round, and explain why you should win. your last speech should be writing a ballot for me. pick the arguments you are winning on the flow and explain/weigh your impacts, and dont drop anything important. please extend warrants, not just tags. i will also probably not do any work for you unless the debate is really close so i would much rather you explain the warrants of a card rather than telling me to read it after the round. most importantly, just have fun with it and be kind to each other.

LD

i have judged a handful of LD rounds, however, i never did LD in high school so I'm really not super familiar with it. as long as you explain your arguments though, I should be able to follow. if you go for theory, i really want to hear in-round impacts or scenarios. if you go for an RVI, make sure that it is reasonable.

Speed

slow down for online debates. please be clear or i will probably not be able to flow you.

K affs

i am absolutely cool with these arguments, and really appreciate well-written k affs. i love judging these debates, however, these affirmatives do require lots of explanation in comparison to regular policy affs -- explain your methods, your authors' arguments, why a rejection of the rez is important...

Ks

explain the alternative and tell me why the k outweighs the aff. i love a good link debate. don't expect me to be familiar with your k lit though, please explain your arguments, especially if you are reading high theory.

Topicality

do impact calc, compare interp evidence, and weigh your interpretation against the other.

Framework

tell me why your model of debate is preferable, why education offered through policy simulation on this topic is good, do impact calc. i appreciate a good TVA.

Theory

i haven't voted on theory a lot, but if you prove in round abuse and impact it well, you're golden.

Flashing

PLEASE keep it short and sweet. If you start taking too long to flash, I will start prep.

Feel free to e-mail me or ask me questions about my paradigm before the round! If you want to know more about how I think about debate, just read Moselle Burke's paradigm

I'm 4 years out from circuit LD, and currently debate for Harvard.

Important: please please please have email chains sorted out before the round. Waiting for email chains is not fun and it slows down the tournament. My email is tejal_patwardhan [at] college.harvard.edu

Speed is fine, prefiat arguments are fine, and performances are fine. I'll basically vote on anything unless it's blatantly offensive. Pref me highly if you run Ks/plans, pref me fine if you run phil (if people still do that), and pref me the lowest if you run theory/spikes (unless the pool is bad--I almost exclusively read tricks my sophomore year so I will vote on this if it's really your thing). I've been out for a while, so I might not know what new abbreviations, jargon, or norms are--please explain these in your speech so I know what I'm voting for. An argument that is just an assertion without a warrant isn't an argument, even if it's dropped.

I like disclosure! Compiling your speech doc counts against your speech time! Please be kind and make me laugh!

I give nice speaks, especially if you weigh well and sit early.

If you have questions about my paradigm, just ask. Good luck!

I did LD for 4 years in high school in the Kansas City, MO circuit. As such, your philosophy/carrying your narrative is more important to me than blocks of evidence. Use evidence to advance your narrative, not to construct it.

I will be flowing the round, so please signpost arguments.

I am not a fan of spreading in LD, which is apparently more common on some circuits than others. If that's your style, awesome, but I need to be able to understand the round clearly.

Style:

• Speed: Speak clearly regardless of your speed. Don’t use speed as a tool of exclusion. If you need to speak quickly to make all of your arguments slow down on the important points, I will only evaluate arguments that make it to my flow.
• Flex Prep: I have no problem if debaters choose to use some of their prep time for additional clarification questions.
• Be respectful and professional! This is supposed to be fun and educational, don’t be rude.

Content:

• Theory: Demonstrable, round-specific abuse is necessary for me to vote on theory arguments. I would rather hear arguments that address the substantive issues of the round so please consider the legitimacy of the argument on the discourse of the round before running Theory.
• Kritik: I love a good, thorough K argument! (with strong links and impacts)
• I will entertain most arguments as long as you are deliberate about your choices and provide significant and high-quality impacts. If you can't explain to me how this argument weighs out in the evaluation of the round, I am not likely to vote on that argument. If nobody does a good job providing me with a quality impact calculus, then I am likely to start looking for my own reasons to prefer one side over the other instead of remaining tabula rasa. Do your work so I don’t have to do it for you!

KAVITA PERSAUD
Judge Paradigm TRADITIONAL JUDGE

Background:
Current Debate Coach at Cape Fear Academy
Coaching High School Debate 2008-2013, 2015- current
Former High School Debater, Parliamentary Debate
Physician.

Philosophy:
Debate is an educational activity.
Debate is about communication.

Likes:
1. Debating the resolution
2. Advocacy of a position
3. Framework
4. Structure & Organization with clear sign-posting
5. Clash
6. Strategic Cross-Ex
7. Engaging Speaking Style
8. Courtesy
9. Crystallization and Weighing
10. Voting Issues

Dislikes:
1. Spreading
2. Non-topical Debates
3. Generic Kritiks
4. Theory unless clear abuse
5. Tricks
6. Rudeness
7. Extinction Impacts when not truly topical
8. Poorly selected evidence or improperly cited evidence
9. Jargon
10.

Please ask additional questions before the round.

Lay judge. 2 years experience judging.

Reshini Premaratne (She/Her/Hers)

Maggie L. Walker Governor's School '16, Harvard '21 (Economics & Government)

Experience: 4 years of LD (2012-2016), National Catholic Forensic League Championship (2014)

Conflicts: Maggie L. Walker Governor's School

My paradigmatic preferences generally match Priya Kukreja's, synthesized below. Feel free to email me with any specific questions at rpremaratne@harvard.college.edu.

Overall

My favorite rounds are when debaters engage in each others' arguments comprehensively. Addressing each point and providing a thorough rebuttal is extremely important to me. Avoiding redundancy, preparedness, big picture analysis, collapsing, weighing, and explicit comparison will be rewarded. Do NOT devolve to a definitions debate. I give higher speaking points to students who are not reliant on their prepared case notes to provide strong rebuttals, cross-examinations, and conclusions.

Speed

Speed shouldn't be an issue — as long as the opponent and myself can understand you, speed is fine. Don't be alarmed if I yell "slower," though. With that said, you would be doing yourself a favor by being slower, measured, and more emphatic when speaking for both your opponent and myself in terms of persuasiveness. Slow down significantly for theory underviews and any one sentence "a, b, c" analyses in frameworks.

Theory/Topicality

I lovd theory debates — so perhaps I am better for prelim round than elim ones. The more specific the evidence and violation the better — you're better running a more nuanced T on a plan aff than "plans bad" theory. But, I would still prefer a different way if feasible. I think you should extend all parts of a shell throughout the round, even if conceded. It can be one sentence. If you run theory/T against someone who has no idea what theory is, I will make leeway for substantive responses that aren't in the typical structure and treat them as terminal defense. I do enjoy a good T debate in which there are competing methodologies of what debate should look like. Substantive T debates (T acts as a turn to aff method or arguments of that sort) are always, always more preferable than "fairness first, don't evaluate the K" arguments.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Pu%2C+Amy

I am judge, who likes to have no preconceived notions and like to assume a position leaning to affirmative or negative arguments with equal propensity. Come prepared to be creative with your framework and I would love to equally entertain creative negation!

Good luck!

My first year in LD Judging. Has judged before in LD and PF.I like clash, very strong value criterion. less reliance on quote and debaters own arguments.

I debated LD for four years at Interlake High School. It was fun.

In general, there’s no argument I won’t vote on, although I do enjoy hearing some a lot more than others. If you happen to be running a less conventional strat, as long as you can convince me of its merit, you’re golden. I also use my flow to make my decision; judge intervention stresses me out.

UPDATE: Unfortunately I've been out of the debate sphere for some time now (since 2016), so please slow down considerably for my benefit. As a result, clearly elaborated voters are now more important than ever to me. Thanks!

Strat (roughly in order of most -> least favorite)

Good ol’ philosophy: I’ll vote for nearly any philosophical framework if it’s well-warranted and well-organized. In-depth debates with a lot of weighing and strategic prioritization are so much more exciting than blippy, spread-out ones. Clash is key. You’ll look a lot better hitting your opponent’s arguments head-on as opposed to avoiding them through barely-relevant, badly-linked uplayering.

Kritiks: The more specific the link, the better (avoid Ks that 99% of ACs link into). Ideally, you’re giving me a role of the ballot too, or at least a basic framework for the K (ex. K’s come first b/c xx…).

Policy args: I’m probably more receptive to disads than plans, though I’ll accept both. That being said, I still want to see some util framework.

Theory: I was not a good theory debater. As a result, I’d rather not have to see theory in-round, but will vote on it if necessary. I default to drop the arg, and am generally favorable towards RVIs.

Technicalities

Speed: I have a decent threshold for speed, but it’s been a while since I’ve had to evaluate spreading, so I would appreciate it if you could start off slower. Additionally, please slow down for complex philosophy and tags. I’ll yell “louder” or “clear” if necessary about 2-3 times until I give up.

Extensions: Please extend explicitly. As in use the word “extend,” otherwise I spend too much time second-guessing whether you actually extended something or not. Good extensions will also tell me the impact of an extended argument, though my standards for 1AR/2AR extensions are slightly more forgiving than 2NR ones.

Weighing: <3

Disclosure: I’m open to disclosure theory, within reason.

Speaks: Clarity is good. Humor is good. Respect is good. Organized speeches are so, so good.

Feel free to ask any more questions if needed before the round!

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)

PF

*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

Updated for 2018 TOC

Public Forum Paradigm for 2018 TOC

First thing to know about me, I am a lay public forum judge. I have judged around the circuit, but I emphasize to you, I am a lay PF judge. I am judging for Bronx Science.

I like delivery that is slow, tasteful, and artful. I prefer big picture analysis over a highly technical line-by-line approach. The role of the final focus should be to tell me who is winning the round clearly and concisely--narrative speeches are preferred. Extension is very important to me, and I will not take well to teams that extend through ink.

With that being said, ink will be limited. During speeches, I like to sit back and listen. Persuasion is very important to me, and for that reason, I value understanding your arguments over following them on the flow, and will take limited notes. I am not aware of arguments regarding topicality or kritiks, and plans are illegal in Public Forum, so I will not vote for them.

I tend to value style and argument equally, as both are very important. I will always vote for the team with the clearest arguments and delivery at the end of the round. I do not care much for how you structure your speeches, but all arguments that you expect to win on have to be in both summary and final focus--not grand crossfire. A second speaking team is not expected to cover their own case in rebuttal.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate:


To preface my paradigm, I have very limited LD judging experience. That said, you may want to strike me. If you are a brave soul and have decided not to strike me, or are considering preffing me more highly in the pool, here are what I expect to be my judging preferences as a new LD judge:

• NO SPREADING. I don’t have problems with it on principle. I just won’t understand you. If you are going too fast (spreading or not), I will simply stop flowing.
• If you are debating in front of me, I might not understand the nuances of the more complex frameworks. If you decide you don’t care and read a complicated framework in front of me, you should be using cross-x and your later speeches to make it as clear as possible for me. If I can’t understand it, I won’t vote on it.
• As someone who has more public forum and congressional debate judging experience, I appreciate good public speaking skills and a strong sense of ethos in round. I will reward these qualities with higher speaker points.
• Please be respectful. There is a big difference between being funny in round, and being rude/hostile. Debate is an educational activity, which requires a level of respect between competitors.
• Finally, to reiterate- I AM AN INEXPERIENCED LD JUDGE. Do not run your Ks, Plans, Counterplans, Disads, T-interps, or run theory arguments in front of me. I will not know how to evaluate these types of arguments. I will probably just be confused.

I guess in general I’ll say the following: You can think of me as an extremely ‘lay” judge. If I cannot understand an argument, I will not vote on it.

Background: I have judged at states, Harvard, Yale, Wake Forest, and many times on the local circuit. I have over 10 years of judging experience, and have been able to judge every event during that time. I am a flow judge for debate, although I do not care for the intricacies of the debate.

LD: Though I can follow and understand theory, do not run it. Stick to the topic at hand and try to be as concise as possible. I understand that you may need to spread if you have a long case or have to address card dumping, but recognize that I cannot judge what I cannot understand. Also, I expect common courtesy throughout the round and it will affect my ballot. If you need to present evidence, do so in a clear and efficient way. Stick to your framework and don't debate the philosophical side of LD. Finally, do not be overaggressive if you are going against an unexperienced opponent.

PF: You can spread if need be, but keep in mind, I cannot flow or vote off of what I cannot understand. Keep the arguments simple enough with a link-chain that isn't too complex. During rebuttal, keep eye contact and try to extend your warranting. I will pay some attention to cross-fires; but if any major concessions occur you must bring it up in a separate speech. If your opponent drops a major point, mention it during your next speech, or I will not vote off of it. Do not bring up new points during final focus or second summary, for I will not take note of them. Have a clear weighing mechanism and do not leave it up to my interpretation/give me clear reasons why to vote for you. When presenting evidence, make sure it is clear where the information actually is.

All Other Debate Events: You can spread, though keep in mind I cannot vote off of what I cannot understand. Try to keep eye contact (if possible) and hold yourself to a high standard of oral presentation.

If I am judging a speech event, ask me for my preferences in person, as they change from time to time.

Harrison HS (2012-2016)

Harvard University (2016-present)

Updated for Harvard 2020.

Email: smryan100@gmail.com

Hi!

I debated LD for four years at Harrison High School, and now do APDA in college.
If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round, message me on Facebook or email me (you're also welcome to contact me after a round if you have questions).

General Things:

* For Harvard 2020: I have not judged since this tournament last year (and have been away from the circuit for awhile) so please do not go top speed / be aware that I may not be super up to date with any new league norms!!!!! *
I will listen to any arguments you want to make provided that they are well warranted and clearly explained to me.
I won’t vote on things that I don’t understand so if you’re running something confusing please make sure you slow down and give me a clear explanation of your case.
Also I am much more likely to vote on one well explained, weighed and warranted argument than a few one-liners.

Flashing and compiling documents won’t count as prep time but please don’t be ridiculous and abuse this.

In round behavior:
I don’t care how fast or slow you talk or whether you sit or stand.
I’ll say clear if I can’t understand you but if I have to continuously say clear and nothing changes then I won’t be able to flow your arguments and can’t vote on things that I haven’t flowed.
Also please slow down on author names and for tags.

Please be respectful to each other. Debate should be a space where everyone is comfortable to engage and participate and if I feel that someone is acting exclusionary / overtly rude I will drop speaks or the debater depending on the severity of the behavior.

Arguments:

I don't really care what kinds of arguments (Ks, plans, theory, phil) you run. Just explain them to me and keep in mind that I don't judge very often so I'm not especially familiar with the kinds of things people have been running recently.

Feel free to ask me questions before / after the round.

Hi

I Diana Sabzevari. I am a Traditional judge who have been judging for last 5 years at local tournaments. I've judged in National tournaments as well.

DO NOT SPREAD

Hi there! My name is Fernanda Scalera and I generally judge on the Florida Gulf Coast local circuit. I do not have an exact number on the amount of LD rounds I have judged this year, but this will be the first time I judge the Jan/Feb topic, therefore, explain everything to me as if I have no prior knowledge (even if I do).

I am a traditional/lay judge.

I generally discourage spreading, as I like to feel as if points were thoroughly addressed and easy to learn from. If you are going to spread, you must have a good reason for it, and speak clearly, annunciate, and do not simply spit words with your face glued to your cards or laptop. I will only flow debate if it was spoken at a reasonable pace, if you spread, I most likely will not flow (or flow well at the least) so keep that in mind. If one opponent spreads and the other does not, it will most likely not fair well for the spreader. If it cannot understand you, I will drop my pen, if I have to do this more than three times (even once and I will be upset) you can pretty much assure you will be docked significantly for manners and argumentation.

I will judge content and focus, especially the connection between the two and your established values, over charisma. However, speaking clearly and eloquently does matter.
The debate environment must be respectful at all times, you should treat your opponent and the judge with the same respect you would like to receive, always use manners and be polite, or else the round simply is not fun.

Be careful running anything progressive, running a K probably won't go well, the same caution should go to counterplans, theory or topicality, don't try and pull a fast one on your opponent or think that running such will catch them off guard and hope that you win the round. This is not to say you shouldn't or can't run them, however caution is your friend. A progressive argument should add to the debate, but make sure it adds a lot.
The diversity of opinions is welcomed, if you wish to run an unconventional argument, I will listen, but you should be able to substantiate it. I do not usually call for evidence, but I will keep note of sources in round so speak names and titles of sources clearly.


Values and Impacts:
If you do not present to me any viable impacts or values, keep the following in mind:
I value life, abstaining from war, and equality over economic gain/loss or "risk of changing the status quo".
I will not vote for an argument based on any personal bias, but I will generally side with the argument that proves it will positively effect the largest amount of people.

Keep your moral and ethical complexes on the simple side, if you overcomplicate it, I may get bored and stop listening.

To me, a conclusion is vital, make it clear why YOU won the round, and don't just spur out "x point was dropped", I'll be the judge of that.
As always, have fun!

I coach at American Heritage and have been coaching privately for 6 years now. My email for speech docs is: Stevescopa23@gmail.com.

Conflicts for TOC external to my school: Cary Academy, David Huang

Shortcut:

Philosophy - 1

Theory - 1

Non-Identity Ks - 1/2

T - 2

Identity K's - 2-4 depending how you read them

Policy - 5/Strike

General: I'm tech > truth, read whatever you want. I have a low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments but they need to be extended in each speech. Also, if I don't think an argument has a warrant I won't vote on it. Speaks are inflated by good strategy and execution and capped by how bad i think your arguments are. If you're reading a bunch of unserious nonsense you might win but most likely won't get good speaks.

- I default to truth testing if no other RoB is read.

- I don’t evaluate embedded clash unless there is an argument as to why I should or the round is irresolvable without it.

- I do not believe you get new 2n responses to AC arguments unless an argument is made for why you get those arguments in the NC.

- I will vote on disclosure theory. Just don’t read it against novices or people who clearly don’t know what it is. I also won’t evaluate it if it becomes clear/verifiable the debater’s team won’t allow it or other similar circumstances.

- Don’t need to flash analytics to your opponent but I would like them

- Even if something is labeled an independent voter, if there is no warrant for why it is one, I won’t evaluate it as such. I also don’t really think “x author is sexist/racist/etc so you should lose” makes much sense. I’ll vote on it if you win it but it’s an uphill battle.

Theory: Go for it - this is probably one of the easier things for me to judge, and I really enjoy judging nuanced theory debates. Slow down on the interpretation a bit if it’s something more nuanced. I don’t “gut check” frivolous shells but obviously if you are winning reasonability then I will evaluate through whatever your brightline is. Also, for counter interps “converse of the interp” is not sufficient, if your opponent says “idk what the converse is so I can’t be held to the norm” I will buy that argument, just actually come up with a counter interp.

I really like RVIs and think they are underutilized so if you successfully go for one I will be happy.

T: T debates weren’t nearly as nuanced when I debated so you may have to explain some of the particulars more than you may be used to. I am also a sucker for semantics.

T “framework”: To be honest I am agnostic on whether affs should be T. I probably lean yes, but I also find non-T affs pretty interesting and fun to judge at times. I don’t consider an aff that doesn’t defend fiat but does defend the principle of the resolution non-T, and I am less persuaded by T in that sense.

Tricks: Sure, but speaks might suffer depending how they're executed and how dumb I think they are.

Ks: I really enjoy a good K debate. Especially psycho, baudrillard, nietzsche, and cap. The more specific the links the better. In a relatively equal debate i dont think i've ever voted for deleuze.

Larp: Probably the worst for this but will listen to it, just need to explain things a little more than you normally would. It is probably an uphill battle to win util vs other phil or Ks but possible if that's your thing.

Framework: This is my favorite type of debate and really want it to make a comeback. Great speaks if you can execute this well and/or read something that interests me.

Speaks: I average probably a 28.5. I assign them based on mostly strategy/execution with a little bit of content, but content can only improve your speaks not make them worse really (with the exception of disclosure probably). I like unique and clever arguments and well executed strategy - I would not advise you to go for a tricks aff if you are a larp debater just because I am judging you, do what you do well to get good speaks. I am also somewhat expressive when I think about how arguments interact so be mindful of that i guess. Also, if I can tell your 1ar/2n/2ar is pre-written your speaks will probably suffer.

How do I get a 30?

I won’t guarantee a 30 based on these strategies but it will definitely increase your chances of getting one if you can successfully pull off any of the following:

1) Going NC, AC really well with a phil NC

2) A good analytic PIC

3) Any unique fwk/K/RoB that I haven’t heard before or think is really interesting

4) A true theory shell or one I haven’t heard before

5) Execute a Skep trigger/contingent standard well

6) Successfully going for an RVI

Lay debates: If you are clearly better than your opponent and it is obvious that you are winning the round, please, dear lord, do not use all of your speech time just because you have the time - win the round and sit down so we can have a discussion and make it more educational than just you repeating conceded arguments for 13 minutes.

I debated for Lake Highland for four years qualifying to the TOC my senior year.

Ultra-short version: I’m comfortable evaluating rounds that are K, framework, or theory heavy. I’m fine listening to util/LARP rounds, but I might not be the best judge to adjudicate them. Don’t forget about Hume.

Warrants: Unless you justify why I should accept something without a warrant (for example, oppression is wrong), arguments must have warrants. Fancy rhetoric != a warrant. Repeating the claim twice != a warrant. “My author says so” != a warrant (unless there’s a reason the author is an authority and is making a descriptive claim they are qualified to make). Arguments without warrants are just claims, as a result I will not vote on something that does not have a warrant. I will, however, vote on arguments with warrants that are clearly false and essentially nonsense so long as your opponent doesn’t point out the nonsense.

Ks: I'm familiar with a lot of K lit ranging from Wilderson to Heidegger so feel free to run whatever you have in front of me.

Theory: Offensive counter-interps are great. I might be a bit annoyed if you run a clearly absurd and obscure shell, but I’m fine evaluating theory rounds. I think education and fairness aren’t voters arguments are underutilized. I default CI until/unless reasonability is justified.

Extensions: If and only if the claim is uncontested, you don’t have to extend the warrant. I’ll be pretty lenient on 2ar extensions. You don’t have to extend theory interps or violations if no I-meets are made (still extend counter-interps).

Speaker points: Here is a list of things I think are awesome and will earn great speaks:

• Science or mathematics used to justify positions (automatic 30 if original/unique/uncommon)
• Hume’s inductive fallacy
• Condo logic
• Original/uncommon positions
• Impact turns
• Cleverly triggered permissibility

Speed: Start slow then ramp up speed. Your speed should be inversely proportional to the blipy-ness of your speech. If you want to emphasize something specific, slow down slightly for it.

If you have any questions, ask me before the round.

Hello Debaters!

I look forward to serving as your judge. As you prepare, I would emphasize the following points:

First, speak at human speed. If you "spread"/talk too fast, I will simply leave out what I don't catch. Remember that the quality of your contentions -- and not only the quantity -- is important. The burden is on you to convince your judge, and that starts with speaking clearly.

Second, as I listen to your speeches, I will be looking closely at not only the content of your argument (the "what"), but *how* you make it. Good organization and clear, logical transitions will earn you points. For LD, this generally means that contentions are tied clearly to the value and value criterion, and that you consider underlying assumptions behind the points you make. Doing so will help you generate clash in the debate, which is important.

Good luck!

CS

t.shertzer@columbia.edu

Background

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

Columbia '20

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

Summary:

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

Framework

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

Theory

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

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

K Debate

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

Speed

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

Misc.

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

*Presentation style <<< clarity of arguments

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

*Speaks start at ~28 and go up or down

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

*Good evidence >>> more evidence

*Have fun!! Tasteful jokes warmly encouraged

Hello! I am Jharick Shields. I am a speech and debate coach at St. Andrew's Episcopal School. I have been coaching for about 20 years and have coached debaters into late elimination rounds in a number of national circuit and NSDA/NCFL tournaments. I have also been fortunate to watch them win a few. Debate allows us the ability to critique the world and to substantively engage with those criticisms. It is a forum in which we communicate those ideas. How you communicate in front of me will directly correlate to the ballot I write. I am truth with tech. I think that you should be able to create a cohesive ballot story while also understanding the fundamentals of LD argumentation. You need to show me that you are reading the sources you are citing. You need to prove that you understand the context behind the arguments you run. You should engage with the arguments of your opponent. Is T engagement with an aff that is nontopical? I would say yes. However, the debater that will earn higher speaks from me will also critically think and engage the affirmative.

Speed is an part of the game of debate. Judge adaptation is also part of the game. I have no problem saying that I missed something on my flow. If the argument is super important, signpost and weigh it. Don't assume that an extension through ink is enough for me to pull the trigger. A lot of times in great debates, amazing weighing tends to win out on cold concessions. Great debaters explain why the argument was conceded. I think that the best debaters figure that out, and close the door on them. I prefer few, well developed arguments to many. However, its your world. I tend to get excited when I am asked to bring out a lot of paper. Just don't assume I got everything you said if you aren't utilizing good communication skills.

I am an old fashioned policy kid, who was fortunate enough to do LD as well. Policy arguments are my heart. I like great plan texts, plan flaws are a thing, CPs with net benefits, strong case debates, Ks(bonus for Ks with policy alts). If thats what you do, I am a really good judge in those rounds. You still have obligations to communicate...

If you are a traditional debater, I still have plenty of love to share. Some of the best rounds I have seen on the national circuit are kids reading a traditional aff. I watch as their opponent gets ready to run 5 off and case. The 1ar gets up, extends their conceded criterion/case evidence, no links the DAs/Ks, perms the CP/Alt and sits down. And maybe the debater doesn't use those terms, but if you make the argument clearly and labeled, I will bridge the educational gap in debate jargon. I am also a very good judge for you.

If you caught me during high school, maybe I could have gotten into tricks/skep stuff. Basically, I can evaluate it, and if both debaters are going down that road together, I won't be as upset going there. I think HEAVY weighing is the only way that I won't gut check for anything else in that debate. Maybe not the best for you, but maybe you just need a somewhat tech judge in a small pool then I am good.

Honestly, I just am really excited to see debates. Run what you want, be respectful, have fun! If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me prior to the round.

For MS Local Touraments:

Everything above applies. There are some things that students do in front of me that don't really help them win the ballot. Here are a few:

1.) Rules Lawyering: I get it, you want to show the judge that you know more about LD or at the very least have a lot of ethos. I must say, through my experience, these cases only end up with that debater losing some ethos. Telling me that something is an NSDA rule when we abide by MSHAA rules is sort of a bad argument. Telling me that a student must have a value, can't run a plan/CP, can't have a criterion, etc is just wrong. In theory, a student can run a case with just 1 contention and nothing else and it is fine. They don't lose the debate, they aren't disqualified, they live to debate another round. Win on the flow.

2.) New arguments: I don't flow these. If the new argument transcends the debate: a student has done something harmful in round, then its fine(but I will most likely intervene, since that is my duty). New evidence that supports arguments already made are fair game. A lot of debaters think that new evidence is the same as a new argument. It isn't.

3.) Mismanaging Drops: Debaters will tell me that an argument was dropped, but it wasn't. They will tell me that they have responded to an argument. They have not. Make sure that you are flowing. After the round, if you show me a quality flow of the debate(and if I have them on me). I will give you a candy/treat or something.

Okay, thanks!!

Hello! My name is Inaara Shiraz and my gender pronouns are she/her/hers.

I am currently a junior at Harvard College. I debated LD 4 years with Colleyville Heritage High School. I have not really been back to the debate world since I left high school and so I am very new at judging.

I would describe myself as a traditional judge. I like to see debates that are about the resolution. I would like to see well-thought and clear argumentation. Being given strong frameworks to consider when making voting decisions is wonderful. It is important within the round for me to see how the offense you are generating is doing a better job of upholding the framework within the round. Please do the legwork to compare evidence between you and your opponent. If you aren't saying reasons as to why I should be preferring your evidence over your opponents, I will unfortunately have to make that decision to the best of my ability- I rather have that decision made for me by you, the debater.

Moreover, I do understand that like much of our society, the debate world contains many problematic elements that are harmful and oppressive. If you wish to read theory or a K as a way of engaging with the larger and more oppressive power dynamics of debate, please do so. It is important that we be constantly engaged in a dialogue to better ourselves and the larger debate communities we navigate. I humbly request, though, that you do not run theory or a K or any other argument that is not directly related to arguing the resolution just because you do not wish to talk about the resolution or because you feel that your opponent is inexperienced and will not be able to handle the kinds arguments you are presenting. I value more to see that the arguments that are being presented are being done with genuine intention and care rather than as a purely strategic decision to win the round.

That being said, you do you. If you want to run theory, Ks, disads, counterplans, and more, please make sure to really break the argument down for me. Please tell me why your opponent's arguments are not sufficient, substantively (the attacks your opponent gave are not strong) and/or structure-wise (i.e. your opponent gave beautiful responses to one part of your argument but didn't attack another integral part of the argument that they needed to in order to win).

I had a better ear for spreading when I was actually debating so if you wish to spread, please do so but if you see me not writing down your arguments or making a confused face, please do me the favor of slowing down.

At the end of rebuttals, please give voters and make sure that you have done spoken to the impacts within the round. You don't need to say that your side is presenting a utopia but definitely tell me why your harms are less bad and your benefits are more good than your opponent's.

It is also important to me that there be respect between the competitors. Definitely celebrate confidence and the strength of your argument but please be careful that you are doing so without belittling your opponent, your opponent’s intelligence, or their ability to debate well. Let us not be mean to each other unnecessarily and let us be aware of how the identities we hold, especially if they are privileged within society, impact our behavior within the round.

As I said, I am very new to the world of judging debates so if you have any questions, please feel free to ask me at the start of the round.

I wish you the very best and am looking forward to your round!

Email chain: msigalow61@gmail.com

Conflicts: Lake Highland Preparatory School

Policy at CFL Nationals:

I coached Circuit LD from 2011 until the 2019-2020 School Year and judged very frequently but haven't judged since then (I just graduated law school). My students have done very well. I debated policy for Emory University from 2011-2014 and have a decent knowledge of NDT-level policy debate but my background is in LD. I am not as familiar with the substantive content of many arguments, especially old arguments the community would know but I would not, or new arguments that became popular after my time. In LD, I judged a lot of "clash of civ" debates and am quite comfortable with K debates, although on the team I coached was the guy who did all the topic-relevant plan/disad/T stuff.

Some quick policy debate comments

1. Almost universally, I am unaware of any particular reputation a team might have. Try not to be too chummy with me or the other judges on any panel to which I might be on. I think that's a form of gatekeeping.
2. I have not had to flow speed in a bit, so be a little generous, if you can afford to do so.
3. I don't think permutations need net benefits (I'm not sure if this view is mainstream).
4. If a component of an affirmative is necessary for the affirmative to solve their advantage, then failure to solve it means the affirmative has not solved their advantage. If instead that component is sufficient, a counterplan that solves that component solves the whole advantage. If it is neither, by the end of the debate it should be clear what role that component plays. I will need less explaining on these points. 
5. Bullying is bad (coaches and competitors). Be nice! Also, talking over people or making fun of their appearance is impermissible.
6. I have seen a disproportionate number of Emory IW and Michigan AP speeches. 

Some general comments for this tournament, including LD-focused biases that may impact how I judge 

1. I am not sure what policy is like at CFL Nationals, but I will be keenly aware of the impact the speed could have in a debate where one team can't flow it and the other team and the judges can. I am not sure to what extent these norms exist in policy.
2. It is probably much easier to get me to vote on a theory argument like condo bad or process counterplans bad than it would be for policy folks, because theory is treated differently in LD.
3. If you can convince me an argument is genuinely new, I won't evaluate it.
4. I don't know the topic or its norms so I would be careful of a T debate.
5. Women get talked over in debates far too much. If I believe you are contributing to this problem I may penalize you.

The LD rules below may apply, but they disproportionately arise because LD's very low number of speeches necessitates stating preferences like those because of the inability to call out late-breaking decisional stances, so they are probably not as important.

LD:

1. No new arguments or arguments that are the exact opposites of a previously made argument.
2. Severely mislabeling arguments is extremely bad.
3. I will not evaluate the debate at any point before its end.
4. I default to offense-defense, competing interps, durable fiat, perms test competition, and that the aff defends implementation.

Lauren Singer (She/her/hers)

I debated for Scarsdale from 2014-2017, so I'm an absolute dinosaur and don't know about any current circuit norms. But very excited to be back judging again! As a debater, I received 3 TOC bids my senior year and attended the New York state tournament most years.

Please read any argument (within reason, obviously) in any style you want, from Ks to traditional debate to 30 a prioris. As a debater, I mostly read theory, tricks, and the occasional cap K.

I'm pretty sure I'll remember how to evaluate rounds pretty well, but because of my dinosaur status, it will probably serve you very well to start/end as many of your speeches as possible with a not super fast overview that tells me exactly how to evaluate the round

Looking forward to meeting you, and hope you have fun!

I'm a sophmore at Tufts in my second year of collegiate debate. I do parlimentary debate, so I won't weigh cards as heavily as other judges might.

The most important things to me are:

Argumentation - your argument needs to be well warranted and impacted so I can understand the logic behind it as well its affect

Weighing - tell me why your issue is the most important one in the round

Presentation - don't spread, make sure I can hear your points and that they are delivered clearly and consistently

Valley HS '14, University of Chicago BA '18, JD '21

I was a national circuit debater and later a coach at West Des Moines Valley. Since 2018, my involvement in debate has been limited to semi-regular judging. I am now a lawyer practicing in Des Moines.

I am fine with almost any warranted argument, run what you want to run. However, I won't vote for an argument that I don't understand. I don't pretend to understand stuff that doesn't make sense. You should thus think hard before reading "high theory" or bad tricks. In general, I probably judge like a rustier version of my former students and colleagues at Valley.

If you are one of the faster (or less clear) debaters on the national circuit, it is probably a good idea to be a touch slower than your top speed, especially online. Slow down a lot on theory interps and plan texts. I'll let you know if I can't understand you. I don't flow off speech docs, and I don't vote on arguments that I don't understand, so clarity is in your self-interest and hiding gimmicks is not.

I like: (1) Analytic philosophy. (2) Creative arguments of any style. Read your weird stuff. (3) NC-AC and straight ref 1NCs. (4) Weighing on all layers, including framework. (5) Good traditional rounds.

I don't like: (1) Reading for a full rebuttal, especially a late one. Your speaks are inversely correlated to your time spent reading. (2) Being mean, rude or exclusionary. Don't frivolously uplayer or spread versus inexperienced or traditional debaters. Generally be the sort of person in round that you want to be out of round. (3) Blippy, purportedly game over arguments, including most tricks and independent voters. I need to actually understand the arg, why it means you win, and the warrants for both. (4) Unreasonable disclosure theory. If you think your interp might be unreasonable, either because of your opponent or the violation (no new affs bad please), read something else.

Last updated: September 28, 2023

 Hi. 

I am a parent. Pref accordingly. 

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

Coaching History:

Mansfield Legacy [2023-Present]
Byron Nelson High School (2018-2021)
Royse City High School (2013-2018; 2021-2023)
Email: matthewstewart@misdmail.org (do please include me in any email chains)

General Preferences [updated as of 3/14/24]:

Theory
More truth over tech. If you're real big on theory, I'm not your judge because I'm definitely gonna goof up that flow.

Disclosure:

Don't run it. I think open source is good and should be the standard, but I don't care for it being used as an argument to smash small schools without prep.

Framework:
Default offense/defense if I don't have a framework to work with. Winning framing doesn't mean you win the round, you still need to leverage it for your offense.


Speed:
Whatever you AND your opponent are okay with! Speed shouldn't be a barrier to debate. Slow up for Taglines/Cites, give me a filler word ("and," "next," etc.) to let me know when you're moving to the next piece on the flow and be sure to give me some pen time on Theory/Topicality shells.

Round Conduct:
Don't be sketchy, rude, or hostile to judges or your opponents! We're all here to learn and grow academically, remember that.

Speaker Points:
Starts at 27 and goes up based on strategy, delivery style, and round conduct. Sub 27 means you most likely said something unabashedly offensive or were just generally hostile towards your opponents.

Miscellaneous Stuff

-Debate what you want to debate, I would rather try to meet you on your side of what debate is rather than enforce norms on you. BUT that doesn't mean you can get away with making unwarranted arguments or not doing extensions, impacts, or weighing like a good debater should!

-Open CX and Flex prep are cool with me, but I will respect the norms of the circuit I am judging in.

-I'm pretty non-verbal as I'm flowing and listening, so for better or worse that's gonna be there.

-Just be chill. Debate the way that is most comfortable for you...hopefully that isn't a really yelly and rude style because I'd prefer you not. Respect each other, do your thing, and we'll all have a good time!

-A roadmap is just telling me what order to put my flowsheets in. No more. No less.

-Be kind to novices, be the support you wish you had when you first started. Bonus points for treating newbies nice.

-Extending specific warrants WITH your cards is good, so is doing evidence comparison and impacting out drops

-The less work you do on telling me how to evaluate the round, the riskier it gets for your ballot. Don't assume we're both on the same flow page or that I can read your mind.

-Sending the doc or speech is part of prep time. I will not stop prep until the doc is sent.

I debated LD for three years for Strake Jesuit (after a brief period in PF). I qualified for TFA State and TOC in LD, and I have instructed at TDC and NSD. I am conflicted with Strake Jesuit. Contact me/add me to docs at jpstuckert@gmail.com

You can call me "JP." "James," "Mr. Stuckert" or "judge" are fine but weird to me.

For online rounds:

1. Keeping local recordings of speeches is good. You should do it.
2. If I or another judge call “clear” video chat systems often cut your audio for a second. This means (a) you should prioritize clarity to avoid this and (b) even repeat yourself when “clear” is called if it’s a particularly important argument.
3. I don’t like to read off docs, but if there's an audio problem in an online round, I will glance to make sure I at least know where you are. I would really prefer not to be asked to backflow from a doc if there's a tech issue, hence local recordings above.
4. You should probably be at like 70% of your normal speed while online.

· I aim to be a neutral party minimizing intervention while evaluating arguments made within the speech times/structure set by the tournament or activity to pick one winner and loser for myself. Some implications:

o The speech structure of LD includes CX. Don't take it as prep and don't go back on something you commit to in CX (unless it's a quick correction when you misspeak, or is something ambiguous). I generally flow cx and factor it into speaker points, but arguments must still be made in other speeches.

o The speech structure also precludes overt newness. Arguments which are new in later speeches should be implications, refutations, weighing or extensions of already existing arguments. Whether 2N or 2AR weighing is allowable is up for debate and probably contextual. Reversing a stance you have already taken is newness -- e.g. you can't kick out of weighing you made if your opponent didn't answer it. (Obviously you can kick condo advocacies unless you lose theory.)

o I won't listen to double-win or double-loss arguments or anything of the sort. You also can't argue that you should be allowed to go over your speech time.

o Being a neutral party means my decision shouldn't involve anything about you or your opponent that would render me a conflict. If I were involved in your prefs, I would consider myself to essentially be a coach, so I won't listen to pref/strike Ks. If other types of out-of-round conduct impact the round, I will evaluate it (e.g. disclosure).

o Judge instruction and standards of justification on the flow are very important, and if they are not explicit, I look to see if they are implicit before bringing to bear my out-of-round inclinations. If two debaters implicitly agree on some framing issue, I treat it as a given.

o Evidence ethics: I will allow a debater to ask to stake the round on an evidence ethics issue if it involves: (1) brackets/cutting that changes the meaning of a card; (2) outright miss-attribution including lying about an author's name, qualifications, or their actual position; (3) alterations to the text being quoted including ellipses, mid-paragraph cutting, and changing words without brackets. Besides these issues, you can challenge evidence with theory or to make a point on the line-by-line. For me, you should resolve the following on the flow: (1) brackets that don't change meaning; (2) taking an author's argument as a premise for a larger position they might not totally endorse; (3) cases where block quotes or odd formatting makes it unclear if something is a mid-paragraph cut; (4) not being able to produce a digital copy of a source in-round. If another judge on a panel has a broader view on what the round can be staked on, I'll just default to agreeing it is a round-staking issue.

· Despite my intention to avoid intervention, I am probably biased in the following ways:

o On things like T framework and disclosure I think there is an under-discussed gap between "voting on theory can set norms" to "your vote will promote no more and no less than the text of my interp in this activity."

o I will be strongly biased against overtly offensive things (arguments which directly contravene the basic humanity of a marginalized group). I don’t think it’s prima facie offensive to read moral philosophy that denies some acts are intrinsically evil (like skep or strict ends-based ethical theories) or which denies that consequences are morally relevant (like skep or strict means-based theories). I also don't think generic impact turns against big stick impacts are innately offensive. But I will certainly listen to Ks or independent voters indicting any of those things.

· Other:

o Speaks: each speech counts, including CX. Strategy and well-warranted arguments are the two biggest factors. My range typically doesn't go outside 28 to 29.5. I adjust based on how competitive the tournament is. I don't disclose them.

o Be polite to novices, even if you can win a round in 20 seconds it’s not always kind to do so. Just be aware of how your actions might make them feel.

o I am usually unpersuaded by rhetorical appeals that take it for granted that some debate styles (K, LARP, phil, theory, tricks) are worse than others, but you can and should make warranted arguments comparing models of debate.

Glenbrooks Update: I’m not that familiar with this topic, so if you have an in-depth substance debate you’ll have to explain yourself more than you usually would.

I debated for Millburn High School in NJ for four years and got four TOC bids.

I’ll vote for any argument I understand that has a warrant that coherently justifies the claim/impact. Debate is your activity and I don’t care about what arguments you make, but I’m probably better at evaluating theory, tricks, and framework than a K or LARP debate. I’m not going to pretend that I’m equally capable of evaluating every argument out there, although I’ll certainly try my best. That said, if I'm judging you, read whatever is most strategic/what you’re comfortable with and certainly don’t change what you normally read – I actually don't care at all what you read, I'm just letting you know this for your prefs.

Misc Comments:

- Repeating the claim of an argument is enough for an extension. For important arguments, spend more time explaining their impacts.

⁃ Like I mentioned above, I’m not the best judge for a K/LARP debate. I’m reasonably familiar with the gist of most Ks and read a decent number of critical positions when I debated, so just slow down and explain more than usual.

⁃ I’d prefer if you’re honest in the round and answer straightforwardly in CX – e.g. if someone asks you if there are presumption triggers are in the AC, just tell them.

⁃ Compiling the speech doc counts as prep, flashing doesn’t

Defaults: if no arguments are made on these issues, I’ll use these defaults:

⁃ Truth testing

⁃ Fairness is a voter, theory is drop the argument, T is drop the debater

⁃ Competing interps, won’t gut check for reasonability

⁃ No RVIs, only counterinterps trigger RVIs

- I’ll evaluate embedded clash if explicit clash is irresolvable

Speaker Points: I’ll try to average a 28.5 and vary them based on strategy, efficiency, and to a much lesser degree, argument quality and how enjoyable you make the round to judge. I won't change them based on what debate style you prefer - when I debated, I didn't like reading what I was uncomfortable with because I thought a specific judge would otherwise give me lower speaks. I’ll say clear/slow/loud as many times as necessary. Don’t be mean or rude, e.g. don’t spread or read tricks/theory/Ks against novices.

Have fun! Debate is a great activity, and it’s better when everyone is relaxed and has a good time. Feel free to ask me questions before the round if I’m missing anything here.

I debated LD on the national circuit for four years at Walt Whitman High School + graduated in 2015. I've been out of the game for a while so please keep that in mind. I'm currently coaching Montgomery Blair PZ and Montgomery Blair CZ.

My judging paradigm is pretty much in line with Emily Massey's paradigm:

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=emily&search_last=massey

Please weigh!

In general, I prefer the standard debate methodology, Other styles of arguments are fine, but if they aren't run well or detract from the overall debate experience, I am far less likely to pick them up.

Please do not sacrifice clarity for the sake of speed, if I can't figure out what you are saying I cannot flow, should this be the case I will verbally request for clarity, if it persists beyond that point my ability to flow will be impacted. That said, I am generally fine with a moderate amount of speed when clear.

I will maintain a timer, but I am perfectly fine should you wish to use a cellular device for a timer or a laptop or tablet as a document reader / note taker.

I appreciate brief roadmaps prior to giving a speech, which I will not time.

Over the course of the debate I expect interaction between debaters, without back and forth the overall quality of the debate is diminished and it becomes harder to judge.

Value and Criterion: Value and Criterion matters and I will hold the debater to the value that is expressed as the criterion need to relate to the value at all times.

Evidence matters a lot. I am open minded, and I do come prepared with a lot of evidence on the topic before I judge but I am not constrained by my views.

Cross-ex is important and the best ones focus on the other team's evidence. Truth = evidence quality + technical proficiency. Author qualifications matter with authenticity and not some random reference

The aff. should be topical. The aff. needs an offensive justification for their vision of the topic. Reasonability is meaningless and ultimately begs the question of the impact.

Conditionality is good. I am far more likely to be convinced by a qualitative interpretation than a quantitative one.

Clarity. Be clear. Keep the tempo reasonable at all times. Keep your enthusiasm at all times and work through the end of the debate. After several rounds of debate, it gets tiring and I get it but you cannot lose hope and give up. If your enthusiasm and involvement suffers, your points will suffer. If I can't understand the argument, it doesn't count. There is no difference between being incoherent and clipping.

Crystalization of Points: You can crystallize but I will judge independent of your crystallization

Speaker Points: As far as Speaker Points, professionalism is highly encouraged, try to stay organized and track your own time, I will be doing so as well but having good tempo and structure to arguments vastly improves a speeches cogency. Additionally, if you come across as disrespectful or rude you take away from the debate experience and I am inclined to take away speaker points.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round starts once both the debaters are in the room.

Hi! I debated for Cambridge Rindge and Latin in Massachusetts and graduated in 2017. Please add me to the email chain: ollieqs@gmail.com. I have fewer thoughts now that I'm not super involved, so here are just a couple important things:

• I don't flow off speech docs, yet also have relatively poor spreading comprehension -- please slow down a little bit overall, and slow down significantly below that for analytics
• I'll vote on anything with a warrant except for [awful thing] good; I was fairly "flex" as a debater
• Defaults: presume neg, fairness is a voter, competing interps, drop the arg, perms are a test of competition (btw, in my view this means they don't need net benefits)
• Prep ends when you're done assembling your speech doc, and I'll probably think you're cheating if you take more than my arbitrary standard for a reasonable amount of time to email/flash
• I am not (consciously) biased against K's or K affs - I just don't think I'm very good at evaluating them. If you run them, please explain using clear, concise sentences with small words, and be very explicit about framework, weighing, and how the alt/advocacy functions
• Affs should have a framework. If you don't read one, I'd be pretty receptive to a 1NC that reads any framework + args that you don't get to read a new framework in the 1AR
• I'm ok with tricks that are "tricky" in virtue of having clever justifications/implications; I do not like tricks that are tricky because they are hidden and short. Also, I will not vote on tricks that genuinely make no sense (as in I truly couldn't explain the warrant in an RFD), even if dropped. Bear in mind: the more blippy it is, the less likely it is to make sense.
• Random notes: I don't understand the need to distinguish permissibility from presumption. Permissibility is a subset of presumption. Also, I dislike truth testing vs. comparative worlds debates. Comparative worlds is just truth testing minus NIBs, so the real debate is just NIBs good/bad.
• Things that are a waste of your speech time: prewritten overviews, extending the text of interpretations/voters/paradigm issues, self-evident theory internal links, "here's how the round breaks down"'s that are really just repetitions of every argument in the debate
• Speaks bonuses: tech, being completely comprehensible, being friendly and having fun, giving me a debate I haven't heard before, having the smart answers to arguments rather than the obvious ones, sitting down early when you know you can
• Speaks penalties: ASKING FOR A 30 (-1 speaks), yelling, general hubris, being rude, not disclosing, inefficiency, not understanding/actively misunderstanding your own arguments, being exclusionary to novices
• Random things I dislike: waving your arms around in disbelief during your opponent's speech (I probably did this though don't @ me), using "we," referring to me by name during your speech

If you have questions about anything else, don't hesitate to ask!

Updated pre-Wake/post-Harvard

I will do my best to adjudicate the round in front of me.  I do not think that your style of argumentation, my personal favorite arguments, what I used to do when I debated, or similar things should influence the decision or my points, and to the extent possible I will endeavor to be a neutral critic.

That said, clearly I have more experience with some types of debate than others.  I read almost exclusively "policy" arguments as a debater, and I am unfamiliar with philosophical literature of any flavor.  One of the things that I think has become apparent is that there is sometimes a disconnect between what a team thinks they are saying and what a judge unfamiliar with their style of debate thinks they are saying.  I will do my best to meet you in the middle, but I am necessarily limited by my experience (or lack thereof).

To that end, if you are a "non-policy" team, you would maximize your chances for success in front of me by explaining your arguments in relatively more basic / concrete terms.  K buzzwords are unlikely to hold much meaning for me, as I simply lack the relevant context to unpack your argument from phrases like "libidinal economy" alone.  Concrete explanations of the alternative / affirmative are very helpful for me to better understand your argument (e.g. if you challenge a particular epistemology/methodology, what would an alternative to that look like; what would / could result from adopting this mindset) and to answer the question of what it means for me to vote for you; this is frequently the issue I struggle with most.

 

Speaker points
Following recent discussions, I have determined that I have not been self-reflexive enough in giving out points.  I have thus developed the following scale for assigning speaker points.  If you have a question about my points after the round or you would like me to disclose them during my RFD, please ask and I would be happy to.

**If a tournament (e.g. Wake) provides a scale, I will use that scale rather than my own scale**

> 29.5: one of the best speakers I expect to see this year; top 5 speaker award range
29.3 - 29.5: very good speaker; top 10 speaker award range
29 - 29.2: quite good speaker; top 20-30 speaker award range; should clear*
28.6 - 28.9: good speaker; should clear*
28.4 - 28.5: solid speaker; may have some issues to work out; reasonably likely to clear*
28 - 28.3: solid speaker; needs some work; probably shouldn't clear* but should be close to .500
27.5 - 28: decent speaker; needs substantial work
27 - 27.5: okay speaker; needs significant work
< 27: you have done something deeply problematic in this debate 

Note: * when I say "should clear" and variants thereof, I mean "if they debated in all rounds like they debated in this debate, I would expect this team to be in the top 32 at this tournament".  I do not intend to try to adjust my points ad-hoc to ensure that particular teams clear; this is simply how I have expressed the subjective process of identifying certain debaters as better than other debaters. 

Within these parameters, my speaker points focus more on execution of arguments, smart decisionmaking, and the quality of questions and answers in CX.  I am unlikely to dock speaker points based on the content of your arguments (e.g. I'm not going to subtract .5 because you read ASPEC or because you didn't have a specific CP).  I am likely to dock speaker points if you are overly aggressive or rude to the opposing team.

 

 

Old philosophy (still true)

Everything here is a reflection of my defaults absent argumentation from debaters. Defaults can be overridden with arguments.

Important Things
Topic experience: very little.  I have a full-time job that is not debate, and I was never very good with acronyms to begin with.  I just finally remembered what AUMF meant today.  Only vaguely aware of its relation to the topic.  Explain stuff.

Pure offense/defense is silly. You don't need offense on every flow, just an offensive reason for me to vote for you.  There may always be "a risk," but with good defensive arguments this risk can be so minimal as to warrant ignoring it.

Argumentation outweighs cards: explain your ARGS, don't just cite author names!!!  I am unlikely to call for all of your cards after the round and base my decision on their quality. I think that kind of judging lends itself to intervention. I like it when YOU talk about ev quality, but I don't want to do that for you.


Specific arguments:

Can you read your K in front of me? - I guess so. I'm not ideologically opposed to critical arguments, but I have never read any critical literature of any flavor and do not intend to do so - it's just not my thing. Therefore, don't assume that I know anything about your authors or various K buzzwords you will throw around. Please explain things, the more specifically the better, especially if your argument is really 'high theory.' The same goes for K affs, "performance" teams, whatever.

Do you need a plan? - I don't really care.  Do what you do and do it well.  Just because I liked to talk about the topic doesn't mean you can't win in front of me if you don't.  (triple negative whatup) 

Topicality - Impacts are quite important to me, which manifests itself in two ways. 1: if the aff proves they have a good enough interpretation of the topic, it'll be tough to convince me to vote neg for an interpretation that is only marginally better if this difference isn't well impacted. 2: impacts outweigh ev quality. I don't really see the point of nitpicking about whose definition is minutely clearer absent a reason why that's important (so, if you think this is important, tell me why).

Theory - SLOW DOWN PLZ.  No, seriously.  SLOW DOWN - I can't write that fast.  Even if it's dropped, if it wasn't a coherent argument in the first place and/or if you're not going to explain why I should reject the team, don't bother extending it. I don't really think the team defending against accusations of theoretical illegitimacy must prove that what they did is net BETTER for debate, just that it's not too bad.

Disads/CPs - Yes please. If you go for a CP, my default is that you have forgone the status quo as an option; therefore, I will NOT kick the CP for you if I decide it is not net beneficial and/or competitive. This can be changed if you explicitly make arguments to the contrary in the 2NR.

Do you want good points?
-Be nice, be respectful.  Passionate is good; aggressive is bad

I have a high school level experience with LD. I under no circumstances let personal opinion on a debate topic influence my decision in judging a round. Before I even show up to a debate, I am sure to suspend my prejudices and try to step outside of my own belief. I focus on the key arguments of the round and use the strength of the key arguments form both sides to influence my decision. I intend on keeping a rigorous flow of notes throughout the round, however, I sometimes use an outline of the main arguments based on the speed of the delivery. Delivery and presentation (speed, professionalism, etc.) do factor into my decision, however the focus of my judging is on the argument.

The things:

Npiredebate@gmail.com

Affil: Baylor, Georgetown University, American Heritage and Walt Whitman High School.

If you think it matters, err on the side of sending a relevant card doc immediately after your 2nr/2ar.

**New things for College 2023-24(Harvard):

Weird relevant insight: Irrespective of the resolution- I am somewhat of a weapons enthusiast and national security nerd.

Yes, I am one of those weirdos that find pleasure in studying weapon systems, war/combat strategy and nuclear posture absent debate. Feel free to flex your topic knowledge, call out logical inconsistencies, break wild and nuanced positions etc. THESE WILL MAKE ME HAPPY(and generous with speaks).

In an equally debated round, the art of persuasion becomes increasingly important. I hate judge intervention and actively try to avoid it, but if you fail to shore up the debate in the 2nr/2ar its inevitable.

Please understand, you will not actually change my mind on things like Cap, Israel, Heg, and the necessity of national security or military resolve in the real world...and its NOT YOUR JOB TO; your job is to convince me that you have sufficiently met the burden set forth to win the round.

Internal link debates and 2nr scenario explanation on DAs have gotten more and more sparse...please do better. I personally dont study China-Taiwan and various other Asian ptx scenarios so I will be less familiar with the litany of acronyms and jargon.

***

TLDR:

Tech>Truth (default). I judge the debate in front of me. Debate is a game so learn to play it better or bring an emotional support blanket.

Yes, I will likely understand whatever K you're reading.

Framing, judge instruction and impact work are essential, do it or risk losing to an opponent that does.

There should be an audible transition cue/signal when going from end of card to next argument and/or tag. e.g. "next", "and", or even just a fractional millisecond pause. **Aside from this point, honestly, you can comfortably ignore everything else below. As long as I can flow you, I will follow the debate on your terms.

Additional thoughts:

-My first cx question as a 2N/debater has now become my first question when deciding debates--Why vote aff?

-My ballot is nothing more than a referendum on the AFF and will go to whichever team did the better debating. You decide what that means.

-Your ego should not exceed your skill but cowardice and beta energy are just as cringe.

-Topicality is a question of definitions, Framework is a question of models.

-If I don't have a reason why specifically the aff is net bad at the end of the debate, I will vote aff.

-CASE DEBATE, it's a thing...you should do it...it will make me happy and if done correctly, you will be rewarded heavily with speaks.

-Too many people (affs mainly) get away with blindly asserting cap is bad. Negatives that can take up this debate and do it well can expect favorable speaks.

More category specific stuff below, if you care.

Ks

From low theory to high theory I don't have any negative predispositions.

I do enjoy postmodernism, existentialism and psychoanalysis for casual reading so my familiarity with that literature will be deeper than other works.

Top-level stuff

1. You don't necessarily need to win an alt. Just make it clear you're going for presumption and/or linear disad.

2. Tell me why I care. Framing is uber important.

My major qualm with K debates, as of late, mainly centers around the link debate.

1. I would obvi prefer unique and hyper-spec links in the 1nc but block contextualization is sufficient.

2. Links to the status quo are links to the status quo and do not prove why the aff is net bad. Put differently, if your criticism makes claims about the current state of affairs/the world you need to win why the aff uniquely does something to change or exacerbate said claim or state of the world. Otherwise, I become extremely sympathetic to "Their links are to the status quo not the aff".

Security Ks are underrated. If you're reading a Cap K and cant articulate basic tenets or how your "party" deals with dissent...you can trust I will be annoyed.

CP

- vs policy affs I like "sneaky" CPs and process CPs if you can defend them.

- I think CPs are underrated against K affs and should be pursued more.

- Solvency comparison is rather important.

T

Good Topicality debates around policy affs are underappreciated.

Reasonability claims need a brightline

FWK

Perhaps contrary to popular assumption, I'm rather even on this front.

I think debate is a game...cause it is. So either learn to play it better or learn to accept disappointment.

Framework debates, imo, are a question of models and impact relevance.

Just because I personally like something or think its true, doesn't mean you have done the necessary work to win the argument in a debate.

Neg teams, you lose these debates when your opponent is able to exploit a substantial disconnect between your interp and your standards.

Aff teams, you should answer FW in a way most consistent with the story of your aff. If your aff straight up impact turns FW or topicality norms in debate, a 2AC that is mainly definitions and fairness based would certainly raise an eyebrow.

My name is Bill Thompson and I am currently the Director of Speech and Debate at NSU University School in Fort Lauderdale Florida. In college I competed in CEDA and NFA LD debate at Western Kentucky University. Since that time I have coached students in every form of HS debate and judged outrounds of all three at TOC and NSDA/NFL. I think all events have value and purpose and tend to reward debaters who think critically and provide analysis in addition to a litany of cards. As a general overview, I don't coach or judge policy or LD with great frequency any more but that may be to your favor. I am not burnt out on any arguments I just want you to explain them clearly inside the round and that will be where my decision is made.

Policy - I typically default to Policy Maker paradigm. I will vote on theory but need to see unique abuse to vote on T. Please do impact calculus in final speeches. Tell me where you want me to vote and I will look there first. The faster you go the better you structure & signposting needs to be. I also appreciate debaters who slow down a little for tags. Be as aggressive as you like, don't be rude. Your chances of winning significantly increase when last speeches start with "Even if..." statements

- I typically prefer topical Affs but I will listen to anything if you justify your approach and stick to it. I do believe in one old school premise and that is that the Aff has THE burden of proof. To that end it is possible (though not common) for the negative to win without offense. If the Aff doesn't fulfil their burden of proof then I have a hard time votin aff. That said they could win a DA turn, K Turn, etc... Just making sure you know I don't buy "Without offense on neg you must vote AFF"

- I don't want you to go for everything in last speeches. Pick your battles and pick them wisely. Depth is rewarded on my ballot

- DA's I like specific/unique link stories that also have have brightines and clear impacts. Generic arguments are not something I like

- K's are fine and I am open to hearing your arguments but I want a clear idea of how I evaluate the K. I also prefer K's that have specific links to the aff and not merely the world at large. I am NOT saying you can't run those K's, I just find that rounds where you show specific links to the Aff's advocacy have better ground for debate than rounds that argue about the general state of the world.

- Counter Plans - I like them. It may seem obvious, but after 20 years, I only ask you CP doesn't have the same issues you point out with the Aff's advocacy. I am not a fan of conditional Counter Plans and I urge you to be perm proof because I buy perms if the CP isn't Mutually Exclusive.

- T I will vote on it if you show unique abuse but I give Aff resolutional interp rights.

- Speed - I can flow speed but appreciate debaters who slow dow for tags the more complex and nuanced your argument the more you should consider taking a little time to explain the argument. Going fast to get out a lot of information is fine. Going fast to say the same thing over and over is a waste of time. speed is never a substitute for word economy

LD - I will vote on theory but please run it well. I like old school LD but I am also open to K arguments too. I don't go in to a round hoping to see anything in particular except clash. Please do impact calculus in final speeches. Tell me where you want me to vote and I will look there first. The faster you go the better you structure & signposting needs to be. I also appreciate debaters who slow down a little for tags. Be as aggressive as you like, don't be rude. Your chances of winning significantly increase when last speeches start with "Even if..." statements

- I typically prefer topical Affs but I will listen to anything if you justify your approach and stick to it. I do believe in one old school premise and that is that the Aff has THE burden of proof. To that end it is possible (though not common) for the negative to win without offense. If the Aff doesn't fulfil their burden of proof then I have a hard time voting aff. That said they could win a DA turn, K Turn, etc... Just making sure you know I don't buy "Without offense on neg you must vote AFF"

- In as much as LD doesn't have a standard structure I need some sort of Framework/Role of the Ballot in order to render my decision.

- Please collapse in the NR. If you go for everything your chances of losing increase exponentially.

- Unlike Policy, you have a small amount of time. Word economy and decision making (what to go for) is mandatory to win my ballot. I don't like blippy arguments I like developed arguments.

- Speed - I can flow speed but appreciate debaters who slow dow for tags the more complex and nuanced your argument the more you should consider taking a little time to explain the argument. Going fast to get out a lot of information is fine. Going fast to say the same thing over and over is a waste of time. speed is never a substitute for word economy

PFD - I am willing to let the debaters in the round determine how the debate is approached, but please explain your arguments clearly. Please do impact calculus in final speeches. Tell me where you want me to vote and I will look there first. Be as aggressive as you like, don't be rude. Your chances of winning significantly increase when last speeches start with "Even if..." statements

10+ Year Coach and 500+ Round Judge

Traditional LD Judge

HS LD Debater

---

I enjoy a substantive framework with well-supported contentions that clearly link.

I will consider off-case positions but am reluctant to vote off of them.

Don't spread. If I don't flow it, I won't evaluate it. Be clear throughout the round.

Don't make new arguments/applications in final speeches. I will only consider original lines of arguments/turns.

Be passionate and believe in your arguments. I will reward you with speaker points.

Be respectful. Don't insult your opponent at any point.

---

Frameworks: Choose ones that respect human worth. I'm not tabula rasa. Human extinction is not good.

Arguments: I like specific examples, real-world comparisons, and solvency. Statistics can be spurious so make sure you know the studies for your arguments to survive (what they measured, time-frame, methodology).

Critiques: Not likely to vote off them, but read clearly we'll see.

Counterplans: Be specific, have solvency examples.

DAs: Link them to some framework or else.

I have 7 years of both debate and judging experience combined, ill go into deeper detail before an actual debate round (feeling lazy)

I consider myself to be an all around judge, in the sense that my sole purpose in the debate round is to evaluate it and vote on who made the most convincing argument. 

I love debate! I have a background in traditional LD and currently participate in American Parliamentary.

I'm mostly tab besides a few preferences

For LD:

- I love value criterion debate, but don't think it's necessary for a round

- If you run anything non topical please explain why it matters in the round. I.e. don't just read a k and move on, read a k and then immediately tell me how it functions in the round.

- flex prep is fine if both debaters agree

For WSD

- please be clear with your warranting

- Tell me why your impacts matter more than your opponents'

- Make sure you properly engage with clash. don't just summarize what you disagree on, analyze the purpose it plays in the round, like whether or not this links into any viable offense, for example.

- please keep your reply speeches organized so I'm also on board with the biggest issues in the round :)

For APDA

- team w/ most meme page rep picks up

- of the winning team the most frequent participant in doomthreads gets highest speaks

My email is beccatraber (at) gmail (dot) com. I want to be on the email chain. I don't disclose speaks.

I am a debate coach and former teacher at Lake Highland Prep school. I help run NSD Flagship on site. I'm currently a law student at Texas.

Added Nov 19, 2022: Several recent rounds made me think I needed to make something clear. I probably won't find your arguments that funny--I am old, I've certainly seen it before. Please don't waste my time with meme rounds stuffed full with things like shoes theory or other outrageous offs. Particularly don't run things where the joke basically depends on it being funny to care about something related to social justice. I have no aversion to tricky or clever arguments, but I do strongly care about argument quality and if it's something that's been floating around since 2004, I've definitely seen it too many times to actually find it clever. Your speaks will suffer if you don't take this seriously.

MJP Shorthand:

I predominately coach k, phil, and theory debaters. I'm comfortable judging any given round. I regularly vote for every type of case/debater. If you want to know what my preferences are, the following is pretty accurate:

K - 1

Phil - 1

Theory - 2

Tricks - 3

Policy - 3** (see details below, in the circuit section)

(My debaters told me to add those numbers, but it bears repeating: I can and will judge whatever round you want me to have. This is just what makes me happiest to judge)

Traditional LD Paradigm:

(If you are reading this at a CFL, this is what you should focus on. You can read the circuit thing if you want, but this overrules it in a very non-circuit context.)

Overall, I want to judge the debate you want me to judge, so you do you. A few thoughts about what I think on things:

1. Please don't go new in the second speeches, especially the 2AR. I will not evaluate new evidence or new framing that your opponent doesn't have a chance to answer.
2. If an argument is dropped and unresponded to in the first chance it has to be responded to (eg, the NC doesn't respond to something in the AC), I consider it true. You can't respond to it directly, but you may frame the argument or weigh against it. You can contest the implications.
3. I flow the whole round on my computer. That's how I make my decision. That's why I am typing the whole time.
4. I would prefer if you time yourself--I am very out of the habit of time signals. Tell me if you want them.
5. In general, I think the value/criterion is crucial for LD. You must normatively justify a criterion that is capable of serving as a measuring stick for what impacts matter in the round. This means that ideally for me, your criterion should be warranted in terms of why it is the right way to think about morality, not just defining it. This has the effect of me generally preferring criteria that are specific actions ("not treating people as a means to an end") than broad references to the intellectual history of the idea ("Kant's categorical imperative.") To generalize: criteria should have a verb.
6. I am willing to exclude consequentialist impacts if the framework is won explaining why I should.
7. Comparative impacting is very important to me. I want to know why your argument is good/true, but I want to know that in terms of why your opponent's argument is bad/false.
8. Be extremely clear about what you think is aff ground and what is neg ground and why. I've judged a lot of CFL debates lately where there has been intense disagreement about what the aff could defend--be clear when that's happening and try to explain why your approach is more consistent with the literature. Part of that involves looking for definitions and sources in context: avoid using general dictionaries for technical terms.
9. If you raise issues like the author qualifications or any general problem with the way that your opponent warrants something, I need an argument from you as to why that matters. For instance, don't just say "this evidence is older than my evidence," point out the intervening event that would make me think the date matters.
10. I am fine with speed in theory, but it is very important to me that everyone is on the same page. If your opponent is not used to flowing full spreading, please don't. You may speak quickly, you may sit down, you may do whatever jargon you like--as long as you prioritize sharing the space and really think about explaining your arguments fully.
11. I don't mind you reading progressive arguments, but it is very important to me that everyone understand them. What that means is that you are welcome to read a k or topicality, but you have a very high burden of articulating its meaning and function in the round. I'll vote on T, for instance, but I'm going to consciously abandon my assumptions about T being a voting issue. If you want me to vote on it, you must explain it in round, in a way that your opponent understands. The difference between me and a more traditional judge will mostly be that I won't be surprised or off-put by the argument, but you still have to justify it to me.
12. I tend not to be allowed to disclose, but I will give oral feedback after the round. You don't have to stay for it, but I'm happy to answer any questions you have!

Circuit LD Paradigm:

Qualifications: I debated on the national circuit for the Kinkaid School, graduated 2008. It's a long time ago, but I finaled at the TOC and won several national tournaments. I've been coaching and teaching on the national circuit since. I am finishing my dissertation at Yale University in Political Theory. In Fall 2020, I started working as a full-time teacher at Lake Highland Prep in Florida. I've taught at more camps than I care to think about at present, including top labs at NSD and TDC.

Shorthand:

K - 1

Phil - 1

Theory - 2

Tricks - 3

Policy - 3** (see details below)

Some general explanations of those numbers & specific preferences, roughly put into the categories:

K

I am well-read in a wide variety of critical literature. I'm familiar with the array of authors commonly read in debate.

I like k-affs, both topical and non-topical. I generally buy method links, method perms, advocacy links, advocacy perms, and so on. I can and do buy impact turns. That being said: I also regularly vote against ks, and am willing to hear arguments about acceptable and unacceptable k/link/perm/alt practices.

I think it is important to be able to articulate what the alt/advocacy looks like as a material practice, but I think that's possible and persuasive for even the most high theory and esoteric ks.

The critical literatures I've coached or read the authors myself include (but aren't limited to): ableism, a variety of anti-capitalisms/marxisms including Jodi Dean, anthropocentrism, a variety of anti-Blackness literatures, Baudrillard, semiocapitalism, ecology critiques, securitization/threat construction, nationalism critiques, a variety of queer theories, Heidegger, Deleuze, Laruelle, Lacan, Derrida, Foucault, Bataille, and others. I'm old and I read a lot. I'm comfortable in this space.

Ontological Pessimism: I am uncomfortable with debaters reading ontologically pessimistic positions about identity groups that they do not belong to. I won't auto-drop the debater reading it, but I am an easy get for an argument that they should lose by the opponent.

As a general thing, I would like to strongly remind you that these are positions about real people who are in the room with you, and you should be mindful of that when you deploy narratives of suffering as a way to win the round. And yes, this applies to "invisible" identities as well. If you're reading an ontologically pessimist position, especially if the thrust of the debate is about how things that are or are not consistent with that identity, and things that identity cannot or can do--I completely think it's fair game for your opponent to ask you if you identify in that way.

If you're not willing to answer the question, perhaps you shouldn't be running the case. I've sat through a lot of disability debates recently and I'm starting to get very frustrated with the way that people casually talk about disabled people, without any explicit accountability to disabled humans as people in the space and not just figures of Lacanian abjection. I will vote on it, but try not to be a jerk. This isn't just a debate argument.

If you read a slur or insult based on an identity that doesn't apply to you (race, gender, ability, class...anything), I am not voting for you. You lose. There's no debate argument that I'll listen to justifying it. Even if it is an example of a bad thing: I don't care. You lose. Cut around it. Changing letters around isn't redacting it if you still read it.

Policy FW/T-Must-Be-Topical: I regularly vote both that affs must be topical and that they don't have to be. I regularly coach in both directions. I think the question is very interesting and one of my favorite parts of debate--when done with specific interaction with the content of the aff. I particularly like non-standard T-FW and TVAs which aren't the classic "must defend the hypothetical implementation of a policy action."

Accessibility note for performances: If you don't flash the exact text of your speech, please do not play any additional sounds underneath your speaking. If there is sound underneath your speaking, please flash the exact text of what you are reading. I do not want to undermine the performance you want to engage in and whichever option you prefer is fine for me. It is fine to have part of your speech be on paper with music underneath and then turn the music off when you go off paper. I struggle to understand what is being said over noise and I'm uncomfortable being unable to know what is being said with precision.

Phil

I am well-read in a variety of philosophical literature, predominantly in the post-Kantian continental tradition and political theory. I also enjoy a well-constructed phil case. Some of my favorite debates are k v phil, also--I see them generally as dealing with the same questions and concerns.

For phil positions, I do think it is important that the debater be able to explain how the ethical conception and/or the conception of the subject manifests in lived human reality.

I am generally more persuaded by epistemic confidence than epistemic modesty, but I think the debate is usually malformed and strange--I would prefer if those debates deal with specific impact scenarios or specifics of the phil framework in question.

I prefer detailed and well-developed syllogisms as opposed to short and unrelated prefer-additionalys. A good "prefer-additionally" should more or less be a framework interaction/pre-empt.

In general, I've been in this activity a long time. The frameworks I've coached or read the authors myself include (but aren't limited to): Kant, Hegel, Marx, alienation, Levinas, Butler, Agonism, Spinoza, Agamben, Hobbes, contractualism/contractarianism, virtue ethics, testimony... I'm really solid on framework literatures.

Theory

I'm willing to listen to either reasonability or competing interpretations.

I don't assume either fairness or jurisdiction as axiomatic voting issues, so feel free to engage on that level of the theory debate.

I'm suspicious of precision/jurisdiction/semantics as the sole thing you extend out of a T-shell and am generally compelled by reasonability in the form of "if they don't have any pragmatics offense, as long as I demonstrate it is compliant with a legit way of interpreting the word, it doesn't have to be the best interpretation."

I do really enjoy a well-developed theory argument, just make sure you are holding to the same standards of warranting here that I demand anywhere. Internal links between the standards and the interpretation, and the standards and the voter, are both key.

I love a good counter interp that is more than defending the violation--those result in strategic and fun rounds.

I'm willing to buy semantic I-Meets.

I find AFC/ACC read in the 1AR annoying and unpersuasive, though I have voted for it.

I am willing to vote on RVIs. I don't generally think K-style impact turns are automatically answered by RVIs-bad type arguments, unless there is work done.

Disclosure: Is by now a pretty solid norm and I recognize that. I have voted many times on particular disclosure interps, but in my heart of hearts think the ways that most people handle disclosure competing interps tends to lead to regress.

Tricks

I enjoy when debaters are substantive about what it means to prove the resolution true/false and explain how that interacts with the burdens of the round. I am more inclined to vote for substantive and developed tricks/triggers, and even if you're going for a short or "blippy" argument, you'd be well-served to do extensive interactions and cross-applications.

I want a ballot story and impact scenario, even with a permissibility trigger. (Even if the impact is that the resolution is tautologically true, I want that expressed straightforwardly and consistently).

I have a fairly high gut-check for dumb arguments, so I'm not your best bet if you want to be winning on the resolved a priori and things that are purely reliant on opponents dropping half-sentences from your case. But if you can robustly explain the theory of truth under which your a prior affirms/negates, you're probably okay.

Also: you know what an apriori is. Or you know what they mean. If you want to hedge your bets, answer in good faith -- for instance, instead of saying "what does that mean?" say "many of my arguments could, depending on what you read, end up implying that it is impossible to prove the resolution false/true. what specifically are you looking for?"

"Don't Evaluate After The 1ar": Feel free to run these arguments if you want, but know that my threshold is extremely high for "evaluate debate after [speech that is not the 2ar]." It is very difficult to persuade me to meaningfully do this. A better way to make this argument would be to tell me what sort of responses I shouldn't permit and why. For instance, new paradigm issues bad, cross-apps bad, no embedded clash, no new reasons for [specific argument] -- all fine and plausible. I just don't know what it means to actually stop evaluating later speeches. Paradigmatically, speech times are speech times and it makes no sense to me why I should obviate some of your opponent's time for any in-round reason. If you have a specific version of this argument you want to check with me, feel free to do so before round.

Policy Debate

I have policy as a 3 only because I often find myself frustrated with how inane and unsubstantive a lot of long impact stories in LD are. If you have good, up to date evidence that compellingly tells a consequentialist result of a policy: I'm all in, I love that.

I really enjoy specific, well-researched and creative plans. I find a well-executed policy debate very impressive. Make sure you're able to articulate a specific and compelling causal story.

Make sure you know what all the words mean and that you can clearly explain the empirical and institutional structure of the DA/plan. As an example of the sort of thing that annoys me: a DA that depends on a Supreme Court case getting all the way through the appellate system in two weeks to trigger a politics impact before an election will make me roll my eyes.

There's also a disturbing trend of plans that are straight-up inherent--which I hate, that doesn't make any sense with a consequentialist/policymaking FW.

I am absolutely willing to buy zero risk claims, especially in regards to DAs/advantages with no apparent understanding of how the institutions they're talking about work.

I find the policy style affs where the advantages/inherency are all about why the actor doesn't want to do the action and will never do the action, and then the plan is the actor doing the thing they'd never do completely inane--that being said, they're common and I vote on them all the time.

I am generally compelled by the idea that a fiated plan needs an actor.

Assorted Other Preferences:

The following are other assorted preferences. Just know that everything I'm about to say is simply a preference and not a rule; given a warranted argument, I will shift off of just about any position that I already have or that your opponent gave me.

Speed: I have no problem with spreading -- all I ask is that you are still clear enough to follow. What this means is that you need to have vocal variation and emphasis on important parts of your case, like card names and key arguments.

Threshold for Extensions: If I am able to understand the argument and the function of it in the context of the individual speech, it is extended. I do appreciate explicit citation of card names, for flowing purposes.

CX: CX is really important to me, please use it. You have very little chance of fantastic speaker points without a really good cross-x. I would prefer if y'all don't use CX as prep, although I have no problems with questions being asked during prep time (Talk for at least three minutes: feel free to talk the rest of the time, too). If you are getting a concession you want to make absolutely sure that I write down, get eye-contact and repeat to me what you view the concession as.

Do not be unnecessarily mean. It is not very persuasive. It will drop your speaks. Be mindful of various power-dynamics at play in the room. Something I am particularly bothered by is the insistence that a marginalized debater does not understand their case, particularly when it is framed like: [male coach] wrote this for you, right [female debater]? Or isn't there a TVA, [Black debater], you could have used [white debater's] advocacy. Feel free to mention specific cases that are topical, best not to name drop. I can't think of an occasion when it is appropriate to explicitly challenge the authorship or understanding of a particular argument.

When debating someone significantly more traditional or less experienced: your speaks will benefit from explaining your arguments as straightforwardly as you can. I won't penalize you for the first speeches, but in whatever speech happens after the differences in experience level becomes clear, you should treat them almost as a pedagogical exercise. Win the round, but do so in a way where you aren't only trying to tell me why you win the round, but you're trying to make sure your opponent also understands what is happening.

Presumption: I don't default any particular way. I am willing to listen to presumption arguments which would then make me default, given the particular way the round shakes down, but my normal response to a round where no one meets their burden is to lower my standards until one person does meet their burden. Now, I hate doing this and it makes me grumpy, so expect lower speaker points in a situation where nobody meets their burden and nobody makes an argument about why I should presume any which way. This just points to the need to clearly outline my role and the role of my ballot, and be precise as to how you are meeting it.

Background: I debated for 4 years at Durant High School in Durant, OK in LD. My background in debate was formed around approaching LD from a moral standpoint, always ensuring that the value of the round was the most emphasized portion of a case.

Paradigm for LD:
I am looking for the debater who presents the best framework, with the best support, in the most professional way. It is crucial to back up any philosophy you have if the resolution implies that it should/can be applied to the real world. Do NOT spread, if I can't understand you, I can't flow or adequately judge the round.


General Behavior: Do not yell or act snobby to your opponent, that will result in me removing speaker points. Winning a debate does not require acting negatively towards your opponent, and I will simply ask you to stop.

I was an LD debater for four years in high school and I received a degree is moral and political philosophy as an undergraduate. I am currently the faculty advisor for the Debate Team at Wayland High School and coaching the LD debaters. I have been judging LD debate formally this season.

I prefer a measured, logical debate with a focus on core value and framework clash. I carefully flow all arguments and observe the formal rules of LD debate.

I am a first year parent judge with keep interest in judging. I have judged LD tournaments so far. I have experience with traditional LD framework and don't have much idea about policy/progressive framework. I do not prefer speed LD and I don't prefer debaters who are very fast; I prefer clearly articulated positions and straightforward communications about voting issues. I don't have a specific judging philosophy but do enjoy out of box thinking and unorthodox arguments.

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!

LD debater for Ridge High School for 2008-2012. Have judged across CX, LD, PF.

Speed: I judge sporadically, so keep that in mind when spreading - clarity is important regardless of the speed. I will yell "clear" twice, after that it is up to you to determine if I am flowing.

Casing: No preference in the type of argumentation (K, Theory, LARP, stock) you run in front of me, however, if you are running something that skews away from the stock, please spend the time to explain the argument, interactions of the argument on the flow, impact, and weighing.

Theory: If no justification, I assume competing interpretations. However I am open to whatever framework that is justified in round (e.g., reasonability, RVI). Just be clear on how you want the ballot to function.

Feel free to ask specific questions before the round - I tend to find that more fruitful.

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

TLDR

Condo is probably bad. I don't like tricks and rude stuff. I don't like people beating their opponents down in a disrespectful manner. 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

Debate Paradigm

Paul Wexler Coach since 1993, Judge since 1987 Debated CEDA,College Parli, HS LD and Policy, College and HS Speech Current Affiliation: Needham High School Coach (speech and debate) I coach a little with Arlington HS (Massachusetts)
Previous Affiliations: Manchester-Essex Regional, Boston Latin School, San Antonio-LEE, College of Wooster (Ohio) (competitor) , University of Wisconsin (Madison)(coach): Debate and Speech for Irvine-University HS (CA) (competitor)

Coach: All debate events (LD, PF, WSD, Congress) plus spectrum of speech events.

Novice Paradigm is here first, followed by PF, and then LD (though much of LD applies to PF and nowadays even policy where appropriate)- Congress and Worlds is at VERY end.

I put the novice version first, to make it easy on them. Varsity follows. LD if below PF (even though I judge a good deal more LD than PF).

PLEASE NOTE SECTION BELOW REGARDING DISCLOSURE BY NEEDHAM AND ARLINGTON HS (MA) TEAM MEBMERS!

Novice Version (all debate forms)

I am very much excited to be hearing you today! It takes bravery to put oneself out there, and I am very happy to see new members join our community.

1)The voting standard ( a way to compare the arguments made by both sides in debate) is the most important judging tool to me in the round. Whatever else you do or say, weighing how the different arguments impact COMPARATIVELY to the voting standard is paramount.

2)I believe that debaters indicate through analysis and time management what their key arguments are. Therefore, a one-sentence idea in case, if used as a major voting issue in rebuttals/final focus/, will receive 'one-sentence worth' of weight in my RFD. even if the idea was dropped cold. That's not no weight at all. But it ain't uranium either.

Simply extending drops and cards is insufficient, be sure to connect to the voting standard and explain the argument sufficiently. I do cut the Aff a little more leeway in this regard than the neg due to time limitations, but be careful.

3) As noted above, be sure to weigh your arguments compared to the arguments made by the other side. That means " We are winning Argument A - It is more important than the other sides Argument B (even if they are winning argument B) for reason X"

4) Have fun! Learn! If you have questions, please ask. This is an amazing activity and to repeat what I said above, am 'glad and gladder and gladddest' you are part of our community.

To earn higher speaker points...(Novice Version)

Be kind/professional towards those less experienced or skilled. i.e. , make their arguments sound better than they probably are, make your own arguments accessible to them, organize the disorganized ideas of opponents, etc. while avoiding being condescending.

If clearly outclassed, stay engaged and professional. Try to avoid being visibly frustrated. We have all been there! You will absolutely get this eventually. (Plus, you never know- you may make the 'golden ticket argument ' to winning the round without knowing it...)

If I think you have done either of these, it will always result in bonus speaker points.

ALSO...

-Engage with your opponent's ideas. Clash with them directly, prove them wrong, demonstrate they are actually reasons to vote for you, etc., or at least of lesser importance,

Exhibit the ability to use CX /crossfire effectively ( This DOES NOT mean 'stumping the chump' it DOES mean setting up arguments for you to use in later speeches.)

To earn lower speaker points (novice version)

1) Act like a rude, arrogant, condescending, ignoramus. (or just one of these)

In other words, making arguments which offend, 'ist' arguments or behaving like a jerk - If you have to ask, chances are you shouldn't. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Being racist or sexist or classist or homophobic means one loses regardless, but behaving like a jerk in a non-'ist' way still means you lose speaker points and if offensive enough I'll look for a reason to vote against you.

2)Use cases obviously not your own or obviously written by a super-experienced teammate or coach. Debate is a place to share your ideas and improve your own skills. Channelling or being a 'ventriloquist's dummy' for someone else just cheats yourself. Plus, for speaker point purposes, you are not demonstrating you have mastered the skill of communicating your OWN ideas, so I can't evaluate them.

3)Avoid engaging with your opponent's ideas. Avoiding engaging through reliance on definitions, tricks, etc., or other methods may win you my ballots, but will earn lower speaker points.

4) For outrounds and flip rounds, please especially note section marked 'outrounds' at end

PUBLIC FORUM

I've judged it and coached it since the creation.

I default to voting on the whole resolution. I vote for whichever side shows it is preponderantly more desirable That may include scope, impact, probability, timeframe etc.

Most of what I say under Lincoln-Douglas below applies here, regarding substance as well as theory/and Ks. The differences OR key points are as follows.

1) I judge PF as an educated layperson- i.e. one who reads the paper (credibile news sources) but doesn't know the technicalities of debate lingo.

As such your 'extend this" and "pull that" confuse me for the purposes of the round - I will ignore debate lingo unless you explain the argument itself.

1b) I shall ignore 'theory' arguments completely (in PF, I will also ignore 'education' theory arguments, as well as 'fairness'-- '. Frame those arguments in terms of substance if you opt to make them, if there is a connection you will be fine). Theory arguments as such shall be treated as radio silence on my flow. I will also default to thinking you are uninterested in doing the work necessary to understand the topic, and that you are publicly announcing you are proud of being ignorant.

If someone's opponent is prima facie unfair or uneducational, say so without running a 'shell'.

1c) I WILL evaluate K's when based on the topic literature. Many resolutions DO have a reasonable link when one does the research

Your rate of delivery should be appropriate to the types of arguments you are making.

2)Stand during the cross-fire times. This adds to your perceptual dominance.

3) Offer and justify some sort of voting standard I can use to weigh competing arguments.

4) On Evidence...

--a)Evidence should be fully explained with analysis. Evidence without analysis isn't persuasive to me. (the best evidence will have analysis as well, which is the gold standard- but you should add your own linking to the round itself and the resolution proper).

4b) In order to earn higher speaker points, I expect evidence use to adhere to the full context being used and accessible. This doesn't mean you can't paraphrase when appropriate, it does mean reciting a single sentence or two and/or taking excessive time when asked to produce the source means you are still developing your evidence usage ability. Of course, using evidence in context (be it a full card or proper paraphrasing-) is expected Note #6 below.

You will also want to make note of the 'earn higher speaker points' in the novice ection above, it also applies to varsity.

--Quantitative claims always require evidence, the more recent the better.

--Qualitative claims DO NOT always require evidence, that depends on the specific claim.

-5)-Be comparative when addressing competing claims. The best analytical evidence compares claims directly within itself.

-6)Produce requested evidence in an expeditious fashion- Failure to do so comes of YOUR prep time, and eventually next speech time. Since such failure demonstrates that organizational skills are still being developed. Being in the 'developing skills' range is, like with any other debate skill, reflected in speaker points earned.

'Expeditious' means within ten seconds or so, unless the tournament invitation mandates a different period of time

-7)-Blips in constructive speeches blown up large in summary or final focus are weighed as blips in my decision calculus

8)No 'kicking' out of arguments unless the opponent agrees with said kicking. "You broke the argument, you own it."

9) I will most likely only ask for cards at the round's end in the case of ethical challenges, etc, or if I failed to make note of a card's substance through some reason beyond a debater's control (My own sneezing fit for example, or the host school's band playing '76 Trombones on the Hit Parade' in the classroom next door during a speech.

10) What I have to say elsewhere in this document about how to access higher speaker points, technical mattters, and how to earn super low points by being offensiv/rude also applies to PF.

Most Importantly- as with any event " Have fun! "If you are learning and having fun, the winning shall take care of itself."

LD Debate -Varsity division

Note on January February 2023 topic. Making arguments grounded in racist appeals (such as claims group X is more prone to criminality) will result in a loss and low speaker points.

Shorter Version (in progress) (if you want to run some of these, see the labeled sections for most of them, following)

-Defaults to voting criterion.

-Theory-will not vote on fairness or disclosure. It will be treated as radio silence. See below for note regarding both Needham HS and Arlington regarding disclosure of cases by team members.

-Education theory on the topic's substantial, topic-related issues OK but if frivolous RVIs are encouraged.(i.e., brackets theory, etc ) I will almost always vote on reasonability.

--Will not vote on generic skepticism. May vote on resolution-specific skepticism

-Blips in constructive speeches blown up large in rebuttals are weighed as blips in my decision calculus

-It is highly unlikely I shall vote on tricks or award higher speaker points for tricks-oriented debaters

-No 'kicking' out of arguments unless the opponent agrees with said kicking. "You broke the argument, you own it."

-Critical arguments are fine and held to the same analytical standard as normative arguments.

-Policy approaches (plans/CPs/DAs) are fine. They are held to same prima facie burdens as in actual CX rounds- That also means if you want me to be a policy-maker, your evidence better be recent. If you don't know what I mean by 'prima facie burdens as in actual CX rounds' you should opt for a different strategy.

-Narratives are fine and should provide a rhetorical model for me to use to evaluate approach.

-If running something dense, it is the responsibility of the debater to explain it. I regard trying to comprehend it on my own to be judge intervention.

As I believe debate is an ORAL communication activity (albeit one often with highly specialized vocabulary and speed) I (with courtesy) do not wish to be added to any 'speech document ' for debates taking place in the flesh or virtually. I will be pleased to read speech documents for any written debate contests I may happen to judge.

Role of ballot - See labeled section below- Too nuanced to have a short version

To Access higher speaker points...

Be kind/professional towards those less experienced or skilled. i.e. , make their arguments sound better than they probably are, make your own arguments accessible to them, organize the disorganized ideas of opponents, etc. while avoiding being condescending.

If clearly outclassed, stay engaged and professional. Try to avoid being visibly frustrated. We have all been there! You will absolutely get this eventually. (Plus, you never know- you may make the 'golden ticket argument ' to winning the round without knowing it...)

If I think you have done either of these, it will always result in bonus speaker points.

ALSO...

-Engage with your opponent's ideas. Clash with them directly, prove them wrong, demonstrate they are actually reasons to vote for you, etc., or at least of lesser importance,

exhibit the ability to listen.(see below for how I evaluate this)

exhibit the ability to use CX effectively (CX during prep time does not do so) This DOES NOT mean 'stumping the chump' it DOES mean setting up arguments for you to use in later speeches.

To Access lower speaker points

1) Act like a rude, arrogant, condescending, ignoramus. (or just one of these)

In other words, making offensive arguments, 'ist' arguments or behaving like a jerk - If you have to ask, chances are you shouldn't. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Being racist or sexist or homophobic means one loses regardless, but behaving like a jerk in a non-'ist' way still means you lose speaker points and if offensive enough I'll look for a reason to vote against you.

2)have your coach fight your battles for you- When your coach browbeats your opponents to disclose or flip- or keeps you from arriving to your round in a timely fashion, it subliminally promotes your role as one in which you let your coach do your advocacy and thinking for you.

3)Avoid engaging with your opponent's ideas. Avoiding engaging through reliance on definitions, tricks, etc., or other methods may win you my ballots, but will earn lower speaker points.

4)Act like someone uninterested in knowledge or intellectual hard work and is proud of that lack of interest. Running theory as a default strategy is a most excellent and typical way of doing so, and in public at that.-- (But there are other ways).

Longer Version

1)The voting standard is the most important judging tool to me in the round. Whatever else you do or say, weighing how the different arguments impact COMPARATIVELY to the voting standard is paramount.

I strongly prefer debaters to focus on the resolution proper, as defined by the topic literature. I tend to be really, REALLY bored by debaters who spend the bulk of their time on framework issues and/or theory as opposed to topical debating.

By contrast, I am very much interested in how philosophical and ethical arguments are applied to contemporary challenges, as framed by the resolution.

You can certainly be creative, which shall be rewarded when on-topic. Indeed, having a good command of the topic literature is a good way to be both.

My speaker points to an extent reflect my level of interest.

2) I evaluate a debater's ENTIRE skill set when assigning speaker points, including the ability to listen. See below for how I assess that ability.

3)One can use alternative approaches to traditional ones in LD in front of me. I am receptive to narratives, plans, kritiks, the role of the ballot to fight structural oppression, etc. But these should be grounded in the specific topic literature- This includes describing why the specific resolution being debated undermines the fight against oppressive norms.

4) I am NOT receptive to generic 'debate is bad' arguments. Wrong forum.

5) Specifics of my view of policy, critical, performance, etc. cases are at the bottom if you wish to skip to that.

ON THEORY-

I will not vote on...

a)Fairness arguments, period. They will be treated as radio silence. - See famed debate judge Marvin the Paranoid Android's (which I find optimistic) paradigm on this in 'The Debate Judges Guide to the Galaxy.' by Douglas Adams.

"The first ten million (fairness arguments) were the worst. And the second ten million: they were the worst, too. The third ten million I didn’t enjoy at all. After that, their quality went into a bit of a decline.”

Fairness debating sounds like this to me.(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFvujknrBuE)

And complaints about having to affirm makes the arguer look and sound like this from 'Puddles Pity Party'

Instead, tell me why the perceived violation is a poor way to evaluate the truth of the resolution, not that it puts you in a poor position to win.

b) I will not vote on disclosure theory, it shall be treated as radio silence. The following sentence applies to both Needham HIgh School and Arlington High School. I have assisted a little with Arlington High. Both Needham and Arlington High Schools, by team consensus, do not permit its' members to disclose except at tournaments where it is specified as required to participate by tournament invitation. I find the idea that disclosure is needed to avoid 'surprises' or have. a quality debate to be unlikely.

c) I will vote on education theory. In most cases it must be related to the topic literature. However, I am actively favorable to RVIs when run in response to 'cheap' , 'throw-away' , generic, or 'canned' education theory. Topic only focused, please.

d)Shells are not always necessary (or even usually). if an opponent's position is truly squirrelly ten seconds explaining why is a better approach in front of me than a two or three minute theory shell

e) I am highly unlikely to vote on arguments that center on an extreme or very narrow framing of the resolution no matter how much framework you do- and 100% unlikely based on a half or full sentence blurb.-

'Extreme' in this context means marginally related to the literature (or a really small subset of it)

ON BLIPS AND EXTENSIONS

I believe that debaters indicate through analysis and time management what their key arguments are. Therefore, a one-sentence idea in case, if used as a major voting issue in rebuttals, will receive 'one sentence worth' of weight in my RFD. even if the idea was dropped cold. That's not no weight at all. But it ain't uranium either.

Simply extending drops and cards is insufficient, be sure to connect to the voting standard and explain the argument sufficiently. I do cut the Aff a little more leeway in this regard than the neg due to time limitations, but be careful.

OLD SCHOOL IDIOSYNCRASY- THE IMPORTANCE OF LISTENING

1) On sharing cases and evidence,

Please note: The below does not apply to the reading of evidence cards, nor does it apply to people with applicable IEPs, 504s or are English language learners.

1) I believe that listening is an essential debate skill. In those cases where speed and jargon are used, they are still being used within a particular oral communication framework, even if it is one unique to debate. It makes no sense to me to speak our cases to one another (and the judge), while our opponent reads the text afterwards (even more so as the case is read) and then orally respond to what was written down (or for the judge to vote on what was written down). If that is the norm, we could just stay home and email each other our cases.

In the round, this functions as my awarding higher speaker points to good listeners. Asking for the text of entire cases demonstrates you are still developing the ability to listen and/or the ability to process what you heard. That's OK, this is an educational activity, but a still developing listener wouldn't earn higher speaker points for the same reason someone with developing refutation skills wouldn't earn higher speaking points. My advice is to work on the ability to process what you have heard rather than ask for cases or briefs.

As I believe that act of orally speaking should not be limited to being an anthropological vestige of some ancient debate ritual, I will courteously turn down offers to be added to any speech documents, except at contests designed for such a purpose.

Asking for individual cards by name to examine their rhetoric, context etc, is acceptable, as I don't expect most debaters to be able to write down cards verbatim. I expect those cards to be made available immediately. Any time spent 'jumping' the cards to an opponent beyond minimal is taken off the prep time of the debater that just read the case.

I will most likely only ask for cards at the round's end in the case of ethical challenges, etc, or if I failed to make note of a card's substance through some reason beyond a debater's control (My own sneezing fit for example, or the host school's band playing '76 Trombones on the Hit Parade' in the classroom next door during the 1AC)-

On Non Debater authored Cases

I believe two of the most valuable skills in debate, along with the ability to listen, are the ability to write and research (and do both efficiently).

I further believe the tendency of some in the debate community to encourage students to become a ventriloquist's dummy, reading cases authored by individuals post-HS, is antithetical to developing these skills. Most likely it is also against most schools' academic code of conduct. I reject the idea that students are 'too busy to write their own cases and do their own research'

Therefore

I will drop debaters -with minimal speaker points- who run cases written by any individual not enrolled in high school.

In novice or JV rounds I will drop debaters who run cases written by a varsity teammate.

Further, if I suspect, given that debater's level of competence, that they are running a position they did not write ( I suspect they have little to no comprehension of what they are reading) I reserve the right to question them after the round about that position. If said person confirms my suspicion about their level of comprehension, they will be dropped by me with minimal speaker points.

THAT SAID my speaker points will reward debaters who are trying out new ideas which they don't completely understand yet- I think people should take risks, just don't let yourself be shortchanged of all that debate can be by letting some non-high school student - or more experienced teammate- write your ideas for you. Don't be Charlie McCarthy (or Mortimer Snerd for that matter)

Finally, I am not opposed to student-written team cases/briefs per sae. However, given the increasing number of cases written by non-students, and the difficulty I have in distinguishing those from student-written positions, I may eventually apply this stance to any case I hear for the second time (or more) at a tournament. That day has not yet arrived however.

ON POLICY ARGUMENTS (LARPING)

I am open to persons who wish to argue policy positions as opposed to voting standard If that framework is won.

Do keep in mind that I believe the time structure of LD makes running such strategies a challenge. I find many policy link stories in LD debate, even in late outrounds at TOC-qual tournaments, to be JVish at best. Opponents, don't be afraid to say so.

Disadvantages should have clear linkage to the terminal impact, the shorter the better. When responding, it is highly advantageous to respond to the links. I tend to find the "if there is a .01% chance of extinction happening you have to vote for me" to be silly at best if there is any sort of probability weighing placed against it.

Policy-style debaters assume all burdens that actual policy debaters have, That means if solvency -(or at least some sort of comparative advantage, inherency, etc. is not prima facie shown for the resolution proper, that debater loses even if the opponent does not actually give a response while drooling on their own cardigan. (or your own, for that matter).

That means if you want me to be a policy-maker, your evidence should be super-recent. Otherwise, I may decide you don't meet your prima facie burdens, even for 'inherency' which virtually nobody votes on ever. Why? The same reason one shouldn't read a politics DA from October 2022

Side note: If your OPPONENT does so, please be sure to all call them out on it in order to demonstrate CX or refutation skills. (I once heard someone ignore the fact a politics DA was being run the Saturday AFTER the election, it having taken place the Tuesday prior.... I was sad.

I do have some sympathy for the hypothesis-testing paradigm where up-to-date evidence is not always as necessary- if you sell me on it. Running older evidence under such a framework may or may not be strategic, but it WOULD meet prima facie burdens.

If you don't know what I mean by 'prima facie burdens', or 'hypothesis-testing' you should opt for a different strategy. - Do learn what these terms mean if interested in LARPing, or answering LARPers.

I am also actively disinclined to allow the negative to 'kick out' out of counterplans, etc., in face of an Aff challenge, during the 1NR. Think 'Pottery Barn'- to paraphrase Colin Powell- "You broke the argument, you own it."

ON NARRATIVE ARGUMENTS

In addition to the 'story', be sure to include a rhetorical model I can use to evaluate the narrative in the course of the round. if you do so effectively, speaker points will be high. If not, low.

One can access the power of narrative arguments without being appropriative of other cultures. This is one such approach (granted from a documentary on Diane Nash)

ON CRITICAL ARGUMENTS

I hold them to the same analytical standard as more normative or traditional arguments. That means quoting some opaque piece of writing is unlikely to score much emphasis with me, absent a complete drop by the opponent. And even if there is a complete drop, during the weighing stage I could easily be persuaded that the critical argument is of little worth in adjudicating the round. When debating critical theory, Don't be afraid to point out that "the emperor has no clothes."

In the round, this functions as debaters coherently planning what both they and their sources are being critical of, and doing so throughout the round.

Identifying if the 'problem' is due to a deliberate attempt to oppress or ignorant/incompetent policies/structures resulting in oppression likely add nuance to your argument, both in terms of introducing and responding to critical arguments. This is especially true if making a generic critical argument rather than one that is resolution-specific.

Critical arguments all take place in a context, with the authors reacting to some structure- be it one created and run by 'dead white men' or whomever. The authors most certainly were familiar with whom or what they were attacking. To earn the highest speaker points, you should demonstrate some level of that knowledge too. HOW you do so may vary, your speaker points will reflect how well you perform under the strategy you choose and carry out in the round

In any case, be sure to SLOW DOWN when reading critical arguments.

ROLE OF THE BALLOT-

I believe that debate, and the type of people it attracts, provides uniquely superior opportunities to develop the skills required to fight oppression. I also believe that how I vote in some prelim at a tournament is unlikely to make much of a difference- or less so than if the debaters and judge spent their Saturday volunteering for a group fighting out-of-the-round oppression Or even singing, as they do in arguably the best scene from the best American movie ever.--

I tend to take the arguments more seriously when made in out rounds with audiences. The final round of PF in 2021 at TOC was important and remarkable. In fairness, people may see prelims as the place to learn how to make these arguments, which is to be commended. But it is not guaranteed that I take an experienced debater making such arguments in prelims as seriously, without a well-articulated reason to do so.

Also bear in mind that my perspective is that of a social studies teacher with a MA in Middle Eastern history and a liberal arts education who is at least tolerably familiar with the literature often referenced in these rounds. (If sometimes only in a 'book review' kind of way.) But I also default in my personal politics to feeling that a bird in hand is better than exposing the oppression of the bush.

if simply invited or encouraged to think about the implications of your position, or to take individual action to do so, that is a wild card that may lead to a vote in your favor- or may not. I feel obligated to use my personal knowledge in such rounds. YOU are encouraged to discuss the efficacy of rhetorical movements and strategies in such cases.

ONE LAST NOTE

Honestly, I am more than a little uncomfortable with debaters who present as being from privileged backgrounds running race-based nihilist or pessimist arguments of which they have no historical part as the oppressed. Granted, this is partly because I believe that it is in the economic self-interest of entrenched powers to propagate nihilist views. If you choose to do so, you can win my ballot, but you will have to prove it won't result in some tangible benefit to people of privilege.

ON MORALLY OFFENSIVE ARGUMENTS

Offensive debaters, such as those who actively call for genocide will be dropped with minimal speaker points. The same is true for those who are blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

I default to skepticism being in the same category when used as a response to 'X is morally bad' types of arguments.

By minimal speaker points, I mean 'one point' (.1 if the tournament allows tenths of a point) and my going to the physical (virtual) tabroom to insist they manually override any minimum in place in the settings.

If an argument not intended to be racist or sexist or homophobic or pro-murder could be misused to justify the same, that would be debatable in the round- though be reasonable. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Arguing over if general U.S. immigration policy is irredeemably racist is debatable in the round, arguing that an entire group of people should be excluded based on religion is racist on face, and arguing that it is morally permissible to tear gas children is a moral travesty in and of itself.---

Outrounds/Flip Rounds Only

I believe debate offers a unique platform for debaters to work towards becoming self-sufficient learners, independent decision-makers, and autonomous advocates. I believe that side determination with a lead time for the purposes of receiving extensive side specific coaching particular to a given round is detrimental to debaters developing said skills. Further, it competitively disadvantages both debaters who do choose to emphasize such skills or do not have access to such coaching to start with.

Barring specific tournament rules/procedures to the contrary, in elimination rounds this functions as

a) flip upon arrival to the round.

b)avoid leaving the room after the coin flip (i.e., please go to the restroom, etc. before arriving at the room and before the flip)

c) arrive in sufficient time to the round to flip and do all desired preparation WITHOUT LEAVING THE ROOM so that the round can start on time.

d)All restrictions on electronic communication commence when the coin is in the air

Doing all of this establishes perceptual dominance in my mind. All judges, even those who claim to be blank slates, subliminally take perceptual dominance into account on some level. -Hence their 'preferences'. For me, all other matters being equal, I am more likely to 'believe' the round story given by a debater who exhibits these skills than the one I feel is channeling their coach's voice.

Most importantly

Have fun! Learn! "If you have fun and are learning, the winning will take care of itself"

POLICY Paradigm-

In absence of a reason not to do so, I default to policy-maker (though I do have some sympathy for hypothesis-testing).

The above largely holds for my policy judging, though I am not as draconically anti-theory in policy as I am in LD/PF because the time structure allows for bad theory to be exposed in a way not feasible in LD/PF.

Congress

To Access better ranks

1) Engage with your opponent's ideas. Clash with them directly, prove them wrong, further develop ideas offered previously by speakers on the same side of legislation as yourself, demonstrate opposing ideas are actually reasons to vote for you, etc

2)Speech organization should reflect when during a topic debate said speech is delivered. Earlier pro speeches (especially authorships or sponsorships) should explain what problem exists and how the legislation solves for it. Later speeches should develop arguments for or against the legislation. The last speeches on legislation should summarize and recap, reflecting the ideas offered during the debate

3)Exhibit the ability to listen. This is evaluated through argument development and clash

4)Evidence usage. Using evidence that may be used be 'real' legislators is the gold standard. (government reports or scholarly think tanks or other policy works. Academic-ish sources (JSTOR, NYRbooks, etc) are next. Professional news sources are in the middle. News sources that rely on 'free' freelancers are below that. Ideological websites without scholarly fare are at the bottom. For example, Brookings or Manhattan Institute, yes! Outside the box can be fine. If a topic on the military is on the docket, 'warontherocks.com ', yes!. (though cite the author and credentials. in such cases)

4b) Souce usage corresponds to the type of argument being backed. 'Expert' evidence is more important with 'detailed' legislation than with more birds-eye changes to the law.

5)exhibit the ability to use CX effectively - This DOES NOT mean 'stumping the chump' it DOES mean setting up arguments for you or a colleague to expand upon a speech later. Asking a question where the speaker's answer is irrelevant to you- - or your colleagues'- ability to do so later is the gold standard.

6)PO's should be transparent, expeditious, accurate and fair in their handling of the chamber.

6b)At local tournaments, 'new PO's will not be penalized (or rewarded) for still developing the ability to be expeditious. That skill shall be evaluated as radio silence (neither for, nor against you)- Give it a try!

To Access worse ranks

1) Act like a rude, arrogant, condescending, ignoramus. (or just one of these)

In other words, making offensive arguments, 'ist' arguments or behaving like a jerk - If you have to ask, chances are you shouldn't. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Being racist or sexist or homophobic or transphobic means one loses regardless, but behaving like a jerk in a non-'ist' way still means I'll look for a reason to rank you at the very bottom of the chamber, behind the person who spent the entire session practicing their origami while engaged in silent self-hypnosis.

2)If among any speaker other than the author and first opposition, rehashing arguments that have already been made with no further development (no matter how well internally argued or supported with evidence your speech happens to be backed with)

3)Avoiding engaging with the ideas of others in the chamber- either in terms of clashing with them directly or expanding upon ideas already made

4)Evidence usage. Using evidence that may NOT be used be 'real' legislators is the gilded standard. Examples include blatantly ideological sources, websites that don't pay their contributors, etc. This is especially true if a technical subject is the focus of the debate.

4b)In general, using out of date evidence. The more immediate a problem the more recent evidence should be. Quoting Millard Fillmore on immigration reform should not more be done than quoting evidence from the Bush or even the Obama Administration. (That said, if arguing on the level of ideas, by all means, synthesize important past thinkers into your arguments)

5) Avoiding activity such as cross-examination

5b)'Stalling' when being CXed by asking clarification for simple questions

6)Act like someone uninterested in knowledge or intellectual hard work and is proud of that lack of interest

7)POs who show favoritism or repeatedly make errors.

What (may) make a rank or two of positive difference

Be kind/professional towards those less experienced or skilled. i.e. , make their arguments sound better than they probably are, make your own arguments accessible to them, organize the disorganized ideas of others, etc. while avoiding being condescending. Be inclusive during rules, etc. of those from new congress schools or are lone wolves.

If clearly outclassed, stay engaged, and professional. Try to avoid being visibly frustrated. We have all been there! You will absolutely get this eventually. (Plus, you never know- you may make the 'golden ticket argument ' to ranking high without knowing it...)

If I think you have done the above, it will improve your rank in chamber.

World

First, Congrats on being here. Well earned. One piece of advice- Before starting your speaking in your rounds , take a moment to fix the memory in your mind. It is a memory well-worth keeping.

I have judged at the NSDA Worlds Invitational since 2015 with the exception of two years, though I have coached the New England teams each year. I judged WSD at a few invitationals and competed in Parli in college.

While I am well-experienced in other forms of debate (and I bloviate about that quite a bit here) for this tournament I shall reward teams that do the following...

-Center case around a core thesis with supporting substantial arguments and examples. (The thesis may- and often will- evolve during the course of the round)

-Refutation -(especially in later speeches) integrates all arguments make by one's own side and by the opposition into a said thesis

--Weighs key voters. Definitions and other methods should be explicit

Effectively shared rhetorical 'vehicles' between speakers adds to your ethos and ideally logos.

---Blips in constructive speeches blown up large in later speeches are weighed as blips in my decision calculus

--Even succinct POIs can advance argumentation

-Avoid using counterintuitive arguments.(often popular in LD/PF/CX) If you think an argument could be perceived as counterintuitive when it is not, just walk me through that argumentation.

Debate lingo such as 'extend this" and "pull that" confuse me for the purposes of the round - I will ignore debate lingo unless you explain the argument itself.

--Use breadth as well as depth when it comes to case construction (that usually means international examples as well as US-centric, and may also mean examples from throughout the liberal arts- science, literature, history, etc.- When appropriate and unforced.

If a model is offered, I believe 'fiat' of the legislative (or whatever) action is a given so time spent debating otherwise shall be treated as radio silence. However, mindsets or utopia cannot be 'fiat-ed'.

To earn higher speaker points and make me WANT to vote for you-

-Engage with your opponent's ideas for higher speaker points. Avoiding engaging through reliance on definitions or other methods may win you my ballots, but will earn lower speaker points. (This DOES NOT mean going deep into a line by line, it does mean engaging with the claim and the warrant)

Be kind/professional towards those less experienced or skilled. i.e. , make their arguments sound better than they probably are, make your own arguments accessible to them, organize the disorganized ideas of opponents, etc. while avoiding being condescending.

If clearly outclassed, stay engaged and professional. Try to avoid being visibly frustrated. We have all been there! You will absolutely get this eventually. (plus, you never know- you may make the 'golden ticket argument ' to winning the round without knowing it...)

If I think you have done these, it will always result in bonus speaker points.

and needless to say, I'm sure, offensive debaters, such as those who actively call for genocide will be dropped with minimal speaker points. The same is true for those who are blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

If an argument not intended to be racist or sexist or pro-murder could be misused to justify the same, that would be debatable in the round- though be reasonable. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Arguing over if general U.S. immigration is irredeemably racist is debatable in the round, arguing that an entire group of people should be excluded based on religion is racist on face, and arguing that it is morally acceptable (or even amoral) to tear gas children is a moral travesty in and of itself.

Again, congratulations on being here!! You have earned this, learn, have fun, make positive memories...

I debated for 4 years in high school, I have been judging LD/PF for 11 years and coaching LD/PF at Fenwick High School for 8 years. I will be evaluating each team based on their clarity, logical coherence, evidence, rebuttal, delivery, cross-examination, and respect. I will be looking for the team that presents the strongest argument overall, based on these criteria.

In general, I am open to nearly every argument; with a few exceptions/variations.

1. Theory - I am fine with it. I find some theory debates to be quite interesting, however I will not vote on frivolous theory, especially not on disclosure theory.

2. Kritiks - In general, I think they can be very educational arguments. However, I am not a fan of performance arguments. I just do not enjoy them. Plain and simple.

3. Plans/CPs/Disads - Even though I believe these often stunt an otherwise incredibly intellectual atmosphere, there are exceptions to this rule. If you can run a good plan, I can see myself voting on it. As for counterplans—no PICs. Please. I do not find that these make for a decent debate round.

4. Voters Issues - Please have them.

Speed is okay but I will say “clear” if I cannot understand you or if you are speaking too
fast; because if I can’t hear it, I can’t flow it. Be intelligible and make sure to signpost

I'm a parent judge from Harrison High School. DO NOT SPREAD. I want to see a traditional and substantive round about the topic. Do not read progressive arguments in front of me. Please use real world examples and evidence.

I'm a parent judge who's been judging for 3 years on the nat circuit

Please don't spread - add me to the email chain: yyan5221@yahoo.com

I try my best to make decisions off the flow, not based on rhetoric, although speaker points will obviously reflect a mix of both

That being said, please make my decision as easy as possible - I protect the 2NR from shifty 2AR's, and weighing + clear ballot stories are a beautiful thing

Feel free to run any relatively stock positions like CP + DA, etc. - substantive debate should be fine if adequately explained

I've voted on progressive arguments before, including one off K's, performance affs, etc - but these are always a tossup and I don't trust myself to evaluate them very well

I understand basic util/deont (Kant mostly) syllogisms but don't hit me with the a. action theory b. bindingness stuff - just explain it thoroughly and make interacts

Speaks average out to a 28.5 and I'll try to keep it reasonable

I was a Lincoln Douglas debater in high school, and now I coach debate at Chaminade High School. I am a traditional judge. I do not like speed or jargon. If you speak quickly, I cannot understand you, and your arguments will not be on my flow. If it isn’t on the flow, it doesn’t count.

I expect debaters to debate the topic at hand and not off topic arguments. These do not weigh in my judgment. I do not care if you think that the topic is unarguable, that the wording makes it impossible, or that giving you a win will satisfy some global injustice. I just want you to debate.

Logic, clear thinking, and clear delivery are what I am looking for. If you give me these, I will give you the win and high points.

Speak Slowly and enunciate clearly. Don't spread, and give easy impacts to weigh. 

 

 

Can't Judge: Stuyvesant, Lexington

Background: I debated for 4 years at Lexington and competed almost exclusively on the national circuit.

I coached for Stuyvesant from 2014-2017 and also helped out some former students for TOC 2018. I haven't judged since that tournament and have 0 content knowledge about the topic.

I think part of what makes debate great is its incredible openness. Given that fact, I am fine with speed, theory, policy-style argumentation, dense framework arguments, kritiks, performance, tricks, and pretty much anything else you can think of. Debate is your game. Play it how you want to.

Feel free to message me with any questions at pzhou@wesleyan.edu

Some judges that influenced me: Sam Azbel

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!