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 =)

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.

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’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.

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.

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!

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.

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

General Thoughts

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

Policy Paradigm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


LD Paradigm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PF Paradigm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

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 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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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!!

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!

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.

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!