Yes, I want to be on the e-mail chain - protectthe2nr@gmail.com

About me:

Coach @ University of Rochester (2024 - Present)

University of Rochester (Class of 2022) - debated for 3 years; 2x NDT qualifier; Octofinalist @ CEDA, Shirley.

WB Ray High School (Class of 2018) - debated for 2 years (mostly Policy, some LD); NSDA Nationals; 2x TFA State.

TL;DR - I believe I'm a good judge for any debate (Policy v Policy, K v K, Clash of Civs, Performance v Performance, etc.) focused on substantive (read: not theory/tricks) clash between aff and neg. I have also been in and judged all types of debates. All this to say, you should do/say/argue for literally whatever you want (as long as you're not saying racism/xenophobia/ableism/structural violence etc. good obviously). If there is an argument that I think meets this threshold, I will say "please move on" and will expect you to move on to the next argument you want to make. That being said I default Tech > Truth (no this doesn't mean I'll vote on an "argument" if it doesn't meet the minimum threshold of having a claim, warrant, and impact that I believe I can explain to the other team/debater using your words) in that I believe what arguments are "true" in the context of debate is determined by how the other team responds to said arguments. This is just my predisposition, however, and you're obviously more than welcome to tell me to evaluate the debate in any way you'd like as long as you give me clear instructions and don't just leave it at "evaluate the debate holistically" because I really don't know what that means without context (see my minimum threshold for an argument above). (If you have a bit more time but don't want to read my whole paradigm the bolded parts below are what you should read)

Miscellaneous Notes - PLEASE READ BEFORE ROUND:

If there's any way I can make the round more accessible for you please don't hesitate to let me know before (or even during) the round.

Please number 1NC args on case and 2AC (1AR for LD) args on off-case positions and keep referring to the arguments by number throughout the rest of the debate.

Can't believe I have to say this but if you intentionally remove tags from your evidence before sending it over, your speaks are capped at a 28 (except if the "tag" is part of a performance script that includes personal information about you that you don't want being shared).

Evidence ethics accusations will stop the round. If I determine the accusing team/debater is correct, they will receive a 29 W and the accused will receive a 25 L. If I determine the accusing team/debater is incorrect, they will receive a 25 L and the accused will receive a 29 W. If the tournament has other rules in place regarding evidence ethics violations, I will default to those. If you think there is even a remote possibility of you invoking an evidence ethics violation, you should read the ethics challenges section of Patrick Fox's paradigm for more detailed info on this. I agree pretty much entirely with his thoughts on this (currently towards the end of his paradigm).

I can handle speed, but please slow down on tags, analytics, and cites. Otherwise, you risk me missing important details. Also please slow down to what you perceive to be 75-80% of your full (clear) card-reading speed in rebuttals. If you think you can be clear above this range/at your full speed, go ahead, you probably won't go faster than I can handle, but I find this to be a good cue for most debaters as I think most debaters seriously overestimate how fast they can go while maintaining clarity.

Relatedly, I will say clear twice before deducting .1 speaks from what I would've given you for each subsequent time I have to say clear. To clarify, I'm probably only saying this if I think you being unclear is a direct result of you going too fast. If you would prefer I say/do something else to signal this please let me know (in person or via email).

Please don't bully small schools with disclosure theory, ESPECIALLY if the school doesn't even have a Wiki page. It'll make you look mean-spirited and me very sad. I will certainly judge the debate like any other theory for the most part, but will probably be more persuaded by the other team/debater's warrants in answering it if you're a school with 5+ coaches reading it against a school that barely has 1. Note this doesn't include misdisclosure theory, if someone misdiscloses and I am convinced it was malicious, I will almost certainly pull the trigger on misdisclosure theory barring some major technical error.

I don't count flashing/emailing as prep. Just don't steal prep, I will deduct speaker points. Yes, I know when it's happening.

Avoid speaking over each other during CX; I love heated CX but 2+ people with their microphones on proves incomprehensible in an online setting.

Open CX is cool in Policy.

Finally, some rules I will unconditionally enforce are decision time, one Win and one Loss, and don't intentionally disrupt your opponent's speech. Most other things are up for debate.

***Policy/CX***

K's -

TLDR - In debates where the aff has a plan: If you don't have links/spin about the PLAN ACTION and why the PLAN ACTION is bad, I don't want to hear it. In debates where the aff doesn't have a plan: I am slightly more amenable to slightly more "generic" K strats as long as there is a link to some essential/key component of the aff's method/framework.

I'm a sucker for specific K's. If you have something that implicates the aff solvency mechanism and have cards actually mentioning the plan action/method, or at least clever spin about why the plan action is bad, I'd love nothing more than to hear it; it will vastly improve my value to life and your speaks. If your A-strat is going for the same K I can find in my inbox from previous topics, unless you have a clever twist or spin specific to the aff, I am likely not the judge for it.

I am familiar with most literature bases that aren't on the absolute cutting edge (say, published in the past 2-3 years or so). I say this not because I will "fill in the blanks for you" but because I believe I can probably give you (i.e. most HS students) some (hopefully helpful) advice on how to improve your reading/understanding/rebuttals of most literature bases in my RFD.

Feel free to read from any literature base, just don't assume I know your buzzwords/concepts. Again my threshold for voting for you is "if I explained this to the other team/debater using your words, do I think they would be able to understand it".

Yes you can kick the alt/go for FW as the alt, though neg teams probably do this too often - in my opinion, the only situation where you should be going for the K without the alt is if 1) the aff has a lot of good offence against the alt, AND 2) you have a unique linear disad to the aff that also acts as a clean case turn.

K tricks (root cause, floating PIK, alt solves the aff, value to life, etc.) are fine/strategic too but I find a lot of teams, especially at the high school level, rely way too much on hiding a bunch of tricks in the block, waiting for the 1AR to drop one of them, and that dropped trick basically being the entire 2NR strategy (I've certainly been guilty of this - I can't remember the number of times I went for Antonio 95 for 5 minutes of the 2NR in HS). If this is your strategy that's fine but I probably won't be giving you anything above like a 28.5 if your entire 2NR is premised off that/those dropped trick(s).

Link turns the case arguments are heavily underutilized in K debates - please use them.

On floating PIKs, these are fine but they have to be CLEARLY articulated as such in the block (preferably in the 2NC) for me to evaluate them. I suppose saying "the alt can RESULT IN the aff" (NOTE this is different from "alt can SOLVE the aff") is sufficient to signal this but it has to be a full argument IN THE BLOCK and not just a 5 second blip. That is to say, if your 2NR strategy relies on hiding a floating PIK in the block and revealing it in the 2NR, I'm probably not the judge for you.

In K v K debates, the link level is probably the most important part of these debates so focus on that. "No perms" arguments can be great if articulated correctly but most of the time they aren't. Most of the negative's time in these debates should probably be devoted to how the alt is different from the aff, why the aff can't/doesn't get a perm, and articulating the links.

Overall, I would consider myself a pretty good judge for the K in that I will most likely understand whatever you're reading and can probably give you some good advice on how to improve your speeches or what literature bases you can look to for further development.

Framework -

I went for it a lot. I debated against it a lot. Most of what I wrote below on T is also applicable here.

If I absolutely had to guess which way I lean, it'd probably be negative by like 1%. Honestly, my thoughts on FW have changed so often that I can be persuaded pretty much equally either way. I also suspect that affect/ethos has a uniquely bigger role for me in these debates than in other debates. This obviously doesn't mean I'll automatically vote for the team with the most ethos or that it has much relevance in my conscious decision-making process, just that I believe it has some subconscious, non-zero effect on how I perceive the arguments presented to me.

If you're neg have an impact, don't forget to extend it in the 2NR, and don't forget to extend some case args so the 2AR has a harder time going for "case outweighs and comes before everything".

By default, I view the TVA(s) as a way the aff could have the same discussion under your interp, i.e. it need simply show how the neg interp does not exclude the aff's content/scholarship. This disposition can obviously be changed by debaters' arguments, but you should start this work early as the aff.

I personally find procedural fairness and clash/refinement/iterative testing the most persuasive impacts, though I go back and forth on whether or not I think procedural fairness is an impact in and of itself. This can obviously be overcome with good debating and impact calc.

Skills would probably be the next most persuasive standard to me, though it often isn't articulated as well as I would like by neg teams.

Topic education is also persuasive to me but this is the impact I feel like you would probably need actual evidence on. I probably won't vote on iterative testing means no aff unless it's dropped/heavily mishandled (though if that's your jam and you feel like you have good warrants/fire evidence for why that should be the case then by all means don't let my predispositions deter you).

If you're aff, you can propose a counterinterp that you think provides a better model of debate or go for impact turns or both or whatever else is fine. Just make sure to compare your models of debate (no CI still implies a model of debate) and tell me why yours is better. I will say that I'm a hard sell for impact turns that aren't tied to a model of debate that resolves them. "Debate bad" isn't a great argument in my opinion, not only because I think it's good (though I can be convinced otherwise), but because it's probably inevitable and not intrinsic/unique offense to framework.

I think it's pretty difficult to win your Counter-Interp solves ALL of the neg's offence, but I can easily be persuaded that it makes some defensive inroads into the neg's impacts, and that combined with offence that you're likely winning on the case debate/on FW outweighs the neg's offence. Impact turns to the neg's impacts can also be persuasive but be more nuanced than just saying "framework is policing", and make sure you explain how your model resolves them.

T (not Framework) -

LOVE a good T debate.

I don't know what the common T interps on this topic are so please give me a cohesive explanation of what the "world" of your interp looks like, i.e. a case list, what affs you exclude, etc.

I default competing interps over reasonability. This doesn't mean I won't evaluate reasonability if the arg is made. In fact I think it can be a very good and strategic argument if articulated correctly. What it does mean however is you have to say more than "If we're reasonably T we're good" if you want me to treat this argument seriously.

Clash and good impact calculus/comparison is also seriously lacking in most T debates so that is definitely something I'd reward with high speaks. I personally think that predictable limits are probably the beststandard (i.e internal link to an impact, NOT an impact in and of itself) for T, but that doesn't mean I can't find other standards persuasive if there's a clear DA to the aff's CI (or lack thereof).

CP's -

Default functional competition >>> textual or functional+textual. This disposition can obviously be changed with good debating, but in a near-equally debated scenario (which, to be fair, is rare) you probably won't convince me that anything involving textual competition is better than functional alone.

I will default to judge kicking the CP (unless the neg says the status of their advocacies is uncondo/dispo). If you make a judge kick bad argument in the 2AC, I'll evaluate the judge kick debate like any other, just know that if it's a wash or equally debated on both sides, I will likely default negative. I think it is very difficult for the aff in these debates to overcome the argument that judge kick is a logical extension of conditionality, short of winning condo bad.

While I lean more neg on questions of legitimacy/theory, I lean more aff on questions of competition. I think it's very difficult for the aff to beat the argument that if a counterplan is competitive, then it is/should be legitimate.

If I had to guess my disposition on the legitimacy of counterplans from most theoretically legit to least, roughly, is: Advantage CPs, PICs, Process CP's that don't compete off of certainty/immediacy, Agent CPs (non-uniform 50 states included in this), International fiat, CPs that compete off of certainty/immediacy, Uniform 50 States, CP's that fiat the object of the resolution.

On counterplan theory, you're probably not going to convince me that a CP is so bad that I should reject the team outright for it unless it is defended by the negative unconditionally (but hey who knows, maybe you have good reject the team warrants that I've just never heard before), but reject the arg is doable for most CPs (probably not advantage CPs or PICs though).

PICs out of parts of the plan text are probably good, word PICs out of any word in the 1AC are probably bad. For other counterplans (Agent, Conditions, Consult), it is substantially harder for the aff to win theory args if the neg has aff-specific solvency advocates or has arguments (i.e good ev in the topic lit base) about why their CP answers a question that is at the core of the topic.

International fiat is probably bad (still pretty winnable for the neg though, especially if you have warrants/ev for why the specific CP you're reading is good on this specific topic/against this specific aff) but definitely not as bad as object fiat (Not very hard to convince me this is bad and should be rejected - and yes some international fiat can be object fiat but not always - debate it out).

Process CP debates are incredibly fun especially if grounded in the literature and resolution-specific wording/terms of art.

Permutations must be explained in the context of which parts of the plan and/or counterplan they modify and how they shield the link to the net benefit in the 2AC. Otherwise, it probably isn't a full argument and the 2NR likely gets new answers (at minimum).

If the CP is uncondo/dispo - My default is that presumption flips aff if the 2NR goes for a CP, but this can be changed based on args made in the round obviously. The only exception to this is if the counterplan is CLEARLY less change from the status quo than the aff (think PIC out of part of the plan), though you should probably still make that argument. To be clear, if I need to put substantial thought into whether a CP is more or less change than the aff, I'll just default to presumption flipping aff. I honestly don't think this is an issue that will be at the center of my decision for most debates though.

2NC CP's are fine if you're making a small change or amendment to a counterplan you read in the 1NC, but probably don't read an entirely new one unless it's an advantage CP answering a 2AC add-on. 1NR CP's are probably bad but debate it out. 1AR obviously gets new answers and perms to either.

DA's -

Turns case arguments are great and you should definitely make them - if you have cards to substantiate it that's even better. Turns case argument that implicate the solvency mechanism of the aff at the link level of the DA are infinitely better than turns case args that go "the impact we read is the same as the aff's impact" but both are/can be strategic.

I think the uniqueness vs. link determines direction of the DA question is highly overemphasized and would probably be better served if the debaters focused on that in the specific context/scenario of the DA rather than having a debate about it in the abstract. If I had to say, I guess I lean towards link determining the direction of the DA, but that really shouldn't change your debating in any meaningful way.

The vast majority of Politics DA's are probably not true but that doesn't mean I don't immensely enjoy these debates or that I won't vote for it (a good number of my 2NR's in college were Politics). That said, Politics and case is not a strategy, unless the aff is atrocious or the negative is absolutely stellar at case debating. For the aff, yes I'll buy your intrinsicness or whatever weird theory args you want to read here if you explain it well and beat the neg on it. I also really don't know why some teams just don't read any offence on the Politics DA in the 2AC - please try to do that. Of course you can obviously win without it but it’s a missed opportunity most of the time, in my opinion.

Cool with intrinsicness args against DA's if the aff invests substantial time and thought into them (they rarely do).

Performance Neg Strats -

I was not very familiar with these until I debated in college. That being said, I think this can be an incredibly valuable and educational form of engagement/debate. Some of the most interesting rounds I've debated in have been performance rounds. I've done everything from playing Naruto for the entire 1NC to poetry about debate to literally doing nothing for the sake of being unproductive.

Just tell me what to vote on and make sure you clearly articulate why your form of engagement/debate is better than the aff's (unless you're a K of that I guess). If that sounds really un-specific and vague that's because I think me going into more depth here is counter-intuitive to what I think these strats are best at/meant for, i.e. new and innovative types of debate.

Theory -

Don't read frivolous theory. By that I mean stuff like "The font of the un-underlined portion of your evidence is too small," (lookin' at you, LDers) not like New Aff's Bad (still not a good arg but not quite frivolous) or Solvency Advocate theory. I won't immediately discount it either I guess but note that I'll have a much higher bar for it, a much lower bar for answering it, and your speaks likely won't be very good.

That said, I'm probably more likely to vote on theory, that's not specific to an off-case position - usually that means conditionality/perf con - than most judges.

I went for condo quite a bit in relation to the number of times I've been the 2A. However, this usually requires the 1AR to spend a substantial (at the VERY LEAST 30 seconds, likely a minute or more if this is the A or B strategy for your 2AR) amount of time on it for it to be a viable 2AR option. Please have an interpretation in the 2AC, the best, in my opinion, is dispositionality (if you can defend it in-depth), just please have a cohesive definition of it IN THE 2AC. Unconditional counterinterp is fine just probably a tough hill to climb at this point. For the neg in these debates, rest assured I'm also a 2N most of the time so don't be afraid to go wild with condo if you want and can defend it.

Infinite condo is becoming an increasingly tougher interp for me to accept, so have a more limiting counterinterp but it's not the end of the world.

For the love of everything, please slow down to slightly faster than normal speech in these debates, especially if this is a viable option for you/if you think this is a viable option the other team will go for. I REALLY don't want to judge two teams reading theory blocks from 2005 at me at 300 words per minute.

Drop the team is a high bar for most theory that's not condo (though if dropped, with a warrant, I will hesitantly vote for it).

Affs -

Again, I've read basically every type of aff, you do you.

If it's a policy aff, make sure to explain your internal link story clearly (I feel like most teams don't do this well enough) and why your impacts outweigh/turn the neg's. Not much else to say here - I have read everything from heg good to soft left structural violence impacts.

If it's a K aff, I'm fine with literally whatever you want to read (i.e. performance, narrative, plan text you don't defend, no plan, advocacy, no advocacy, etc.) as long as you actually explain your arguments to me and don't just expect me to understand your aff from an overview you blazed way too fast through. My threshold for voting for the aff is "if i explained this to the other team using your words, do I think they would understand it".

Presumption is something I feel like more teams should go for and is something I'm very persuaded by against K aff's that don't defend a change from the squo - don't be too scared away by the aff's grandstanding - especially if the aff is just a change in the way we look at the status quo or just a theory of power.

Speaker Points

Will modulate for tournament quality/size. My speaker point scale is: (add ~.2 to most of these ranges for LD - i.e. 28.9-29.1 is breaking, 29.5+ is the same though)

27 & below - You did something offensive and/or you really did not make arguments.

27-27.4 - You didn't have a real strategy in this round but made a few just OK args that didn't really tie into anything.

27.5-27.9 - You had a strategy in this round but it wasn't good at all (i.e. had no relevance or even semblance of a link) or you only made a few good arguments all round.

28-28.2 - Below average team. Expect you to be solidly in the 2-4 bracket. Probably a newer team who has some stuff figured out but isn't quite there yet.

28.3-28.4 - Solid/average team. Expect you to go 2-4 or 3-3. All the pieces were there but you were lacking a higher degree of argument interaction.

28.5-28.6 - You're on the verge of breaking. Probably a team I expect to go 3-3 or 4-2 and be on the verge of breaking. Good arguments, but you made some broader strategic missteps.

28.7-28.9 - I expect you to break/clear. I liked your well-thought-out strategy but still need to work on implementing that strategy and you made some great arguments but could have made the debate clearer, more organized or more nuanced.

29-29.4 - You were great and on the threshold of being amazing. I thought you had a well-thought-out and implemented strategy and great arguments but were somewhat lacking in some form. I expect you to be in later elims.

29.5-29.6- You were amazing. I expect you to be one of the top speakers at this tournament and make it into deep elims. Any problem I found in your speeches was probably nit-picking. I thoroughly enjoyed every minute of your speeches.

29.7 - Sensational. If all of your speeches were like the ones I saw you give, I expect you to be the top speaker at this tournament and would be surprised if you didn't win the tournament.

29.8 - Best speeches I've seen in the past few years and probably the best ones I anticipate seeing in the next few years as well. One of the best overall performances I've ever seen.

29.9 - I cannot think of a single minuscule way you could have been better. This is the best performance I;ve seen or ever expect to see, period.

30 - Wow. I am beyond words. Watching you didn't register as judging a debate so much as a gestalt phenomenological experience. You were the best debater I've ever seen and have truly inspired me to do/engage in/advocate for whatever your argument was in that round beyond the debate space. You have cured my depression. No I will not give you one (or increase your speaks) just because you asked for it.

***LD Paradigm***

Quick Prefs

Policy/LARP - 1

K - 1

T - 1

Traditional - 2

Phil - 2/3

Theory - 3 (1 for Policy theory, i.e. CP/alt theory and condo, etc.)

Tricks - 3/4 to strike

LD Paradigm Proper

Did LD a couple of times in HS on both local and Nat circuits before I did Policy (and once after when I didn't have a partner) so am kind of familiar with LD norms but am certainly not a good judge for you if you're going for tricks/friv theory/some weird thing unique to LD but not Policy (Nebel T and traditional cases being notable exceptions).

Most of what I said above in the Policy section applies here as well. If you're looking for my stance/defaults on specific off-case positions (K's, T, CP's, etc), take a look at that respective section of my Policy paradigm.

Not voting on an RVI on T. You don't get a W for being topical (unless T is the only thing the neg goes for obviously).

*sighs* Please note the theory section in my Policy paradigm above... But seriously, if it's a creative theory interp that's actually a somewhat reasonable interp regarding the content of the debate and/or maybe has a critical spin on it, I am surprisingly down. I default competing interps on interps about the substance of the debate and reasonability on others. Please don't make me judge a meta-theory debate. Coming from a Policy background I also have a gut reaction to HATE RVI's, but nonetheless can be convinced to vote on them against theory, not T (T is never an RVI), if dropped or significantly (up for debate what this means) mishandled in LD. Wouldn't suggest that being your go-to though.

Will not evaluate "evaluate the debate after X speech" arguments... I will evaluate the debate after the 2AR...

Please number NC args on case and 1AR args on off-case positions.

Aff theory doesn't need its separate flow just read it on the sheet it applies to or pick an off case to put it on. Neg theory can/should be on its own sheet as an off-case if it's in the NC. Don't really want to judge NR theory unless ABSOLUTELY necessary (like aff condo or something like that)...

Good for Nebel T, just impact out standards like you would with any other T debate. Other T args are cool too, see that section above.

Not good for skep/skep triggers (whatever those are).

*sighs again* If you absolutely feel that you must go for tricks, which you shouldn't, and I'll hate you for it, but that's kind of maybe alright HOWEVER I'd HIGHLY suggest 1) trying to convince me that it was something the other debater should/could have anticipated AND 2) that you make it a FULL argument, warrant AND impact it out, walk me through it, and don't just let it be an 8 word blip.

Floating PIKs in LD, in my opinion, make absolutely no sense because either it's not clearly articulated as such in the 1NC in which case the 2AR gets new answers making it unstrategic or it is articulated clearly in which case it's just a regular PIK. It's the neg's burden to make it absolutely clear that the K is a PIK in the 1NC, NOT the aff's burden to ask if it is one in CX/call it out pre-emptively in the 1AR.

Analytic Philosophy is not my thing but if it's yours I'll respect that and obviously evaluate it like any other debate, just make sure to explain it in terms of how I should view/evaluate each side in the debate through the lens of your theory. Again, my threshold for voting on an argument is "does it have a substantiated claim, warrant, and impact that I think the other debater would understand if I explained it to them using your words in my RFD?"

No underviews please for the love of everything.

********************

EXTRA POINTS

Speaker point scale is above the LD paradigm.

Caveat to this section is I will stop adding points when you reach a 29.3 AND you can't get more than .5 extra than I would've already given you. I want my speaks to actually mean something and reward exceptional debaters.

I absolutely LOVE LOVE LOVE academically creative arguments/strategies. If you have some new and innovative argument/strategy whose creativity I'm impressed by I'm willing to give y'all up to half a speaker point added to whatever it was I was gonna give you (probably will be closer to .2 on average). This is inherently subjective though so please don't ask me what it would take, it's an "I know it when I see it" type of thing.

If you open source all the ev you read with highlighting it's an extra .2. Just let me know right after the round (before I submit my ballot obvi) and I'll take a look at your Wiki. To clarify, you have to be doing this every round already or at the very least do a significant number retroactively and promise to keep doing it in the future before I submit my ballot.

If y'all give me a PoMo vs. PoMo round and give me some actual clash, both teams/debaters speaks are floored at a 29 (yes you read that correctly, I REALLY wanna see this debate). No this does not apply if only one side is advocating one of these positions. Please don't read these if you don't actually know the positions though.

Talk at a reasonable pace so what your saying is understandable. NO SPREADING. Be clear and explain your arguments properly and fully. I vote for the team with the strongest reasoning and extension of evidence. I am a very lay judge so I don't prefer theory, K's, CP'S, or Tech arguments. If you run tech arguments you will be dropped. Debate is an educational activity where both sides debate reasonably and try to explain there points clearly and concisely. I will award speaker points based on confidence, persuasiveness, voice projection, argumentation skills, and poise. Please do not spread in front of me as I will not be able to follow. I can understand slightly faster than conversational but I would prefer conversational. I am a traditional LD judge so keep that in mind before your round starts.

If you speak faster than usual speed please share your cases so I can follow along.

Email chain: alwanimiami@yahoo.com

kenan.s.anderson@gmail.com

UPDATE for Minneapple 2021:

I haven't judged Varsity LD since... I don't even know when. So slow down A LOT and anything invented in the last 1.5 years I probably won't know about.

I have a strong natural inclination to consequentialism. If your framework is not consequentialist, especially if it's a critical ROB or ROJ, you need to explain VERY DIRECTLY and VERY BLUNTLY how it filters offense. Otherwise, I'll probably not understand and evaluate the round differently than you would like.

I debated on the circuit for four years. In general, I think debate would be better if it was slightly slower, much more topic-focused, more accessible to lay folks, and had way way way less theory. I'm saddened by the number of rounds that are not resolved by whether the core issue of the topic is good/bad. You should win because you have good arguments, not because you tricked your opponent in some technical game of extensions and cross applications. Disclosure is probably good. Needlessly specific disclosure shells are probably not.

A Note On Speaker Points: Evaluating some sort of "subjective" skill in a single debate is hard. Instead, I use speaker points to reward what I consider good, educational, and persuasive models of debate. This means your speaks will be low if you try and win on frivolous theory or short "X is an independent voting issue" and you'll get great speaks for smart affirmative cases or well thought-out negative strategies. Bonus points for not reading the same plan/DA/K/ etc as everyone else on the topic.

Bonus data because I'm a nerd - looking at varsity rounds only I vote neg 52% of the time (a pretty minor bias given the sample size). Feel free to use this to answer bad (NEG SIDE BIAS JUSTIFIES XXXXX) arguments. Also in out rounds I squirrel 20% of the time. If you're interested in stats for your or a judge you know lmk. I have a python script that does it really fast.

Contact info: avejacksond@gmail.com

Background: I competed for Okoboji (IA) and was at the TOC '13 in LD. I also debated policy in college the following year. I coached from 2014-2019 for Poly Prep (NY). I rejoined the activity again in 2023 as the current assistant debate coach at Johnston (IA) and previously an adjunct LD coach for Lake Highland Prep (FL). I also was an instructor at NSD Philadelphia 2024.

LD

General: Debate rounds are about students so intervention should be minimized. I believe that my role in rounds is to be an educator, however, students should contextualize what that my obligation as a judge is. I default comparative worlds unless told otherwise. Slow down for interps and plan texts. I will say clear as many times as needed. Signpost and add me to your email chain, please.

Pref Shortcut

K: 1

T/Theory: 2

LARP/Policy: 1/2

Tricks: 2/3

K: I really like K debate. I have trouble pulling the trigger on links of omission. Performative offensive should be linked to a method that you can defend. The alt is an advocacy and the neg should defend it as such. Knowing lit beyond tags = higher speaks. Please challenge my view of debate. I like learning in rounds.

Framework: 2013 LD was tricks, theory, and framework debate. I dislike blippy, unwarranted 'offense'. However, I really believe that good, deep phil debate is persuasive and underutilized on most topics. Most framework/phil heavy affs don't dig into literature deep enough to substantively respond to general K links and turns.

LARP: Big fan but don't assume I've read all hyper-specific topic knowledge.

Theory/T: Great, please warrant extensions and signpost. "Converse of their interp" is not a counter-interp.

Speaks: Make some jokes and be chill with your opponent. In-round strategy dictates range. I average 28.3-28.8.

Other thoughts: Plans/CPs should have solvency advocates. Talking over your opponent will harm speaks. Write down interps before extemping theory. When you extend offense, you need to weigh. Card clipping is an auto L25.

PF

I am a flow judge. Offense should be extended in summary. Weighing in back half is key. I'll steal this line from my favorite judge, Thomas Mayes, "My ballot is like a piece of electricity, it takes the path of least resistance." Have fun and be nice.

LD Paradigm

Ill keep this short:

This is my 13th year involved in LD. I qualled to the TOC, and have coached for the last 8 years as a private coach, assistant at a big program, head of LD at a program, and now run FlexDebate.

I believe that debate is a game and you should play it however you want. Im fine with really any argument so long as it is obviously not racist/sexist/homophobic etc. I have usually found that it is better for debaters to read what they are most comfortable with in front of me.

Slow down on tags and standards texts plz.

EDIT: Tricks debate is super boring and non innovating these days, so I am usually less impressed by those debates and will sometimes point lower as a result.

If you have anymore questions feel free to email me at sam@flexdebate.com

PF Paradigm:

Got involved more seriously in PF these last few years-- currently coach Princeton along with a few other teams and am the Director of PF at NSD. I am a flow judge. Make sure to extend offense in the summary. The second rebuttal does not necessarily have to frontline, but obviously often times it is strategic to do so. I also do not think that the first summary necessarily has to make defense, but again, might be strategic in some instances to do so. Finally, please make sure to weigh in later speeches, otherwise it makes it tough for me. Overall, have fun and learn something while you are at it!

I competed in Lincoln-Douglas for three years in high school, and Public Forum for one. I've been coaching and judging LD and PF since then.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

What I Like

I've gotten a few notes from debaters that my paradigm is mostly about what I don't want to see, rather than what I do. In an attempt to remedy that, here is what I enjoy in a debate round.

Evidence Debate - I love when debaters actually engage with the internal warrants of their opponents evidence and arguments. Point out contradictions between pieces of evidence, expose evidence that is too specific or too general to apply, call out evidence that is just claims rather than warrants. Any engagement with evidence beyond "my opponent's evidence is wrong because my evidence is right" will greatly increase your chance of winning my ballot.

Meaningful Framework Debate - I love when debaters pick and choose their battles on framework and clearly impact the results of the framework debate to how I should evaluate impacts in the round. You will not lose my ballot solely for conceding your opponent's framework. Not all rounds need to have a framework debate, even with different values/value criteria, if those frameworks evaluate impacts in roughly the same way or if both debaters have the same impacts in the round (eg, people dying). Debaters who recognize that and focus on the areas of framework that will actually change how I judge arguments, then follow up with an explanation of what I should look for in evaluating the round based on that change will have a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Internal Consistency - I love when debaters commit to their positions. Many arguments, especially the more unusual philosophical arguments require commitment to a whole host of concomitant beliefs and positions. Embrace that. If someone points out that utilitarianism requires defending the interests of the majority over the minority, be willing to defend that position. If someone points out that Kantianism doesn't permit you to lie to a murderer, don't backtrack - explain it. Don't be afraid to say that extinction does not outweigh everything else. Conversely, if you argue that prediction of the future is impossible in order to answer consequentialism and then cite scientific authors to support your claims, I will be much less likely to believe your position. A debater who is committed and consistent in their ethical position will have a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Argument by Analogy - I love when debaters use analogies to explain or clarify their own positions, or to expose inconsistencies, absurd statements or flaws in their opponents arguments. I think analogies are underutilized as a method of analytical argumentation and debaters willing to use analogies to explain or undermine arguments have a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Comparative Weighing - I love when debaters specifically compare impacts when weighing in the round. Rarely does a debater win every single argument in the round and weighing significantly assists me in making a decision when there are multiple impacts for both sides. While I like weighing arguments in the vein of "This argument outweighs all others in the round" more than no weighing at all, a more specific and nuanced analysis along the lines of "this argument outweighs that argument for these reasons" (especially when it explains the weighing in the specific context of the framework) will give a debater a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Disclosure

I don't want to be on the email chain/speech drop/whatever. Debate is a speaking activity, not an essay writing contest. I will judge what you say, not what's written in your case. The only exception is if there is an in-round dispute over what was actually said in a case/card in which case I will ask to see evidence after the round.

Timing

You are welcome to time yourself but I will be timing you as well. Once my timer starts, it will not stop until the time for a given speech has elapsed. You may do whatever you like with that time, but I will not pause the round for tech issues. Tech issues happen and you need to be prepared for them.

Speed

I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Flex Prep

No. There is designated CX time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep, but not clarification.

LARP - Please don't. Discussion of policy implications is necessary for some topics, but if your case is 15 seconds of "util is truetil" and 5:45 of a hyperspecific plan with a chain of 5 vague links ending in two different extinction impacts, I'm not going to be a fan. Realistically speaking, your links are speculative, your impacts won't happen, and despite debaters telling me that extinction is inevitable for 15+ years, it still hasn't happened. Please debate the topic rather than making up your own (unless you warrant why you can do that, in which case, see pre-fiat kritiks). If there is no action in the resolution, you can't run a plan. If there is no action, don't a-spec. If you want to debate policy, do policy debate. As with other arguments, I will evaluate a LARP round but will have a low-threshold to vote on evidentiary arguments, link/brink severance, and framework exclusion.

Evidence Ethics

I will intervene on evidence ethics if I determine that a card is cut in such a way as to contradict or blatantly misrepresent what an author says, even if no argument is made about this in the round. I have no patience for debaters who lie about evidence. Good evidence is not hard to find, there's no need to make it up and doing so simply makes debate worse for everyone.

Arguments

Role of the Ballot: A role of the ballot argument will only influence how I vote on pre-fiat, not post-fiat argumentation. It is not, therefore, a replacement for a framework, unless your entire case is pre-fiat, in which case see "pre-fiat kritiks". A role of the ballot must have a warrant. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression" is a statement not an argument. You will need to explain why that is the role of the ballot and why it is preferable to "better debater". Please make the warrant specific to debate. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression because oppression is bad" doesn't tell me why it is specifically the role of this ballot to fight oppression. I have a low threshold for voting against roles of the ballot with no warrants. I will default to a "better debater" role of the ballot.

Theory: Please reserve theory for genuinely abusive arguments or positions which leave one side no ground. I am willing to vote on RVIs if they are made, but I will not vote on theory unless it is specifically impacted to "Vote against my opponent for this violation". I will always use a reasonability standard. Running theory is asking me as the judge in intervene in the round, and I will only do so if I deem it appropriate.

Pre-fiat Kritiks: I am very slow to pull the trigger on most pre-fiat Ks. Ensure you have a role of the ballot which warrants why my vote will have any impact on the world or in debate. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the affirmative", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts. That said, I will vote on pre-fiat Ks - a good metric for my preference is whether your link is specific to the aff's performance in this round or if it could link to any affirmative case on the topic (or any topic). If you're calling out specific parts of the affirmative performance, that's fine.

Post-fiat Kritiks: Run anything you want. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the resolution", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Topicality: Totally fine to run. I have a slight bias towards genericist positions over specificist ones, eg "a means any" rather than "a means one".

Politics Disadvantages: Please don't. If you absolutely must, you need to prove A: The resolution will occur now. B: The affirmative must defend a specific implementation of the topic. C:The affirmative must defend a specific actor for the topic. Without those three interps, I will not vote on a politics DA because it doesn't link to the aff.

Narratives: Fine, as long as you preface with a framework which explains why and how narratives impact the round and tell me how to evaluate it.

Conditionality: I'm permissive but skeptical of conditional argumentation. A conditional argument cannot be kicked if there are turns on it, and I will not vote on contradictory arguments, even if they are conditional. So don't run a cap K and an econ disad. You can't kick out of discourse impacts because performance cannot be erased.

Word PICs: I don't like word PICs. I'll vote on them if they aren't effectively responded to, but I don't like them. I believe that they drastically decrease clash and cut affirmative ground by taking away unique affirmative offense.

Presumption - I do not presume neg. I'm willing to vote on presumption if the aff or neg gives me arguments for why aff or neg should be presumed, but neither side has presumption inherently. Both aff and neg need offense - in the absence of offense, I revert to risk of offense.

Pessimistic Ks - Generally not a fan. I find it difficult to understand why they should motivate me to vote for one side over another, even if the argument is true and the alts are often unclear. I will vote on them but run at your own risk.

Ideal Theory - If you want to run an argument about "ideal theory" (eg Curry 14) please understand what ideal theory is in the context of philosophy. It has nothing to do with theory in debate terms, nor is it just a philosophy which is idealistic. If you do not specify I will assume that you mean that ideal theory is full-compliance theory.

Disclosure - I will not vote on disclosure arguments. I don't believe that disclosure as a norm is beneficial to debate and I see it used to exclude non-circuit debaters far more often than I see debaters who are genuinely unable to engage because they could not predict their opponent's arguments.

Framework - Please have an actual warrant for your framework. If your case reads "My standard is util, contention 1" I will evaluate it, but have a very low threshold to vote against it, like any claim without a warrant. I will not evaluate pre-fiat framework warrants; eg, "Util is preferable because it gives equal ground to both sides". Read the philosophy and make an actual argument. See the section on theory - there are no theory-based framework warrants I consider reasonable.

Speaker Points

Since I've gotten some questions about this..

I judge on a 5 point scale, from 25-30.

25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said or other glaring rhetorical issues.

26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.

27.5 is average. Speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but nevertheless had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity or other areas of rhetoric.

28.5 is above average. Speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. Speaker was compelling, used rhetorical devices well.

30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.

Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally unresponded to, but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.

While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.

Please please please cut cards with complete, grammatically correct sentences. If I have to try to assemble a bunch of disconnected sentence fragments into a coherent idea, your speaker points will not be good.

Judging style

If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be framework and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.

Public Forum Paradigm

Frameworks

I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.

Topicality

I will evaluate topicality arguments, though only with the impact "ignore the argument", never "drop the team".

Theory

Yes, I understand theory. No, I don't want to hear theory in a PF round. No, I will not vote on a theory argument.

Counterplans

No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.

Kritiks

No. Kritiks only function under a truth-testing interpretation of the con burden, I only use comparative worlds in Public Forum.

Burden Interpretations

The pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof. Because of limited time and largely non-technical nature of Public Forum, I consider myself more empowered to intervene against arguments I perceive as unfair or contrary to the rules or spirit of Public Forum debate than I might be while judging LD or Policy.

In general, I prefer the standard debate methodology, Other styles of arguments are fine, but if they aren't run well or detract from the overall debate experience, I am far less likely to pick them up.

Please do not sacrifice clarity for the sake of speed, if I can't figure out what you are saying I cannot flow, should this be the case I will verbally request for clarity, if it persists beyond that point my ability to flow will be impacted. That said, I am generally fine with a moderate amount of speed when clear.

I will maintain a timer, but I am perfectly fine should you wish to use a cellular device for a timer or a laptop or tablet as a document reader / note taker.

I appreciate brief roadmaps prior to giving a speech, which I will not time.

Over the course of the debate I expect interaction between debaters, without back and forth the overall quality of the debate is diminished and it becomes harder to judge.

Value and Criterion: Value and Criterion matters and I will hold the debater to the value that is expressed as the criterion need to relate to the value at all times.

Evidence matters a lot. I am open minded, and I do come prepared with a lot of evidence on the topic before I judge but I am not constrained by my views.

Cross-ex is important and the best ones focus on the other team's evidence. Truth = evidence quality + technical proficiency. Author qualifications matter with authenticity and not some random reference

The aff. should be topical. The aff. needs an offensive justification for their vision of the topic. Reasonability is meaningless and ultimately begs the question of the impact.

Conditionality is good. I am far more likely to be convinced by a qualitative interpretation than a quantitative one.

Clarity. Be clear. Keep the tempo reasonable at all times. Keep your enthusiasm at all times and work through the end of the debate. After several rounds of debate, it gets tiring and I get it but you cannot lose hope and give up. If your enthusiasm and involvement suffers, your points will suffer. If I can't understand the argument, it doesn't count. There is no difference between being incoherent and clipping.

Crystalization of Points: I encourage crystallization of points to provide better closing arguments.

Speaker Points: As far as Speaker Points, professionalism is highly encouraged, try to stay organized and track your own time, I will be doing so as well but having good tempo and structure to arguments vastly improves a speeches cogency. Additionally, if you come across as disrespectful or rude you take away from the debate experience and I am inclined to take away speaker points.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round starts once both the debaters are in the room.

LD Paradigm:

I am a parent judge with a little more than a year of experience in judging LD.

Traditional debate - I'm very comfortable with the traditional style of debate at all levels. If you're a JV debater and/or it's a lay tournament, I prefer not to hear spreading or progressive arguments.

Progressive debate - I am learning progressive debate. So don't run anything too advanced unless you explain it in simpler terms. I know I don't like tricks. Assuming you're going to spread, please put me on the email chain since I'm not the best at flowing progressives. Also, if you're reading new evidence in subsequent speeches, send that out as well.

Regardless of your arguments, explain your warrants and impacts well. Do a good amount of weighing at the end and make it clear why your arguments are better than your opponent's arguments.

Crystallize your points at the end of your rebuttals and ask strategic questions during CX. Speaking clearly and making good use of CX time will help you get better speaker points.

Good luck!

I am a lay judge. I cannot vote for what I do not understand.

No spreading. Please be respectful to your opponents.

Hi! I'm a junior at Harvard College. I have no prior experience judging debate, so I am a completely clean slate. I'm simply prepared to vote for the team that prepares the best argument. I am very good at keeping my personal beliefs out of my judging - I don't have any biases to influence my decision. I value clarity, organization, and eloquence in argument, and I very much look forward to hearing outstanding ideas.

My top voting issues-

#1- Do not speak too fast and speak clearly! If I can’t understand you, how am I supposed to vote for you?

#2- Show respect to your competitors! If you ask a question, let them answer it. Your non-verbal language also shows respect, so be cautious of how you react.

#3- Give me voters- a summary of what took place shows me you know what you are talking about.

My Background-

My daughter did Policy (CX) debate and that is when I learned I do NOT like speed-reading cases. I have been coaching since 2017 and still feel like a new speech & debate coach.

If you want anything more specific, ask before the round starts.

About Me

I attended and debated for Rutgers University-Newark (c/o 2021). I’ve ran both policy and K affs.

Coach @ Ridge HS in Basking Ridge, NJ.

Influences In Debate

David Asafu – Adjaye (he actually got me interested in college policy, but don’t tell him this), and of course, the debate coaching staff @ RU-N: Willie Johnson, Carlos Astacio, Devane Murphy, Christopher Kozak and Elijah Smith.

The Basics

Yes, I wish to be on the email chain!

saied.beckford@rutgers.edu

COLLEGE POLICY: I skimmed through the topic paper and ADA/ Wake will be my first time judging this season. Do with this information what you wish.

GENERAL: If you are spreading and it’s not clear, I will yell clear. If I have to do that too many times in a round, it sucks to be you buddy because I will just stop flowing and evaluate the debate based on what I can remember. Zoom through your cards, but when doing analytics and line by line, take it back a bit. After all, I can only evaluate what I catch on my flow. UPDATE FOR ONLINE DEBATES: GO ABOUT 70% OF YOUR NORMAL SPEED. IF YOU ARE NOT CLEAR EVEN AT 70%, DON'T SPREAD.

In general, I like K’s (particularly those surrounding Afro-Pess and Queer Theory). However, I like to see them executed in at least a decent manner. Therefore, if you know these are not your forte, do not read them just because I am judging. One recent pet peeve of mine is people just asserting links without having them contextualized to the aff and well explained. Please don't be that person. You will see me looking at both you and my flow with a confused face trying to figure out what's happening. Additionally, do not tell me that perms cannot happen in a method v. method debate without a warrant.

I live for performance debates.

I like to be entertained, and I like to laugh. Hence, if you can do either, it will be reflected in your speaker points. However, if you can’t do this, fear not. You obviously will get the running average provided you do the work for the running average. While I am a flow centric judge, be it known that debate is just as much about delivery as it is about content.

The bare minimum for a link chain for a DA is insufficient 99% of the time for me. I need a story with a good scenario for how the link causes the impact. Describe to me how everything happens. Please extrapolate! Give your arguments depth! It would behoove you to employ some impact calculus and comparison here.

Save the friv theory, bring on those spicy framework and T debates. Please be well structured on the flow if you are going this route. Additionally, be warned, fairness is not a voter 98% of the times in my book. It is an internal link to something. Note however, though I am all for T and framework debates, I also like to see aff engagement. Obviously these are all on a case by case basis. T USFG is not spicy. I will vote on it, but it is not spicy.

For CPs, if they're abusive, they are. As long as they are competitive and have net benefits, we're good.

On theory, at a certain point in the debate, I get tired of hearing you read your coach's coach's block extensions. Could we please replace that with some impact weighing?

Do not assume I know anything when judging you. I am literally in the room to take notes and tell who I think is the winner based on who gives the better articulation as to why their option is better. Therefore, if you assume I know something, and I don’t … kinda sucks to be you buddy.

I’m all for new things! Debating is all about contesting competing ideas and strategies.

I feel as though it should be needless to say, but: do not run any bigoted arguments. However, I’m well aware that I can’t stop you. Just please be prepared to pick up a zero in your speaking points, and depending on how egregious your bigotry is, I just might drop you. Literally!

Another thing: please do not run anthropocentrism in front of me. It’s something I hated as a debater, and it is definitely something I hate as a judge. Should you choose to be risky, please be prepared for the consequences. (Update: voted on it once - purely a flow decision)

For My LD'ers

It is often times difficult to evaluate between esoteric philosophies. I often find that people don't do enough work to establish any metric of evaluation for these kinds of debates. Consequently, I am weary for pulling the trigger for one side as opposed to the other. If you think you can, then by all means, read it!

Yale Update: Tricks are for kids.You might be one, but I am not.

I'm gonna have to pass on the RVIs too. I've never seen a more annoying line of argumentation.

NSDA 2024 PF UPDATE

If your cards are not properly tagged, cited and cut, I will be tanking speaker points severely.

If an email chain is not set up, I will be tanking speaker points severely.

If I get so much as a whiff of evidentiary dishonesty, I am dropping you, closing my laptop and leaving the round.

Otherwise, congrats on making it to NSDA. Have fun and do you, boo !

In general, give me judge instructions.

On average, tech > truth --- however, I throw this principle out when people start doing or saying bigoted things.

I am a lay judge, from King High School. Please do not spread, or read any progressive arguments because I will not understand them.

I am a relatively new judge, please keep this is mind when debating. Try to speak clearly, i.e., no spreading. If I can't understand what you are saying I can't judge you.

Additionally, I do not disclose.

Thank you!

[Same as Ellie Boswell]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sarah Botsch-McGuinn

email: sbotschmcguinn@gmail.com

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Preferences for arguments:

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

K debate

LARP

Theory

Phil

Traditional

Tricks

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

PF:

Policy/LARP

Traditional

K

Theory

NO TRICKS WHATSOEVER ITS AN AUTO LOSS

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

Grant Brown (He/Him/His)

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

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

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

Email: grantbrowndebate@gmail.com

Conflicts: Brearley School, Lake Highland Preparatory

Last Updates: 6/29/2023

Scroll to the bottom for Public Forum

The Short Version

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

1. What are their qualifications?

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

2. What will they listen to?

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

3. What are they experienced in?

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

4. What do they like?

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

5. How do they adjudicate debates?

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

The Longer Version

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

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

Kritiks

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

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

Theory

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

Policy Arguments

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

Ethical Frameworks

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

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

Public Forum

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

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

Speaks and Ethics Violations

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

I am a high school English teacher that taught debate for a year, so I am fairly knowledgeable of all events. With that said, I prefer a more digestible pace for debate rounds, so that I can hear all arguments clearly. I take detailed notes while judging and always provide feedback to competitors. I know how much hard work goes into preparing for competitions, so I work hard as a judge to help competitors improve. My e-mail is felicia.burgin@browardschools.com in the event you need to send me the support for your contentions.

I debated Lincoln Douglas at Walt Whitman High School from 2014 to 2018 on the national and local circuits. I qualified to the Tournament of Champions in 2017 and 2018. I am currently a senior at Harvard College.

I debated a bit of everything, but I have the most experience with theory, topicality, and framework debate.

The debates I enjoyed the most involved semi-topical affs about identity and/or oppression. Tricks were also fun. I love good (read: creative, well-researched) disads or counterplans, but I also love hearing k debates.

I need to hear clear, explicit extensions and weighing on every layer of the debate. Tell me where to vote and why I should vote there. Simple is better.

Basically, read anything in front of me, try not to be boring, definitely don’t be a jerk (be extra nice, because I am sensitive), and don’t spread too fast — I only judge at Harvard, and skipped 2021, so I haven't heard spreading in 2 years.

Email me at camillegcaldera@gmail.com or message me on Facebook with questions, cases, etc. (Yes, I want to be on email chains!)

Panicked Afterthought: I don't understand high theory/post-modern philosophy so maybe don't read that in front of me? I will do the absolute best I can to sift though it but no promises.

Updated Feb 2019

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

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

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

Misc:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My judging generally comes down to a few points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do not flow off the doc.

Evidence:

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

Theory:

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

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

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

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

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

Coach at Bellaire High School (TX)
Separately conflicted with: Heights High School, Archbishop Mitty SM, Carnegie Vanguard KF, Cypress Ranch KH, Langham Creek SB, Woodlands SP

Set up the email chain before the round starts and add me.

If I'm judging you in PF:bellairedocs.pf@gmail.com

If I'm judging you in LD: bellairedocs.ld@gmail.com

If I'm judging you in Policy: bellairedocs.policy@gmail.com

I debated for Timothy Christian School in New Jersey for four years. I graduated from Rice University, spent 10 years coaching LD, Policy, and WS at Heights High School, am currently a teacher at Bellaire, and coach a variety of debate formats: my program competes through the Texas Forensic Association and the Houston Urban Debate League.

Pref Shortcuts

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

General

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

Policy

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

Theory

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

Kritiks

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

Philosphical Frameworks

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

Speed

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

Speaker Points

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

I did LD for four years in high school (1 JV, 3 Varsity) in Texas. I am open to all forms of argumentation, but I am generally less comfortable evaluating topicality and theory. In general, teams should compare positions and evidence in order to tell a story in your final speech that explains the round outcome. Most decisions will come down to impact assessment unless other layers were introduced. In most cases, I vote for impacts under the winning framework, so framework debate is important if applicable. ROBs must be extended throughout.

For speaker points, I start at 28 and go up or down from there. Please be clear if you decide to spread, and limit profanity. CX is a great way to boost speaker points.

I pay attention to definitions, observations, burdens, overviews, and underviews. These need to be addressed in most instances. Clarity and organization are key, and I like overviews at the beginning of speeches. Make clear, true arguments (avoid blippy arguments), and the evidence you read should not be exaggerated. Weighing and crystallization are super important, and at the end of the round you should articulate clear reasons as to why you have won in whatever way you deem best.

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

General Preferences:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Defaults:

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

-Theory is an issue of reasonability.

-Aff does not get an RVI on theory.

-Theory is a reason to drop the argument.

-Theory is a question of norm setting.

-I will evaluate debates through comparative worlds.

-Neg defends the status quo.

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

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

-Presumption and permissibility triggers

-Skepticism

-Meta-theory

-Affirmative framework choice and affirmative contention choice

-Theoretically justified frameworks

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

-Indexicals

-Most spikes

-Most a prioris

-Contingent standards

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

-All neg theory arguments are counterinterps

-Evaluate the round after the 1AR or 2NR

-Resolved a priori

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

-Spreading drills

-Provide a clear ballot story

-Be respectful

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

-2NR and 2AR overviews

-Word economy

-Proper prioritization of flows

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

-Don’t read obviously frivolous theory.

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

Evidence ethics:

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

Contact Info:

preetham.chippada@gmail.com

I debated 5 years ago for Timothy Christian. I've judged several times for LD tournaments but haven't been proactively involved in the circuit since then. I'm fine with you running any arguments so long as you articulate them well and give good extensions and links.

I'm not super comfortable with speed, since I haven't judged in a while, so I would prefer you not to spread.

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

Now that that friendly introduction is over:

Email: maanik.chotalla@gmail.com

I'll disclose speaks if you ask.

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

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

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

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

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

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

More details:

1. General

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

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

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

2. Theory/T

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

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

3. Tricks

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

4. Ks

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

5. Miscellaneous

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tricks - NO

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

Please ask questions if more clarification is needed.

Hi my name is Holly Cleveland I am a parent judge.

Please speak clearly and I don’t like spreading. I prefer more traditional arguments!

Good luck to everyone!

I was an APDA (college parliamentary) debater from 2014-18. Between 2016 and 2022, I coached PF, LD, Congress, Extemp, and some other speech events.

I am a parent judge and have judged 1 Lincoln Douglas tournament to date.

I prefer a logical progression of an argument without speed.

I value respect for an opponent.

Hey, I’m Michael I did LD for four years at Lake Highland graduating in 2016. I qualled to the TOC twice with 6 career bids making it to octos my senior year. I have no real preference for one type of argument, just do whatever you’re best at. The only arguments I won’t vote for are ones that are blatantly offensive (i.e. racism good) and ones that lack a warrant entirely. Also if no arguments for presumption are made by either debater I'll default to presuming aff. This default can easily be changed with in round arguments it only exists if literally no arguments are made by either debater about presumption. One thing to note is that I’ve been out of the activity for a while so it would be best to start at half speed in front of me if you choose to spread and then work up to your top speed. Other than that if you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round or email me at cordermic@gmail.com

I'm a former LD and Policy debater at the college level. I'm currently a coach. I'm fine with spreading in Policy, but don't want to see it in LD. If I can't understand exactly what you are saying in LD debate, I won't consider it. Secondly, be courteous during the debate. I will deduct speaker points for rudeness.

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

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

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

My rules for debate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flex prep is fine with me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BG

Hello! My name is Roxanne Daniel (she/her) and I debated LD in Florida for four years on the local, state, and national circuits. I graduated in 2018 and currently attend Smith College (studying Government & Econ). My email is rdaniel754@gmail.com (please put me on the email chain)!!

EQUITY

Debate, to me, is an incredibly fun and educational activity that should occur on an equitable playing field. No bad vibes. I will vote down debaters who include material in their cases that promotes sexism, homophobia, racism, etc. It is so important not to alienate individuals from the debate space (please trigger warn if you're including graphic or sensitive narratives). Don't be unnecessarily brutal if your opponent is not as experienced. I also vote on disclosure theory (provided screenshots). Additionally, academic integrity is necessary, and I will carefully evaluate any accusations of evidence misrepresentation in round.

GENERAL

Since I competed on multiple circuits, I have experience in a myriad of structures. I tended to favor framework debate but I can appreciate however you decide to spend your speech time, as long as it's well structured and flow-able. I like Ks and critical theory, but please understand the material you are reading and do not take things out of context. Generic dumps are bad. I vote on arguments with good warranting and strong structure. Clear weighing and efficient crystallization are of utmost importance. As far as spreading goes...I'm kind of comfortable with it, but I'm even more comfortable with a reasonably fast conversational pace that's clear and easy to flow. I'll shout 'clear!' if I can't understand you.

DEFAULTS

I default to comparative worlds for weighing, argument dropping for theory, and debater dropping for topicality. I will not default if you convince me to do otherwise.

BONUS FEATURES

Passion, high quality argumentation, structure, and warranted extensions make for high speaks. I appreciate rounds without a lot of edge, so please try to have a good time and enjoy the discourse!

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.

If you cannot spread, but are trying to, please don't. I'd much rather hear you be coherent as opposed to stumble and double breathe every 5 seconds to imitate spreading.

Space - If an aff defends the topic but doesn't defend "implementation" in the traditional sense because of the way the topic is worded, I still have a hard time conceptualizing why it doesn't link to disads.

HW 22 - I have not judged in over a year. I do not know anything about the topic, and I don't remember every opinion that I've ever had about debate. That being said, if some of the pet peeves I had before come up, odds are I will be even more irritated by it. Just look up my wiki for arguments that I generally liked.

Online debate is annoying, send out docs in a prompt manner. The 1AC/1NC I generally do not care how fast you go, just make sure that everyone is in agreement on what was read and what wasn't. Both of you should record for potential shenanigans. I don't care if your camera is on/off, but just make sure I can hear you. If I yell clear, sometimes it might not be your fault, but its your responsibility to just slow down. If I didn't hear it, then I didn't flow it. Just something we have to deal with in online debate.

San Marino HS 18

NYU 22

dengeric2k@gmail.com for email chains

About me:

I debated on the circuit for 2 years at San Marino High School in CA. I received 5 career bids and made it to octos of the TOC. I did college debate for a year as a 2A. I've taught at VBI and TDI/SJDI. My primary argumentative preferences were for policy arguments, though I did read a fair share of affirmatives that did not defend the topic. These preferences have not really swayed anyone from reading arguments I don't like in front of me, despite my best efforts, so you do you and I'll do my best to adjudicate. I am not super active coaching or competing anymore so I do not know what core topic lit is nor do I understand the "hip" new K.

For a tl;dr of arguments that I read when I debated here is a link to my wiki with open-sourced docs: https://hsld17.debatecoaches.org/San%20Marino/Deng%20Neg disclaimer: I read a lot of arguments that I personally disliked or did not find persuasive, the frequency of arguments read usually indicates my like or dislike of those arguments.

I used to have a long spiel, but I think nobody cares because people still read bad arguments in front of me. Instead, I will just give some random thoughts on arguments:

Disclosure -- pretty much non-negotiable, I'll listen to arguments that are based on academic literature/philosophy but I will not listen to arguments relating to fairness and education against disclosure. e.g. disclosure = surveillance? weird/bad argument, but I'll listen. disclosure = worse for fairness and education? not a fan. new affs bad/round reports disclosure/must open source etc do not fall under this -- they're both true, but I'd much rather the debate be about anything else.

Nebel T/Plans bad/T-generics/T-bare plural -- whatever variation of no plans/plans bad that you are running, it's boring and demonstrates a lack of preparation and research. I will vote on this argument but I hate it and you should too.

theory -- frivolous theory arguments are not my strength, nor am I particularly found of them.,I'm not any good at judging these debates because they're way too messy and it is not something that can be resolved by excellent debating due to them being late-breaking and the plethora of new arguments that end up being made. if you're THE theory debater this year you're not gonna like me

K Affs/Non-topical affirmatives -- beat framework, have a defense of your model not just your aff; solvency based on wins/losses/ballots is highly questionable and I'm skeptical of these arguments. Those reading framework should have a defense of their model. Fairness is an impact, and attempting to solve the aff through a tva or education is not necessary but may be helpful. Those reading Ks against K affs will probably not like my decision both ways, as I am not the best judge for in-depth debates about philosophy/academic literature.

RoB/standards/ld philosophy -- saying any of these things does not mean its the only thing that matters (that's what debate and impact calc is for) -- I view these things as just buzzwords in order to substitute with real impact calc. I would prefer you not be lazy and actually explain instead of hiding behind these words.

truth vs tech -- this is arbitrary -- if your strategy is predicated on winning blatantly false/unwarranted arguments by spewing out a bunch of them, I am a) not going to be able to flow them, and b) the threshold for convincing me the opposite of your arguments is very low. Technical debating is made easier with truthful/well-researched arguments.

Plans/DAs/CPs/etc. -- evidence quality matters. You should want me to read your evidence to confirm the claims that you are making, otherwise your argument probably isn't as good as you say it is. I have a soft spot for advantage counterplans and the states counterplan, but find that many teams are not answering/reading these in the correct manner. I am not a fan of the "everything except this one instance of the topic" PIC as I find that these are mostly disads with a counterplan text attached and no real solvency advocate. PICs should exclude a meaningful part of the aff and have a solvency advocate. If your PIC falls under this category, I will most likely significantly lean aff on theory. Otherwise, I slightly lean neg on most counterplan theory questions. Conditionality is probably good, but its certainly winnable that its bad in LD.

misc -- If this is still a thing, I strongly dislike evidence made by debate coaches/meta-articles about debate. They're subjective and incentivizes people to write debate articles to make an argument in round. I will just treat it as an analytic.

speaks -- I give low speaks relative to people, but maybe other people are inflating? If you're trying to win top speaker, I'm probably not the best judge for you unless you're really good.

About Me:

I'm a 6th year Speech and Debate Coach. I prefer you speak at a conversational speed always. Slightly above is also good, but try not to spread, especially in PF (Super Fast Rebuttals/Summaries are pretty cringe and hard to flow).

I don’t mind different forms of argumentation in LD. Ks, Plans, Counterplans, etc are all ok in my book. Not a fan of progressive cases in PF, but I will still listen to them.

Not a fan of Theory-shells in Debate at all. Unless there was a CLEAR AND OBVIOUS violation in the round, do not run it.

Please utilize off time roadmaps.

Keep track of your own time. Just let me know when you run prep is all.

Signpost so I can follow on the flow. If I miss an argument because you pull a House of Pain and "Jump Around" without signposting, that is on you.

I will always vote in favor of the side with better quality arguments and better comparative analysis of the biggest impacts in the round, not the side that is necessarily "winning the most arguments."

At this point I would consider myself a flow judge (though not SUPER technical), and I value tech over truth more often than not.

More "techy" stuff:

Frameworks should always be extended. If your opponent doesn't respond to it in 1st or 2nd rebuttal, it needs to be extended into 2nd rebuttal or 1st Summary in order for me to evaluate the arguments under that framework. Teams who speak 1st do not necessarily need to extend their FW into their 1st rebuttal, but should provide some context or clarification as to why the framework is necessary for the round (can be included in an overview). If there are 2 frameworks presented, please explain why I need to prefer yours over the opponent. If no explanation is provided or extended, I will default to my own evaluation methods (typically cost/benefit analysis)

I like when teams focus summaries on extending offense and weighing, more specifically explain to me why your impacts matter more than your opponent’s. Don’t just say “(Impact card) means we outweigh on scope,” then move on to the next point. I love details and contextualization, and will always favor quality weighing over quantity.

Please collapse. Please. It helps to provide focus in the round rather than bouncing around on 20 different arguments. It just makes my life as a judge much easier.

Use FF to crystalize and highlight the most important points of contention and clash that you believe are winning you the round (things like offense and turns that go unresponded to, for example). Explain to my why I should vote for you, not why I should not vote for the other side. Voter Issues are always a good thing, and can possibly win you the round in a close debate.

LD Stuff:

If your plan is to spread, and I cant follow on the flow and miss things, that is on you. LD's purpose was intended to separate itself from Policy tactics and allow argumentation that anyone off the streets can follow. Call me a traditionalist or whatever, but spreading just to stack arguments is not educational and hurts the activity. You cant convince me otherwise so dont try.

Im perfectly OK with any kind of case, but my preference is this order: Traditional>K>Disads/Plans/CPs>Theory (only run if there is perceived actual abuse in round, dont run frivolous stuff)

Not super knowledgeable on all the nuances of LD, but I do enjoy philosophical debates and am vaguely familiar with contemporary stuff.

Add me on the email chain: josemdenisjr@gmail.com

Noah DiAntonio

Update as of February 2023

I would take everything below as useful but not perfect information, because as I get further from my time as a debater I can tell that my preferences are changing and my ability to judge super technically is decreasing (I am not a "lay" judge but I am also not actively thinking about debate as often as I used to.) I have also been judging at the rookie/novice/JV level lately, so these comments are especially tailored to debaters at those levels.

The feedback that I always give debaters is that no matter what argument you are running, what matters is that you tell a compelling story about your advocacy and what voting for you means. That entails characterizing what the world looks like now, and how it will change with the passage of the plan (or CP or alt). The key to doing this is 1) having overviews in all speeches starting with the 2AC which tell me your story, 2) extending your arguments in every speech, even the ones your opponents don't address (that isn't to say you can't kick arguments, you can, but arguments you are not kicking need to be explicitly extended), and 3) contextualizing your evidence in relation to this story you are telling me. Evidence is the content that fills out the story, but it isn't the story itself. It is how you bring all the evidence together and explain it in your own words that makes the story. It is also important that as you do this, you tell me, preferably very directly, to which arguments should lead me to vote for you and why.

I also strongly advise debaters to focus on direct clash with opposing arguments. The best debaters are able to respond to opposing arguments while also telling their own story (see above), but if you need to spend two minutes telling me your story and then three minutes just refuting your opponents arguments on a line-by-line basis, that's great too. But don't drop your opponents' arguments!

So, in short: Tell me why you should win and directly tell me that what your opponent said is wrong, and you are already most of the way there!

One other thing I have noticed and want to comment on. When doing impact calculus, it isn't just a time to say that your impact matters. It is really an opportunity for direct comparison between two impacts. Let's take the classic example of nuclear war vs. climate change. Both teams say they will lead to extinction. Here is what I, on the nuclear war side, might say:

• Probability and Magnitude: Climate change is slow and humanity has time to adapt. Nuclear war is immediate, and there's no adapting to a rapid-onset nuclear winter. Furthermore, nuclear winter makes the entire earth uninhabitable, while climate change will make some areas worse but others more habitable, and in those areas people will certainly survive. That means that the probability of nuclear war leading to a full human extinction is higher, and thus it is the higher magnitude impact as well.
• Timeframe and Reversibility: The impacts of climate change are potentially reversible due to scientific advances in the coming decades. Once a nuke is launched, there is no going back. Our impact happens first and makes solving climate change impossible. Vote to prevent a nuclear war now to allow humanity the chance to fix climate change.

Now, that is far from perfect, but I write that to demonstrate that real comparison between impacts is what impact calculus is all about. Do this well, and it will be very advantageous for you.

Update for NSDA Nats 2021

Haven't judged on this topic yet.

Open to all types of arguments. Strong warrants are key.

I prefer realistic link chains. The more ridiculous, the higher your threshold of explanation will be.

Also, on Kritiks, I didn't read them and am not as experienced with them, but I like them and I have a strong background in social theory (I studied it in college) especially Marxism, Feminism, and Foucualt. However, that means that I am going to want you to explain even MORE clearly because I will probably be better able to tell if you don't actually know what you're talking about.

And for answering a Kritik (on either side) I appreciate engagement with the substance of the K.

Paradigm as of Harvard 2020

tl;dr:

1) Don't go too fast.

2) Run anything, but explain it well.

3) I don't debate anymore or keep up with what is going on in debate. Do with that what you will.

Experience:

I did policy and extemp for four years on a local Missouri circuit. I competed at NSDA and NCFL nationals in policy. Now I debate Parli for Harvard. I have judged all types of debate as well as multiple events, but only on the local level.

Here are my preferences:

LD:

I debated LD for the first two years of high school, (once again, local level), but I am not up on the current trends in circuit LD. However, I do know the basics (speech times and order, the resolution, etc.).

However, I am essentially a policy debater.

Speed:

I (generally) did not spread when I debated in high school. I'm fine with you spreading in front of me, just realize that I am not as trained as some of your judges may be when it comes to flowing spreading. For my comprehension, I would recommend that you slow down and emphasize your most important warrants. Basically, if you want me to REALLY understand something, slow down a bit.

I also would prefer if you slow down for blippy arguments if you want me to be able to flow them.

I really don’t want to have to tell you to slow down, but I will yell “clear” or “slow” if I must.

Value/Value Criterion:

I believe that V/VC debates aren't really a thing anymore in circuit LD, but when I did LD I debated that way. I won't care if you have a value construct or not, but I do like those debates.

Philosophy:

I'm not knowledgeable about much philosophy, so make sure to just explain your warrants well if you are trying to get me to adopt a certain ethical framework. I won't need deep explanation for more basic things like util or rejecting oppression, but if you think the philosophy in your case wouldn't make sense to a lay-person, explain it well to me.

Update as of 2019: I’ve read a bit more philosophy now. I have a light understanding of the social contract theorists and a decent understanding of Marx.

Plans:

Plans are fine in LD. I even think PF should have plans to be honest.

Advantages/Disads:

I like them. I was mostly a ADV/DA debater when I did policy, so I will probably intuitively understand your ADV/DA. I will be happier voting for a DA if you do a lot of weighing against the aff impacts (and vice versa). I'm also partial to uniqueness take-outs and I love turns.

Also, I love movements disads. If you run one, you aren't guaranteed to win but you will make me smile.

Counterplans:

I didn't run too many, but I really like them. I will default to a counterplan being theoretically legit unless the aff says otherwise. I like when the 1NC counterplan shell includes a sentence or two about why they are competitive, but that isn't required, I will assume competition until the aff perms.

Speaking of perms, I am fairly liberal when it comes to what I allow. Simply telling me a perm is intrinsic/severance won't matter unless you develop that into a well-impacted theory argument. I also want the aff, when making a perm, to actually say what they mean by the perm. I can guess what "perm do both" means in the context of this aff and CP, but just spelling it out leaves no room for confusion.

Kritiks:

I was not a K debater. I am happy to see and vote for Ks, but just recognize that if you are running something more complex than cap, I'm going to need you to explain things in more detail. What I most want to see out of the neg if they are running a K is 1) strong anti-perm arguments and 2) really well-developed alt solvency. Those are the areas where I am usually most skeptical of Ks, and thus you're going to want to be strong on those fronts.

Also, the old “kick the alt and go for a non-uq DA” line is fine by me, but make sure the impact is worse than the status quo in this case.

Condo:

I think it is fine, though if you win the condo bad debate I will think condo is not fine for the purposes of the round. If you are really spreading out the aff, I will give them some leeway in the 2AR. I'm not going to vote for completely new 2AR arguments, but I'll probably accept some new explanation.

Aff condo is not okay (Kicking advantages is obviously fine, but kicking out of your advocacy is not, unless you have some REALLY compelling reason otherwise).

Topicality:

I like T a lot. I will be happiest if you don't just throw blippy arguments at me and instead invest some time into the standards debate. I also want you to impact your voters for me. Fairness and education (and your other voters) matter for a reason, I want to hear those reasons.

I'm not really into T being an RVI, but if you win that it is I'll vote on it.

Slow down for T.

Theory:

Apart from T, I liked Inherency and Solvency Advocate theory when I was a debater. I will pretty much listen to any theory if you warrant it well. See what I said on Topicality.

I'm not familiar with what theory is being run on the circuit, but I think theory debates are fun so if you just explain it well you should be fine.

Slow down for theory.

Other:

Being told how you want me to vote in your rebuttal will make it more likely that I will vote that way.

If you are rude, I will dock your speaker points.

If you are racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic/transphobic or anything else of that nature in round, I will dock your speaker points and you will lose the round. If it is incredibly egregious I may end the round, but please, how about no one makes this relevant.

Contact:

If you have questions, you can email me at noahdiantonio@college.harvard.edu.

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

Some key points:

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

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

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

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

Thanks!

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

I do not have any official debate experience. However, I love public-speaking and learning about politics and the humanities in general.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long Version:

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

Ks:

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

K affs:

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

Performance:

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

DAs:

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

CPs/PICs:

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

Theory:

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

T/framework:

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

Phil:

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

Speed/speaks:

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

always throw me on the email chain- my email is ashleyellis068@gmail.com

- northwestern university 2022/shawnee mission northwest 2018

- coach at evanston township

top level:

1. be nice to each other please-- being excessively rude will to anyone in the room will probably get your speaker points docked. aggressive postrounding is ugly and will also get your speaker points docked.

2. tech (almost always) > truth

3. tech>truth, but i do think pics, conditions cps, object fiat, and other silly fiat tricks can be pretty cheaty, so you'll have to reeeeeally pull through on those to win them-- and i will grant a lot of leeway to bad 2acs on them

4. debate is a game

5. i try to avoid any argumentative extrapolation when deciding

6. time yourselves

case:

1. affirmatives should be topical. i'll weigh a k aff if you win framework. be clear and thorough with framework answers or i'll probably err neg

2. i find presumption arguments to be pretty persuasive

3. any impact scenario is fine-- if you're reading a structural advantage, have good framing cards

4. fiat is durable

topicality: jurisdiction is not a voter and potential abuse is ALMOST never a voter

disadvantages: please read them

counterplans: as i said above, there are a few types that i think can be cheating and you absolutely must win the theory debate if you want me to vote on them. if you find yourself wondering if you may be reading a cp that i am inclined to think is cheating, just ask yourself: am i cheating right now? the answer should become pretty clear at that point. be very clear and thorough on cp theory.

i'll judge kick if you tell me to. i'll probably do it even if you don't tell me to. as long as it's conditional, the status quo is always an option, especially since you'll presumably still have a disad in play. not allowing judge kicking justifies sloppy work on the net benefit which is probably... bad for debate.

** to be clear: i will not judge kick if the aff is winning a perm or any offense. apparently this is a point of contention.

kritiks: go for them if that's your thing, i'll weigh them. i'm really not sure how i feel about out-of-round occurrences, so you can most likely persuade me either way.

1. don't sacrifice argumentative clarity for trying to sound sophisticated

2. perms

3. cyclical structural violence is infuriating but you should still, idk, be a nice person in round

theory: It sounds trashy, but, as a 2a, I'm definitely willing to vote on bad theory arguments if not answered well. this is where i'm definitely the most tech>truth.

conditionality is generally good but I'll vote aff on *1 fewer* solves their offense if the work is there.

reverse voting issues??? probably don't belong in debate

speaker points: start around a 28.5 and i'll raise or lower them accordingly. you can go pretty fast in front of me, i'll probably be slightly offended if you go slow. pop tags and stay clear. i appreciate good jokes and time-relevant memes. really hot lines in cards will probably get you a boost. i really like weird/risky strategies that end well. a strong, hot cross ex is the #1 route to a 30. good organization is #2.

lincoln-douglas:

****framework =/= framing****

1. i am 100% a policy debater/judge/coach but I did a little bit of ld in high school and have judged it before without managing to royally screw up decisions-- keep this in mind when choosing which argumentative tools are at your disposal in the debate.

2. being that I'm not too big into ld, make sure you're getting your point across. i understand most of the tech, but if I look confused, you should try to help me out. i'm pretty reactive.

3. util did not justify slavery. this arg is tired and I have a very very very low* threshold for voting on it.

4. i think defensive framework pre-empts in the 1ac are generally a waste of time because they make args that have to almost fully be reiterated in the 1ar- just read more offense.

*I will never vote on it

public forum:

1. see ld- i'm definitely a policy person. i did pf a lot more in high school than I did ld and was alright at it, but i was limited to the local, nsda-type circuit.

i'm not sure if that means I'm a flex-type judge then? if you want to turn it into a policy debate---go ahead, i'll adjudicate the round like i would a policy debate. if you want to keep it soundbyte debate, then it will probably be a low point win-- i can't not let myself weigh tech, sorry.

Hi!

I competed in LD for Corona del Sol on the local and national circuit and then did policy debate for ASU.

I've qualified to nats, bid to the TOC, and been to late elims in high school and college so I have familiarity with a range of arguments and argument styles.

Add me to the email chain zaneencinas@gmail.com

The below paradigm is general so ask me any questions you might have before round

LD:

General:

I am welcoming of almost any form of debate but may not be knowledgeable/ familiar with the topic. All this means is that an explanation of warrants is necessary. An exception is blatantly offensive arguments. Speeds fine as long as you're clear. I default to a comparative worlds paradigm.

Topicality/ Theory:

Please please please remember to engage in clash and weighing.

I will vote on disclosure theory

I don’t hold any preferences here. Provide a reason to prefer a paradigm.

Kritiks:

As said before I am welcoming of Kritiks, but do not rely on literature-specific jargon without providing an explanation.

A vivid explanation of the alternative will make me super happy. This means I don't necessarily need a policy alt.

Generic links make me sad but will still give them my attention.

LARP:

Creative counterplans will make me super happy.

Don't just say extend.... extend the actual claim warrant and impact.

Emailing/Flashing:

Don’t waste everyone’s time please, but with that said I don’t take prep for flashing.

Policy:

Everything above applies. I am not familiar with the topic so I will need an explanation of topic-specific jargon if any.

Speed is not a problem for me, but slow down so that the transition between cards is clear.

Speaks:

29-30: Above average, most likely to clear and be competitive in elims

28-29: Around average range, possibly with clear

27-28: Significantly below average, unlikely to clear

<25-26: Offensive

I did Lincoln Douglas all four years of high school and am accustomed to both traditional and progressive debate. I currently compete in both American Parliamentary and British Parliamentary debate in college. In terms of debate styles I am open to most every form but I specifically look for very clear and solid warranting of arguments and am big on weighing of the debate round. That is to say regardless of if you want to focus on values or value criterion, or focus on the weight of individual arguments, just tell me why it matters and highlight points of clash within the round. In terms of speed I am fairly comfortable with speed, but spreading is not of my highest preference, although I can flow it, just make sure to tag your arguments well.

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

written for Harvard 2019

Hey, I'm Jordan. I graduated from Pembroke Pines Charter High in 2017, having done 4 years of LD. I received 5 TOC bids during my debate career, and was a hot mess mix between a K, tricks, and LARP debater. I'm currently an undergrad at Yale and a Thotiana connoisseur.

Types of Arguments

Happy to listen to any argument you care to read. If it is topical- great. If it is non-topical - also great, just give me an actual reason why that's something I should be voting for.

I read a bunch of sketchy blippy arguments as a debater, so I will be willing to vote on these things. That being said, I have grown to think these arguments are pretty dumb, so while I will vote on these things and will still give you high speaks if you debate well, I won't be super thrilled and if you're just kind of an ass and extend your one blip a priori and then sit down you probably won't be thrilled with your speaks.

Make sure the stuff you are reading is relevant to the debate or that you actually explain how arguments work. I don't really follow the circuit anymore so I probably don't know what wild inferences I am meant to be making. Last time I judged every round I heard like 2 minutes of "affirming/negating is harder" with 3 billion justifications, but I literally was never told what this meant in the rounds. Do I automatically vote for you? Do you get higher speaks? Should I give you a cookie to celebrate you overcoming time-skew? LET ME KNOW.

Speed/Speech Docs

I should be fine to flow your speed. When things are important, slow down to make sure I get them. If you're reading a super dense Delueze card, at least take a second before/after to at a slightly normal speed give me a one sentence summary of the warrant.

I think the whole sending judges speech doc things is kinda weird. If you wanna send, go ahead. If you don't, don't. I truly do not care. I probs won't look at them much during the round. I also will not let this lower my standards for clarity or speed.

I will shout "slow" and "clear" as many times as I need. Those won't affect your speaks unless it starts getting a bit ridiculous and I have to do it every 10 seconds.

Speaks

Not sure what my speaks are like- probably a tad higher than average. Probably won't disclose speaks because I think that's a bit weird.

I am happy to give out low point wins. Will probably give speaks in .1 intervals. If you seem like you'll be breaking, your speaks will probably be above a 29. If you make me enjoy the round, your speaks will be super dope. If you make me hate life during the round and I feel like judging is torture- your speaks will reflect that.

I have little tolerance for racism/sexism/homophobia, and any other form of discrimination. I understand that sometimes something comes out worded a tad weird, and if you accidentally say something that sounds problematic then just apologize and I hope we can move on. If however things seem a bit more intentional or there are repeat offenses in round, you'll likely lose, and your speaks will be as low as I can reasonably give. Just try be a good person. At the end of the day, debate is just an activity and we are all people outside of it.

If you are going to be giving a speech that may be covering sensitive materials, I'd prefer that you ask your partner in private before the round/speech if that is okay. Don't put someone in the awkward position as having to out themself as having some type of trigger in front of a judge (and potential audience if it is outs). Might also be a good idea to do this to judges if it's a panel. That being said, I am fine to listen to anything. If your opponent asks you to not read substance that causes them to be uncomfortable, please dont read that stuff. I probably won't like immediately drop you, but I won't be happy, your opponent won't be happy. People > Debate.

tldr; read anything, debate how you like, I'm pretty competent so if your argument is coherent I will probably be able to evaluate it.

I debated LD for four years in high school and policy for 2 in college. I feel comfortable evaluating a wide range of arguments. Feel free to ask if you have any specific questions pre round.

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

Short Version:

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

K's and Policy style arguments in general are Kool

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

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

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

Long version:

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

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

Hi! My name is Mariela Flores and I am a sophomore at Wellesley College. I did not do Speech & Debate in high school and only recently began judging. I do not have any forensics background. Please remember to weigh and crystallize. I will not vote on arguments I do not understand so make sure to read clearly and articulate your impacts.

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?

I'm Jayanne [ JAY - Ann ], a.k.a. Jay.

This paradigm is old, I don’t coach or attend tournaments anymore because I am in medical school.

Keeping it up for rounds.

—————

I debated for Fort Lauderdale HS (FL) for 4 years in LD and Policy. I am a pre-med Columbia University (NY) alumna, with a BA in African American and African Diaspora studies with honors.

** note: I get triggered by graphic depictions of anti-black violence (e.g. very graphic examples of police brutality, slavery etc) and sexual assault. Please remove it from the case/docs. There is impact to reading “evidence” that makes anti-Black violence a spectacle for an audience, these are real people with real experiences.**

LD/POLICY:

- I don't disclose speaker points. I base speaks off the clarity of speech, the quality of arguments, and the strategic choices in the debate.

- I don't want to flow off speech docs, speak clearly and slow down on tags + author names. PLEASE PAUSE BETWEEN CARDS.Internet connection and computer issues do not grant you extra prep time. If debating virtually please locally record your speeches.

- I get annoyed by asking for "marked docs" when there are marginal things cut out (e.g. one card is marked, cards at the end of the doc aren't read, etc.). I think knowing how to flow, and not exclusively flowing off a doc solves this

Hi! I did not do PF in high school but I have coaching experience. You can read anything in front of me, but the onus is still on you to explain your arguments! Collapse and weigh impacts clearly for good speaks and an easy decision.

PSA: If you say anything blatantly anti-black, misogynistic, anti-queer, ableist, etc. and your opponent calls you out, I will drop you. Debate should be a home space for everyone and you are responsible for the things you say because it is an academic speaking activity.

I prefer traditional debate style and moderate speed.

I understand that most of these topics are complex and the more debaters know the more they will want to include in their cases. However, there is a law of diminishing returns. If you include so much that you have to read your case with no emphasis and or no inflection, you are losing points on communication skills.

I believe that disclaimers in ads are delivered so that folks can’t really hear them,, in order that people wont get the message about the dangers of the product. In the same way, some debaters deliberately read so fast that the judge and opponent cant understand. Effectively, they are doing the same thing as the disclaimers in those ads. Since speech and debate is about communication not obfuscation, those who spread in order to make it difficult for their opponent to understand them are participating in a way that is antithetical to the spirit of the activity. However, those who merely speed up a little AND who articulate well while also using vocal inflection in order to persuade the judge and their opponent are operating within the spirit of fair competition.

I'm a parent judge who has judged JVLD locally, and VLD nationally but still consider myself new to VLD judging. Keep cases and arguments focused on the resolution. Keep your arguments and your speech clear, and debate your opponent respectfully.

Overwhelming an opponent (and judge) with reckless speed and an overabundance of arguments is unnecessary. If speed is making you unintelligible, I'll ask you to stop. Number of arguments introduced doesn't decide the winner; thoughtful engagement/clash/rebuttal and whose arguments uphold their side of the resolution best decides. I do not consider technicalities (e.g. dropped argument does not equal concession).

Please add me to your case sharing email chains. manmeetfox@gmail.com

I teach Mandarin 1 at Strake Jesuit. Good debaters are like big politicians debating on a big stage. Persuasion is necessary. Speak clearly if you want to win. Please make sure your arguments are topical. I'd like a clear story explaining your position and the reasons you should win.

She/her

Coach at Plano East Senior High (2018 - current)

I like reading, quilting, and hockey (go Stars!) Also, I am learning Finnish (Minulla on oranssi kissa ja yksi poika ja pidän velhoista. Onnea!)

I enjoy judging IEs most.
In Extemp: I judge and coach extemp more than any other event. It is my favorite event. If speech 1 has amazing content but bad fluency, and speech 2 is beautifully fluent but all the content is made up, outdated, or wrong, I would rank Speech 1 higher. If you don't answer the ACTUAL question, you will not be ranked high, no matter what. I will be randomly source/fact checking 1 source per speech, plz don't make up your sources.

In Interp: you should be making an argument with your chosen piece. Explain that argument in the intro!! I do not like giving time signals in Interp, I will give them if you ask for them but I will be grumpy about it. The piece should be exactly the same every round, so the time should be about the same. Also giving time signals distracts me from fully evaluating and taking in your performance.

In OO/Info: be unique. Think outside the box. If you are using a traditional topic, put a spin on it. If I don't learn something new during your speech, I probably won't rank you high. Same as above about time signals.

Everything you do in round is judge-able!!! Be a good steward of this activity. Be quiet while judges are writing feedback between speakers. You should NOT be on your phone during round. Your commentary on or critiques of other competitors/performances are what we call "inside thoughts" and should not be uttered into existence.

In LD, I’ve gotten much more progressive, but I tend to still favor traditional.

-I generally do not like Kritiks in LD. If you can run the same K all year on all the topics, that's a problem - lazy debating. If you choose to run a K in an LD round I am judging, slow down and explain your arguments in your own words.

-On case attacks are important!

-Theory*** & CPs good.

-Do not read at me while giving voters.

-2AR does not necessarily have to be line-by-line.

-I understand spreading, but if you become unclear I will say "clear" once, and after that, if you do not clear your speaking, I will stop flowing, more than likely hurting your chances. 7/10 speed please. Slow down on tags please.

In PF, I’m traditional. I don’t like spreading in PF and there should definitely not be CPs, Theory, Kritiks, or anything like that.

In Policy, pretty much the same as LD above, except I have more tolerance for Ks in Policy because it is a year long topic and you have more time to read lit - you still should slow down probably and explain your args really really well. I have less experience in Policy than the other debate events, but I have some competitive UIL CX history and can cross apply progressive LD knowledge. My favorite thing about policy debate is when we have fun - read an unexpected case or a crazy off.

***Theory is fine, except for disclosure theory. Not a fan. For almost a century, competitive high school debate has existed successfully and educationally without needing to read your opponent's case ahead of time.

In all debates: I do not tolerate rudeness - especially in cx/crossfire. I love seeing passion in rounds, but being passionate about your topic does not mean you get to be rude. Excessive rudeness/terrible attitude results in lowest speaks possible. Especially don't be rude or go ham when you have an obvious experience advantage (4yr debater vs 1yr).

FOR ALL EVENTS IN BOTH SPEECH AND DEBATE

Things you shouldn't say in a round in front of me (or really at all tbh): r*tarded (it's a slur), anything demeaning to or derogatory about teen moms (I was one)

When rounds finish, don't say how bad you did or how you "definitely lost" while your judges are sitting right there literally still making a decision. You never know, maybe we thought you won.

If you must have an email chain, include me: madison.gackenbach@pisd.edu (see above note about how I think you should be able to debate without reading your opponent's case)

I look forward to hearing you speak!

Just do what you do best in front of me. I'm fine with all types of arguments, as long as they are argued well—if you drop a point or concede too many, you will most likely drop my ballot. Spreading is okay up to a point, but if I can't understand what you're saying or if it substantially takes away from the impact of your argument, points will be lost. You can absolutely time yourself (I recommend it) but I will be keeping time as well and ultimately my timing is final. My knowledge comes from 4 years of Varsity LD in high school, mostly in my home state, but a few tournament experiences.

I judged LD for the 4 years when my daughter was on the circuit and am now back in the mix with my son. Mostly, I judged in local and regional tournaments, but did a few JV rounds at Harvard, NSDA regionals, and NCFL nationals. I also debated LD when I was in high school (yes, we had LD last century), so I am more old school than new school.

General

- I am pretty big on framework and impacts. Give me a clear idea of how your arguments link to weighting mechanisms, impacts, etc.

- I will not do your job for you. Extend your arguments, draw links to your framework, and make it clear what you think the voting issues are in the round

- I judge strictly on what is presented in the round, but clearly bogus arguments or "evidence" will have little or no weight with me

- Be competitive but cool.

Speed

- I am not afraid of the spread, I can read fast enough to follow when you flash the doc - but during round when you are addressing arguments that are not on the doc, or identifying voters, or telling me why you win - then you need to SLOW DOWN.

- If you are discussing a deep philosophical idea, then it's probably a pretty good idea to slow down.

- Don't try to spread your opponent out of the round if they are clearly out of their depth, again = be competitive but cool

Theory/K

- I can't say I am the most well-versed theory judge ever. If you make a good argument that is well structured, then I am fine with it. That said, there is no way you can skew your opponent out of the round or sneak in some spike that automatically wins the round for you. So, I wouldn't spend too much time on it.

- I like the K and think it can really open up some interesting avenues for the debate. But, be careful of layering arguments that contradict your a priori arguments for why we shouldn't be having this particular debate in the first place.

- Have a STRONG link. I will be sensitive to the argument that the K is trying to grab infinite ground - because without the link, you are.

Speaks

- less than 25 means you were NOT COOL. You will know at the end of the round, or maybe during, if it gets to that point

- 25-29 most of the time, I will give low point wins if your logic/evidence/case was just better at the end of the day

- 30 for the exceptional

4 years policy debate experience at Ronald Reagan High School. In college but  not debating. 

Plans ( or the lack thereof) - Plans are cool. Not having a plan is also cool. I'd like to think that I'll vote on whatever kind of aff you run, plan or not, as long as it has some impacts and a way to solve them. I ran affs with plans (of sorts), but I enjoyed a lot of non-plan affs that I ran into. Just make sure that if its a no-plan aff you make sure I understand the theory behind it, as well as what it is you do do. An explanation of the role of the ballot would be helpful.

I'm also throwing performance under the no-plan umbrella. It's fine too.

Kritiks - I like kritiks. I ran them. I think it's really annoying when they're really generic, but really fun if they're really specific. I'm also not a fan of jargon, since it's pretty useless unless you have background knowledge about the specific K. Even if I do understand it, I find that often it's a poor substitute for more specific explanation. I might know the phrases you're using, but if I don't know what it has to do with the aff it's pretty useless.

Counterplans and Disadvantages - I have no particular feelings or thoughts about these. They are useful arguments.

Theory - I'll vote on it. Not necessarily as a reason to reject the team though, so prove that. Go slow or I can't flow it and you won't win on it.

Topicality - I went for topicality a lot, but I'm not sure if that means I'll vote on it more because I think it's a fun argument or less because I have higher standards for it. Make sure you develop it fully throughout the debate - I'll be hard-pressed to vote for a topicality violation that the block spent 30 seconds on. I default to competing interpretations, but I can be persuaded otherwise. Go slow.

For speaks, I guess just be clear and persuasive. Go a bit slower on tags and cites and/or do something fairly obvious when going to the next card. It gets really difficult to flow and keep things in order when everything is the same speed and there's no sign of when a card begins and ends.

Be respectful to everyone in the room. Flashing is prep. I'll say clear a couple times if you're unclear. I'll probably stop trying to flow after that. I'm really bad at timing so I prefer not to do it. I'll default to the debaters being in charge of timing. Or you could take the risk having me time and see which team ends up with a couple extra minutes of prep (I love a good gamble).

Ask me whatever other questions you have before the round.

Updated 25 August 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

I want to be on the email chain: algeor99@gmail.com

Conflicts: Klein Oak, Montgomery Blair, McMillen NG, Garland KP, Lovejoy CM, Hayes PF, Cambridge AG, Memorial

Background:

I did LD for four years (2014-2018) in Houston, and qualled to TOC my senior year. If you need something before/after (pls not during) the round, I’m most active on Facebook. I was fairly flexible as a debater—I mostly LARPed, but also read some Kant, Levinas, Marx, Mestiza Consciousness, Deleuze, and Weheliye.

Five min before round:

HOW you go about articulating your arguments is way more important than WHAT you chose to read. I could care less what you go for (as long as it's not overtly repugnant), as long as it's explained and implicated well.

· WARRANT TO WARRANT COMPARISON WINS ROUNDS. If their DA says X and your link turn says Y, explain to me why I should prefer your link turn. Make clash explicit and do the work on the flow for yourself. Otherwise, be prepared to receive a decision with which you’re unhappy

· I’m willing to vote on anything, as long as it has a claim, warrant, and an impact. Just explain the argument to me and why it should be in my RFD. This means you need to be doing clear layering and weighing

· Tech > Truth

· Please pop tags and author names

LARP:

· Your extensions need to have warrants—even in the 1AR/2AR. That being said, all it needs to be is an overview of the advantage—just tell me what the aff does, what it solves, and how it does so. The more a warrant in your aff is contested, the more thorough your extension of that part of the aff should be.

· I’d prefer not to have to call for cards as that forces intervention. However, if you think your opponent’s ev is sketch and you point it out, I’ll look at the card.

· This should go without saying, but….you need to win uniqueness for a link turn to be offense

Theory:

· Good theory debates are fun. Bad theory debates are sad.

· Defaults (theory): drop the arg, competing interps, no RVIs. DTD on T is the default. These are all very soft defaults—PLEASE present actual paradigm issues

· If you read brackets theory and the bracketing is not egregious, the highest you can expect your speaks to be is 28.

· Slow down for interps. Having them prewritten would be very nice.

· If you blitz through blips I won’t catch everything, so slow down where it counts.

· The more you number/label, the easier it is to flow you

· PLEASE do weighing between theory standards. Tell me why ground outweighs limits or whatever other arguments are in play

Phil:

· Please do clear framework weighing. Tell me why one framework justification matters more than another and so forth...if both sides have “my framework precludes”-type claims, tell me why yours matters more than your opponent’s!

· Phil can be very hard to flow—make it easy for me. Flashing analytic dumps would be cool, but if you don't want to do that, then please make sure you're being clear and are delineating one arg from the next

· Make sure I understand the framework—my facial expression should be indicative enough

Kritiks:

· I’ll probably have a basic understanding of whatever K you read, but I will not vote for you unless YOU explain your theory to me.

· Your 2NR better be easy to flow. I don’t want to sit through a ridiculously long overview that then requires me to sift through my flow after the round to determine what responds to what. Your speaks WILL not be amazing

· Shorter tags are easier to flow

· The most important thing for you to do is to explain the interaction between the K and the aff. Explain why it outweighs/turns the case/why the perm fails/why the K is a prior question

Although I've been judging for quite awhile now, I am a lay judge, with no background in debate. After 3 years of judging and parenting a varsity LD debater, my technical knowledge has expanded, but is still limited. Know that I will judge you technically to the best of my ability, but ultimately, as judges, we are to award the round to the most convincing debater. Clarity is very important to me as a judge, so I think the round should be kept at a conversational speed (no spreading!).

I debated LD on the local and national circuit for Westlake High School in Texas, graduating in 2013. I coached Scarsdale High School, and currently coach for Walt Whitman High School.

I will vote on any argument so long as the conclusion follows from the premises–my primary aim is to operate under the shared assumptions held by both debaters, so I will avoid "defaulting" on any framing issue at all costs and will detest being forced to do so. I will evaluate arguments as they are presented on the flow, so I will always prioritize explicit over implicit comparison made between arguments. If you'd like me to be on an email chain, send everything to mgorthey@gmail.com.

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

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

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

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

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

Best,

JH

Hi! My name is Paige (she/her).

I am a flow judge. Please make an effort to speak clearly. I can handle moderate speed but do not favor it. If it becomes necessary, I will say "clear" twice and then I will stop flowing.

Do not expect me to understand arguments if you have not shown me the claim, warrant, and impact.

I am fine with unconventional arguments as long as they are clearly explained and don’t seem abusive.

I look forward to judging you.

Good luck!

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

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

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

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

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.

EMAIL CHAIN: mavsdebate@gmail.com

Name

Please do not call me judge - Henderson - no Mr/Ms just Henderson. This is what I am most comfortable with. I will do my best to offer you the same consideration.

Doc Sharing

Please share speech docs with me, your opponent in a timely manner. If it get long, your speaks drop.

Speed

I am old - likely 10 years older than you think if not more - this impacts debaters in two ways 1. I get the more triggered when someone spreads unnecessarily. If you are using speed to increase clash - awesome! If you are using it to outspread your opponent then I am not your judge. I can understand for the AC but I think a pre-round conversation with your opponent is both helpful and something as a community we should attempt to do at all time. If you do not adjust or adapt accordingly I will give you the lowest speech possible. If this is a local, I am likely to vote against you - TOC/State - you will likely get the ballot but again lowest speaks possible. 2. I just cannot keep up as well anymore and I refuse to flow off a doc. I only have four functional fingers on one hand and both hands likely 65% what they used to be. This is especially true as the season moves along and at any tournament where I judge lot of rounds.

General Principle

I am an educator first. This means that I am concerned about the what happens in the debate more than I do about what the debate claims to achieve. This does not lessen my focus on argumentation, rather it is to say that I am sensitive to the issues that concern the debaters as individuals before I am my concern about various claimed link stories. Be honest, fair and considerate to each other. This manifests itself in my judging when I pay particular attention to the division of prep time. Debater who try to steal prep or are not considerate of their opponents prep will irritate me quickly (read: very bad speaks).

Speaker Points

This is a common question given I tend to be critical on points. Basically, If you deserve to break then you should be getting no less than a 28.5. Speaker points are about speaking up to the point that I can understand your spread/read. Do not docbot. If you do not intonate you are not debating you are reading and that is just frustrating to me. Beyond that there are mostly about argumentation. Argumentation includes strategy, crystallization, and structuring of speeches. If you have a creative strat you will do well. If you are reading generics you will do less well. If you tell a full story on the implication of your strat you will do well. If I have to read cards to figure out what you are advocating you will not. If you collapse well and convene the method and meaning of your approach you will do well. If you go for everything (neg) or a small trick you will not. Finally, if you ask specific questions about how I might feel about your strat you will do well. If you ask, "What's your paradigm?" because you did not take the time to look you will not. Previously, I had a no speaker point disclosure rule. I have changed. So ask, if you care to talk about why; not if you do not want to discuss the reasoning, but only want the number.

Policy

Theory

I truly like a good theory debate. I went for T often as a debater and typically ran quasi topical cases so that I could engage in theory debates. This being said, what you read should be related to the topic. If the words of the topic do not occur in what you read you are in an uphill battle, unless you have a true justification as to why. I am very persuaded that we should learn about certain topics outside of the debate topic, but that just means you should create a forum or propose a topic to the NSDA, or create a book club. Typical theory questions: Reasonability is defense, competing interps are offense. Some spec is generally encouraged to increase clash and more nuance, too much should be debated. Disclosure theory is not very persuasive too me, unless debated very well and should only be used after you sought to have an actual conversation with your opponent prior to the debate. I am very persuaded by contact info at national tournaments - put up contact info and any accomodations you need - it makes for a safer space.

Kritiks

A kritik is a disad with a counterplan, typically to me. This means I should understand the link, the impact and the alternative as much as I would if you read a disad and counterplan. I vote against kritik most often because I have no idea what the alt does. This happens when the aff fails to engage and you think that you now just need to extend tags on the alt and assume that is enough. I need a clear picture of the link and the alt most importantly regardless of how much the aff has engaged or not. Gut check is a real thing. If your kritik is death good you are working uphill. If you are reading "high theory" know that I have not read the literature, but I will do my best. In the 1890s, when I debated, I was really into Cap and Gender based positions. My debaters like Deleuze and Cap (probably my influence, if I possession such).

Performance/Pre-Fiat

If you are trying to convince me that what you are doing matters and can change people in some way I really need to know how. If your claim is simply that this method is more approachable, well that is generally not true to me and given there is only audiences beyond me in elim.s you are really working up hill. Access trumps all! If you do not make the method clear you are not doing well. If your method somehow interrogates something, what does it interrogate? how does that change things for us and why is that meaningful? And most important you should be initiating this interrogation in round. Tell me that people outside the debate space should do this is not an interrogation. That is just a plan with a specific mechanism. Pre-fiat claims are fine, but again I need to understand the implication. Telling me that I read gender discrimination arguments and thus that is a pre-fiat voter is not only not persuasive it is not an argument at all. Please know that I truly love a good method debate, I do not enjoy people who present methods that are not explicit and full of nothing but buzzwords.

Competition

Arguments should be competitive otherwise they are just FYI. This means kritikal argument should likely be doing more than simply reading a topic link and moving on. All forms are perms are testable - I do not default to a view on severance/intrinsic - it's all debatable. I do default on perms being a test of competition. If you want to advocate the perm this should be clear from the get. A perm should have a text, and a net benefit in the opening delivery otherwise it is a warrantless argument.

Condo

In policy, (LD its all debatable) a few layers are fine - 4+ you are testing the limits and a persuasive condo bad argument is something I would listen to for sure. What I am absolute about is the default. All advocacy are unconditional unless you state in your speech otherwise. No this is not a CX question. You should be saying, I present the following conditional CP or the like, explicitly. Not doing this and then attempting to kick it means an advocacy shift and is thus debatable on theory.

Lincoln Douglas

See above

Theory - FOR LD

I note above that I cannot keep up as much anymore. If your approach is to spam theory (which is increasing a norm in LD) I am not capable of making coherent decisions. I will likely be behind on the flow. I am trying to conceptualize your last blip in a manner to flow and you are making the 3rd or 4th. Then I try to play catch up, but argument is in the wrong place on the flow and it is written as a partial argument. I am not against theory - I loved theory as a debater, but your best approach is to go for a couple shell at most in the NC and likely no more than 1 in the 1AR if you want me to be in the game at all. This is not to say I would not vote on potential abuse/norm setting rather keep your theory to something you want to debate and not using it just a strategic gamesmanship is best approach if you want a coherent RFD.

Disads/CPs/NCs

I was a policy debater, so disads and counterplans are perfectly acceptable and generally denote good strat (read: better speaks). This does not means a solid NC is not just as acceptable, but an NC that you read every debate for every case that does not offer real clash or nuance will make me want to take a nap. PIC are debatable, but I default to say they are acceptable. Utopian fiat is generally not without a clear method story. Politics disad seem mostly silly in LD without an explicit agent announcement by the AC. If you do not read a perm against a counterplan I will be very confused (read: bad speaks). If you do not read uniqueness then your link turns are just defense.

Philosophy/Framework Debate

I really enjoy good framework debate, but I really despise bad framework debate. If you know what a normative ethic is and how to explain it and how to explain your philosophical basis, awesome. If that is uncomfortable language default to larp. Please, avoid cliche descriptors. I like good framework debate but I am not as versed on every philosophy that you might read and there is inevitable coded language within those scholarship fields that might be unfamiliar to me. Most importantly, if you are into phil debating do it well. Bad phil debates are painful to me (read: bad speaks). Finally, a traditional framework should have a value (something awesome) and a value criteria/standard (something to weigh or test the achievement of the value). Values do not have much function, whereas standards/criterion have a significant function and place. These should be far more than a single word or phrase that come with justification.

Public Forum

I have very frustrated feelings about PF as a form of debate. Thus, I see my judging position as one of two things.

1. Debate

If this is a debate event then I will evaluate the requirements of clash and the burden of rejoinder. Arguments must have a claim and warrant as a minimum, otherwise it is just an assertion and equal to any other assertion. If it is an argument then evidence based proof where evidence is read from a qualified sources is ideal. Unqualified but published evidence would follow and a summary of someone's words without reading from them would be equal to you saying it. When any of these presentation of arguments fails to have a warrant in the final focus it would again be an assertion and equal to all other assertions.

Synthesis

1. Paragraph - you lose. This does not need to be an argument in the debate.
2. Read tags that is some like ….” Therefore.” I won’t flow it
3. Read a card that does not include a read warrant. This is meaningless in the debate.
4. Claiming a card says something that it clearing does not 25 spk loss. This does not need to be an argument in the debate. I will intervene period as you have no ethics for an activity that I care deeply about.
   
   

2. Speech

If neither debate team adheres to any discernible standard of argumentation then I will evaluate the round as a speaking event similar to extemp. The content of what you say is important in the sense that it should be on face logical and follow basic rules of logic, but equally to your poise, vocal variation and rhetorical skills will be considered. To be clear, sharing doc.s would allow me to obviously discern your approach. Beyond this clear discernible moment I will do my best to continue to consider the round in my manners until I reach the point where I realize that both teams are assume that their claims, summaries etc... are equally important as any substantiated evidence read. The team that distinguishes that they are taking one approach and the opponent is not is always best. I will always to default to evaluate the round as debate in these situation as that is were I have the capacity to be a better critic and could provide the best educational feedback.

If you adhering to a debate model as described above these are other notes of clarity.

Theory

I’m very resistant to theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD, I default to reasonability in PF.

Framework

I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default utilitarianism.

Finally Word for All

I am sure this is filled with error, as I am. I am sure this leaves more questions than answers, life has. I will do my best, as like you I care.

EXPERIENCE: I'm the head coach at Harrison High School in New York; I was an assistant coach at Lexington from 1998-2004 (I debated there from 1994-1998), at Sacred Heart from 2004-2008, and at Scarsdale from 2007-2008. I'm not presently affiliated with these programs or their students. I am also the Curriculum Director for NSD's Philadelphia LD institute.

Please just call me Hertzig.

Please include me on the email chain: harrison.debate.team@gmail.com

QUICK NOTE: I would really like it if we could collectively try to be more accommodating in this activity. If your opponent has specific formatting requests, please try to meet those (but also, please don't use this as an opportunity to read frivolous theory if someone forgets to do a tiny part of what you asked). I know that I hear a lot of complaints about "Harrison formatting." Please know that I request that my own debaters format in a particular way because I have difficulty reading typical circuit formatting when I'm trying to edit cards. You don't need to change the formatting of your own docs if I'm judging you - I'm just including this to make people aware that my formatting preferences are an accessibility issue. Let's try to respect one another's needs and make this a more inclusive space. :)

BIG PICTURE:

CLARITY in both delivery and substance is the most important thing for me. If you're clearer than your opponent, I'll probably vote for you.

SHORTCUT:

Ks (not high theory ones) & performance - 1 (just explain why you're non-T if you are)

Trad debate - 1

T, LARP, or phil - 2-3 (don't love wild extinction scenarios or incomprehensible phil)

High theory Ks - 4

Theory - 4 (see below)

Tricks - strike

*I will never vote on "evaluate the round after ____ [X speech]" (unless it's to vote against the person who read it; you aren't telling me to vote for you, just to evaluate the round at that point!).

GENERAL:

If, after the round, I don't feel that I can articulate what you wanted me to vote for, I'm probably not going to vote for it.

I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary.

I don't view theory the way I view other arguments on the flow. I will usually not vote for theory that's clearly unnecessary/frivolous, even if you're winning the line-by-line on it. I will vote for theory that is actually justified (as in, you can show that you couldn't have engaged without it).

I need to hear the claim, warrant, and impact in an extension. Don't just extend names and claims.

For in-person debate: I would prefer that you stand when speaking if you're physically able to (but if you aren't/have a reason you don't want to, I won't hold it against you).

I'd prefer that you not use profanity in round.

Link to a standard, burden, or clear role of the ballot. Signpost. Give me voting issues or a decision calculus of some kind. WEIGH. And be nice.



To research more stuff about life career coaching then visit Life coach.

School:

Marcus High School

College Affiliation:

Texas A&M Commerce

Years Judging/Coaching:

6

Frequency of Judging:

I have not judged much this year; mainly WSD and Congress.

Speaker Point Scale:

27-30 (lower for egregious incidents)

Stylistic Preferences:

I want to hear the resolution debated; that's the entire purpose of the round. I prefer traditional value/criterion LD cases. The quality of arguments is more important than the quantity. Speed is ok if I am on the e-mail chain and all arguments are included in the chain; otherwise, no spreading

Things not to run when I am the judge:

Pre-standards. K's. Theory just for the sake of running theory when an actual violation has not occurred in the round. As for impact calculus- do not run extinction arguments; they're unrealistic and I will vote probability over magnitude when given the option. I won't automatically discount plans and CP's but if there is something else in the round that is a viable option for me to vote on, I will. Topicality arguments need to consist of an actual topicality violation. I will vote it down if you run this nonsense topicality argument that the aff needs to narrow down the focus of the resolution instead of debating the exact wording.

I did not do LD in high school, but I did extemp, so I know how LD works but from an outside perspective, not an inside perspective. I am a lay judge, and I would prefer a more traditional style of debate. If you speak too fast, I will not necessarily mark you first. Sway me one way or another, do not impress me with your words. I want to clearly know your value, and why it is the most important.

*Updated for Polar Bear 2021.

Intro

Debated for Acton-Boxborough Regional High School in LD for 4 years, mostly running k's on the national circuit during my varsity years.

Email me at jeffreyhuangdragon@gmail.com if you wanna send me speech docs

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me over Facebook messenger, I go by Jerfy Huang

In terms of debate, I really enjoy unique and interesting arguments that break away from the norm, and I will tend to award higher speaker points depending on how much I enjoyed the debate. Overall, although I think that both framework and contention level debates are important, more often than not debates will break down into arguments on the contention level anyways, so in the cases that they do, please try to make as many well warranted arguments and extensions as possible. As a judge, I can only evaluate arguments that have been extended in your final speech, which means that you must not only respond to your opponents arguments but also reiterate your own in both claim and warrant in every speech in order to win your arguments and the round as a whole. Bonus points if you're able to win the framework debate and link back/weigh your arguments under the framework. If you have any questions about the how the round went, want any feedback about what you can do better, or just want to know more about debate as a whole, feel free to ask before or after the round and ask away.

As always, please do not be rude to your opponents, especially if you are a someone that's more experienced than your opponent. Please don't spread in the novice division, and only ask for consent first with your opponent if you're debating in varsity.

National circuit stuff below (ignore if you are debating at a local tournament and aren't debating progressively)

Basic stuff

Don't be rude. any racist/sexist/ableist etc. args and/or inappropriate behavior will be punished accordingly.

Tech over truth. Its like reading the fine print of a contract: its on you if you miss any of it. However if there's an arg over what a card says word for word or any issue related to such matters I will call for evidence and pass judgement.

Please disclose, disclosure debates are frivolous.

Speaks

Since speaks are usually inflated, I give them as follows:

30 = I think you'll win the tournament

29 = I think you'll do well in elims

28 = I think you'll go positive/break

27 = average

26 = going negative

25 = you screwed up horribly

K's

Kritiks have always been my favorite argument, with phil being the next best thing, because I've always loved the spirit of the kritik and creating a separate and distinct space apart from theory and policy. HOWEVER, there are 2 things that I despise about the current practice of running critical arguments in the LD community:

1) running a kritik purely as an argument that you've recycled from past topics

2) being inconsiderate of your situation/circumstances and/or contradicting the kritik

Kritiks should be read like a good story: I should be enjoying it in round instead of zoning out to the same cards I've heard countless times, and when I evaluate it at the end of the round I should be able to understand what its purpose was and how its made debate a better place.

Also, concise overviews at the beginning of speeches and explanations of how the K functions and how it applies to your opponent are key to successfully convincing me to vote for the K, especially with denser lit, since otherwise you're probably doing a bad job of showing me why it even matters for me or the debate. This means that you should have convincing arguments as to why the ROB matters first and foremost for the round, and how you're doing the better job at upholding that standard with the body of the K.

Bonus points if you're running Nietzsche and actually know what you're doing.

THEORY/T

A lot of my qualms about K's actually cross apply here. I'm fine with theory, and I truly believe that they have an important role in shaping the debate space, but at the same time so much generic shells gets read that it makes me question why the person even wants to debate.

Make sure you make clear how all parts of the shell link together: slow down on interps, read an ACTUAL violation instead of just the opposite of your interp, standards should actually prove why and how SPECIFICALLY YOUR OPPONENT is abusive, and voters should tell me why the shell matters.

On disclosure, be considerate of who you're hitting and the circumstances, if your opponent is clearly a novice or they disclosed 20 mins before the round instead of 30, don't just run disclosure for the sake of putting more ink of the flow. Maybe actually debating the topic would be a nice change of pace eh?

POLICY/LARP

Literally just do your thing, make sure you weigh and all that stuff, imo its as basic as it gets.

If you're LARPing make sure your arguments make sense and that you know the policy like the back of your hand, don't just make up some facts or spend half of CX scrolling through your case saying "i think [some random author] says it somewhere in the case"

Also please try to read unique and fully flushed out arguments, I don't want to listen to the same heg DA 6 times in a row

If you're hitting LARP, reading good evidence is great, case turns/plan flaw are greater

PHIL

Next best thing after K, just make sure to know/explain your lit and actually have logical warrants in cards. I'll know if something's off and I'll call for cards appropriately

TRICKS

Not too familiar, just a meme in my books, don't run these unless you're trying to be funny or if you're confident enough that you can explain how I should evaluate them

I did PF all throughout high school. I'm not as familiar with LD, but I can grasp the basic concepts. That being said:

Please don't spread, under any circumstances.

Not familiar with any K args so don't run them unless they're extremely clear.

Please avoid running theory/T unless you're checking egregious abuse.

Remember, the essence of debate is trying to convince me, the judge, that your side is right, not your opponent.

There's nothing wrong with being passionate about your topic, but don't yell at me or your opponent while you debate. It doesn't improve your argument.

You should stand while speaking. Studies find that standing up more improves long-term health.

Like I said before, I'm new to LD judging. What defines the human race is its ability to adapt.

Oh, and I don't disclose, either.

Hi! I'm a senior at Yale and a former four year LD-er from North Carolina. I have familiarity judging LD, PF, Congress, and some speech and am rather familiar with most event formats.

In debate, I value clash and clarity-- I prefer if you stay resolutional and really cross-apply your arguments against one another (this includes Congress). In speech, just do you, I value content and presentation pretty equally.

As a former female debater, I know judges often mark down women for sounding 'shrill' or 'aggressive'. While abuse will never be tolerated, neither will sexism against powerful/confident women and speaker points will reflect that :)

For circuit VLD: Spikes/tricks are not appreciated, nor are PICs and RVIs. T and narratives ought to be topical and will be evaluated under strict scrutiny. Remember that with online rounds connections can be poor so articulate taglines and impact slower/clearly. Speed is fine but can be inherently ableist so do not be egregious nor abuse your opponent with it.

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

Email chain info: njohnston@lhps.org

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

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

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

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

1. Conflicts [as of 10/04/2020]

• No Univ of Chicago Lab
• No Iowa City

2. Short Version

• tech over truth
• strong analytics/analysis can beat carded evidence
• prioritize your impacts
• have fun!

3. Pandemic Social Distancing Related Technology Notes

• Please slow down 5-10%. Emphasize your warrants. Without a microphone stem, your quality fluctuates. Keep in mind that I still flow on paper.
• Please get explicit visual or audio confirmation from everyone in the debate before beginning your speech. I may use a thumbs up to indicate I am ready.
• If my camera is off, unless I explicitly have told you otherwise, assume I'm not at the computer.
• If the current speaker has significant tech problems, I'll try to interrupt your speech and mark the last argument and timestamp.

4. Some Detail

I've been meaning to do this for a while, but have not really had the time. My hope is that I end up judging better debates as a result of this updated philosophy. I am now changing to a more linear philosophy, it is my hope that you read this in its entirety before choosing where to place me on the pref sheet. I debated for four years at Homewood-Flossmoor High School in the south Chicago suburbs from 2007-2011. During that time I debated, Sub-Saharan Africa, Alternative Energy, Social services and substantial reductions in Military presence.

Nearing a decade ago, during would would have been the h.s. space topic. I started at the University of Northern Iowa, Where I debated NDT/CEDA Middle East/North Africa while judging a few debate rounds across the midwest. After my freshman year I transferred to the University of Iowa, where I started coaching at Iowa City High School. This year, I will continue to coach the City High Debate team.

Framing, Issue choice and impact calculus are in my opinion the most important aspects of argumentation, and you should make sure they are components in your speeches. Late rebuttals that lack this analysis are severely.

I preference tech over truth. Your in round performance is far more important to me, as it is what I hear. I greatly attempt to preference the speaking portion of the debate. Increasingly, I've found that my reading evidence is not necessarily an aspect of close debates, but rather results from poor argument explanation and clarification. The majority of 'close rounds' that I've judged fall into the category of closeness by lack of explanation. In some limited instances, I may call for evidence in order to satisfy my intellectual fascination with the activity. Anything other than that--which I will usually express during the RFD--probably falls upon inadequate explanation and should be treated as such.

I feel my role as a judge is split evenly between policymaker and 'referee' in that when called to resolve an issue of fairness. I will prioritize that first. Addressing inequities in side balance, ability to prepare and generate offense is something may at times find slightly more important than substance. In short, I consider myself a good judge for theory, THAT BEING SAID, rarely do I find theory debates resolved in a manner that satisfies my liking - I feel theoretical arguments should be challenged tantamount to their substance based counterparts. Simply reading the block isn't enough. Though I was a 2A[≈ High power LED current, peak 2.7 A] in high school I have since found myself sliding towards the negative on theoretical questions. I can be convinced, however, to limit the scope of negative offense quite easily, so long as the arguments are well explained and adjudicated.

I consider reasonability better than competing interpretations, with the caveat that I will vote on the best interpretation presented. But topicality questions shouldn't be a major concern if the team has answered.

I have a long and complicated relationship with the K. I have a level of familiarity with the mainstream literature, so go ahead and read Capitalism or Neolib. Less familiar arguments will require more depth/better explanation.

I was a Circuit Debater for 4 years.

Run whatever you want I have no preference

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

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

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

Don't be a jerk, be respectful

If you have any questions just ask!

Have fun!

shihab.joseph@gmail.com

Style:

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

Content:

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

Updated September 2024

Hi! My name is Charles Karcher. He/him pronouns. Myemail is charlesdebate7@gmail.com

I am affiliated with The Chapin School, where I am a history teacher and coach Public Forum.

This is my 10th year involved in debate overall and my 6th year coaching.

Previous affiliations: Fulbright Taiwan, Lake Highland, West Des Moines Valley, Interlake, Durham Academy, Charlotte Latin, Altamont, and Oak Hall.

Conflicts: Chapin, Lake Highland

Top Level

Debate is what you make it, whether that is a game or an educational activity. Ultimately, it is a space for students to grow intellectually and politically. Critical debate is what I spend the most time thinking about. I’m familiar with most K authors, but assume that I know nothing. I want to hear about the alt. I have a particular interest in the Frankfurt School and 20th century French authors + the modern theoretical work that has derived from both of these traditions. I have prepped and coached pretty much the full spectrum of K debate authors/literature bases. Policy-style debate is fun. I appreciate good analytics more than bad cards, especially when those cards are from authors that are clearly personally/institutionally biased. Inserted graphs/charts need to be explained and have their own claim, warrant, and impact. Taglines should be detailed and accurately descriptive of the arguments in the card. 2 or 3 conditional positions are acceptable. I am not thrilled with the idea of judge kicking. Theory and tricks debate is the farthest from my interests. Being from Florida, I've been exposed to a good amount of it, but it never stuck with or interested me. Debaters who tend to read these types of arguments should not pref me.

While I am a strong believer that judges should not categorically prevent debaters from reading certain styles of arguments, there are certain behaviors and norms that I believe should be modeled in the debate space:

1] If you find yourself debating with me as the judge on a panel with a parent/lay/traditional judge (or judges), please just engage in a traditional round and don't try to get my tech ballot. It is incredibly rude to disregard a parent's ballot and spread in front of them if they are apprehensive about it.

2] Speaks are capped at 27 if you include something in the doc that you assume will be inputted into the round without you reading/describing it. You cannot "insert" something into the debate scot-free. Examples include charts, graphs, images, screenshots, spec details, and solvency mechanisms/details. This is a terrible norm which literally asks me to evaluate a piece of evidence that you didn't read. It's also a question of accessibility.

3] When it comes to speech docs, I think about the debate space as an academic conference at which you are sharing ideas with colleagues (me) and panelists (your opponents). Just as you would not present an unfinished PowerPoint at a conference, please do not present to me a poorly formatted speech doc. I don't care what your preferences of font, spacing, etc. are, but they should be consistent, navigable, and readable. I do ask that you use the Verbatim UniHighlight feature to standardize your doc to yellow highlighting before sending it to me.

4] Do not steal prep or be rude to your opponents - I have high expectations for these two things and hope that the community collectively raises its expectations this season. Your speaks will suffer if you do these things.

-----------

Misc. notes:

• I do not, and will not, disclose speaker points.
• Put your analytics in the speech doc!
• Trigger warnings are important
• CX and prep ends as soon as the timer beeps! Time yourself.
• Tell me about inclusivity/accessibility concerns, I will do whatever is in my power to accommodate!

Public Forum

In PF, you should either paraphrase all your cards OR present a policy-esque case with taglines that precede cut cards. I do not want cards that are tagged with "and, [author name]" or, worse, not tagged at all. This formatting is not conducive to good debating, and I will not tolerate it. Your speaks will suffer.

All speech materials should be sent as a downloadable file (Word or PDF), not as a Google Doc, Sharepoint, or email text. I will not look at they are in the latter formats.

RVI’s are not a thing in PF. Ideally, theory isn’t either.

I'm not a fan of teams actively sharing if they are kicking an argument before they kick it. For example, if your opponent asks you about contention n in questioning and you respond "we're kicking that argument." Don’t do it.

Lincoln-Douglas

LD is the event that I’m most comfortable judging – most of my coaching and judging experience is in this event.

I have found that I am increasingly sympathetic to judge kicking counterplans (even though I was previously dogmatically anti-judge kick), but it should still be argued and justified in the round by the negative team; I do not judge kick by default.

My defaults: ROJ > ROB; ROJ ≠ ROB; ROTB > theory; presume neg; comparative worlds; reps/pre-fiat impacts > everything else; yes RVI; DTD; yes condo; I will categorically never evaluate the round earlier than the end of the 2AR (with the exception of round-stopping issues like evidence allegations or inclusivity concerns).

Hello my name is Gurbani. I am a senior at Harvard Studying Human Developmental and Regenerative Biology and Global Health and Health Policy. Ask me in person for more details. I hail from Hathaway Brown School's Lincoln Douglass Team in Shaker Heights, Ohio. I am comfortable with any pace of speech. However, I will not tolerate abusive behavior in rounds, personal attacks against opponents. Remain professional and debate to the best of our ability in the style you are comfortable with. Because this is LD I expect an enriching Values and Value Criterion Debate in addition to Contention Level Debate. Extending arguments simply because your opponent "dropped" them will not be a productive use of your time or mine. Please be clear and provide analytical and/or empirical evidence and be ready to provide me key voting issues to crystallize the debate and facilitate my voting. I am not in the round to debate you. I will flow the round and rely on the flow to make my decisions. Be kind and have fun. I'm excited to learn with you.

During an LD round a competitor must be able speak clearly and unhesitatingly. But, a competitor should never speak at a pace impossible to understand or judge. Failure to do so may affect scoring during the round. Also, LD should strictly be a value debate, without plans or policy debate style data dumping: which may also affect scoring during the round

- dhwanikharel1@gmail.com

-My first priority is ensuring that debate is an inclusive activity. Provide trigger warnings if what you are running is triggering. Use common sense. Racist, sexist, homophobic cases.. just don't run them

- avoid circular framework debate, i.e "my framework is a pre-req to their framework." "no, MY framework is a pre-req to THEIRS."

-I debated traditional, Lincoln Douglas debate for Brookings High School in South Dakota. I am open to either progressive or traditional debate.

- I hate "this is LD debate so they can't run this" arguments

- LIMIT jargon.

- I enjoy listening to kritiks, but I'm not super familiar with the literature so you'll have to explain it well.

- Not a fan of pointless theory. Please don't run theory unless there is actual abuse.

-The round is yours, do what you like but just be aware that I may not be able to completely follow you if you go crazy with spreading/jargon.

- Don't use pointless buzzwords if what your saying has no substance. I can tell when you're not saying anything at all but rather just throwing words out there for the sake of saying them

I judge the round based off of the framework that wins. Your impacts should make sense under your framework and in round you should take time to explain why your impacts matter under your framework. I'm willing to listen to progressive arguments but I am not well versed in most critical literature so you will need to explain what the argument is and why it means you should win the round. If you have any specific questions feel free to ask me in person before the round starts.

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

**NEW: PLEASE READ**

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

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

**LD**

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

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

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

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

**Varsity LD**

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

**All LD**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**PF**

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

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

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

**ALL**

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

Email for the chain (Required unless it's a lay/paper, set it up early please): lekollar@gmail.com

Paradigm:

-Debated for NT from 2012-2016 went to the TOC once, I went to Indiana now and coach NT every now and then. Assume that the number of rounds I've judged at the tournament is also the total number of rounds I've judged on the entire topic. I’ve graduated from college I now only judge with extreme rarity.

-Read whatever you're best at no matter what it is; good debates are better than bad ones no matter the content. I'll always vote for the winner.

-Tech>Truth

-The distinction between true/false arguments and good/bad arguments are two different things. If your argument is false (e.g. global warming not real), I don't care and I'll vote for it if you win it (excluding blatantly offensive arguments, obviously). If your argument is just bad (e.g. global warming is real b/c it is hot out today) it takes a lot more technical skill in order to win with it.

-Zero-risk is absolutely thing

-Strategy, prep, creativity>>>

-Debated LARP in HS so it's what I'm most familiar with and like best. Most of my paradigmatic defaults are the same as the general consensus in policy debate but feel free to ask.

-Don't care about running theory for purely the strategic reason, obviously bad interps are harder to win with (see zero risk/bad arguments)

-Tricks are fine just please actually be creative with them

-Ks are fine, I've read the basics of the common Ks but if you're reading Baudrillard or something you should overexplain it. If you do a bad job explaining your stuff and I don't understand it I'm perfectly willing to vote against you and start the RFD with "Yeah I don't get it".

-In terms of non-T affs I'm not a complete framework hack but if it's not in the 1nc you're doing yourself a serious disservice. Also if you read a plan text, I'm going to hold you to defending/solving that plan text. Again though, debate what you're best at.

-Your pre-round prep/strat development is probably the best way to get good speaks.

-Debate is supposed to be fun, make jokes, be sarcastic, don't be an asshole, don't take yourself too seriously etc.

-I'm very pro-disclosure but generally anti-disclosure theory. I get that sometimes you'll have to read it and I'll treat it like I treat any other theory argument, but if you have a decent case neg put together or only want to quibble over the way that someone discloses then your 1NC is better served by just reading something else. (If you read and go for disclosure theory against someone who is obviously not familiar with the circuit I will not vote for it and your speaks will suck). In case anyone cares I think the true interp is disclosure for debaters with a career bid and in all elim rounds; if you want to card me for your counter interp or run a blog and want an article hmu

-I have a very low threshold for extensions

-I will answer clarifying questions about my paradigm during prep as long as they're things like "what's your default on RVIs?" or "Do you default to Condo means judge kick?" or anything else that you could've asked before the debate but didn't because you can never know which of my potential defaults will be relevant. Stuff that you'd need the context of the debate to ask like "Do you think there's a winning 2NR on the disad or should I go for T?" I will not answer. The former gives you the information you'd need to make strategic decisions, the latter makes some of the decisions for you.

-I really appreciate creativity. Lately, I've been feeling like I've heard every interp/framework/impact scenario before so if you can produce one that's completely unique that'll make me enjoy the round more.

-If you say “non-unique” when you actually mean “uniqueness overwhelms the link” or vice versa I will be annoyed

-If you can tell a joke that makes me laugh about the 2015-2016 debate season or the New Trier debate team speaks go up (they go up further for the 2015-2016 season because with the age of current debates that's tougher)

-Why on earth do so many people take prep for the 1nc?

Rose's are red

Violets are blue

Ask me my prefs

Otherwise good luck to you

Updated for 2023 TOC

Conflicts: Newark Science.

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

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

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

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

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

Feel free to ask if any questions!

Email: akukreja227@gmail.com

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!

Hello debaters,

I am a lay parent judge from Westborough, MA who has been judging for the last three years at local and natcir tournaments. This paradigm was written by my son. I will take notes on the round kind of like flowing. However, the easiest way to persuade me and get my vote is in the final focus.

truth>tech - I already have a limited understanding of the technicalities of debate, please don't run low probability - high magnitude arguments and expect me to vote for you.

I will deduct speaks if I can't understand you (please don't spread)

Things I think will be helpful for the round

I will pay attention and take notes on crossfire

It might be a good idea to respond to arguments from first rebuttal in the second rebuttal

Try to build a narrative throughout the round.

I have a low threshold for random debate words - phrases like "terminal defense " are useless to me. Your word economy should be simplistic and effective.

Please refrain from bringing up new argumentation in the second half of the round.

Weigh in FF. This speech helps me sign my ballot for you, so give me clear reasons why i should prefer you over your opponents.

Please do not run theory or k's, I do not understand them.

Don't be toxic, this debate round doesn't matter in the long run.

I will disclose after the round, hopefully, you find my feedback helpful.

For TOC and any online debate - if you are sharing evidence with the opponents and wish for the judge to be on the email chain, please ask me before the round for my email.

Good luck and have fun!

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

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

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

Do

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

Don't

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

Kritiks

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

Policy style arguments (LARP)

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

T v. stock/larp

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

T/FW v. K affs

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

Theory

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

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

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

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

(Long Version is for procrastinating non-debate work)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coached students to qualification for 2020 TOC in LD and Policy

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

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

(good luck, get snacks)

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

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

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

Long Version (Procrastinating Other Work/Season Preffing):

Role of the Ballot:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flow your overview verbatim

Flow your underview verbatim

Flow your tags verbatim

But I WILL:

Follow the speech doc for author name spelling

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

Write in multiple colors (for individual speakers and notes)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good links >>> more links

Good evidence >>>>> more evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I apologize for this paradigm becoming unreasonable in length.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m friendly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 years high school LD/Extemp/PF

3 years college policy/parli/public

Coaching/teaching debate since 2009-ish

Writing Arguments by Allegory since 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com

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

CLIFF NOTES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOME THOUGHTS ON PF

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

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

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

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

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

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

OTHER THINGS

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

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

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

Policy Debate Preferences

Not inclined to vote on Theory arguments. The abuse story has to be in-round and well extrapolated.

I'm ok understanding and flowing the K and performance, but I don't enjoy those debates.

I love a policy v policy round. Good case args, DAs and CPs.

Will vote on any arg you give me the better reason to, but I will be happiest if you adapt.

Not crazy about spreading and tag team debates, speaker points will reflect that

Did MUN for 4 years and APDA for 1 year.

I have no preference in speaker style, I adjudicate entirely on substances

However, I do recommend speaking clearly as oppose to speaking fast

Make sure you warrant and impact your point! The actual explanation matters more than what you have on your cards.

Framework debate is unnecessary if you share the same framework as your opponent.

Preferable if you do your own and your opponent's timekeeping

important for 2020:

- i have not judged a debate round since Harvard 2019 so please slow the frick frack down especially when you start and don't expect me to be up-to-date w all the new jazzy tricks and fun things yall have come up with

- the internet is unpredictable and things happen and everyone is stressed out right now about like a trillion billion things so please be kind and understanding w each other thank u

t/l:

- i really dont care about things so despite my personal preferences i still evaluate most arguments as arguments and will vote on them if and when they are won so just do good debate thank

- tricks/friv theory/a priori/skep/racism good/other bullshit is out, Ks and performance stuff/policy is in, philosophy/high theory is eh (it's interesting, i’ll try my best but if I don't understand it then I don't understand it and I won't vote on itttttt), traditional debate is fine

addendum: T is fine i guess. like i am much much much more willing to listen to a T debate than a theory debate

addendum #2: if you can win a ~compelling abuse story on theory then like sure i'll vote for it i guess i have done it a good number of times before

addendum #3: fun fact i have almost a 50-50 voting record on t v k affs so stop reading half-assed k-affs/neg k strats in front of me bc u think i will like them better it is soooooooooooo annoying

-disclosing is good

-email chains are good (minaslee00@gmail.com)

-debate is about education if you just treat it like a game, treat other debaters like your enemies, and treat your arguments like cheap shots at winning, i will be sad and so will you when the round is over

-bc of the above point, i do like answering questions about things you think you could have done differently/other learning opportunities from the round so feel free to ask or to hit me up on facebook/email

-idc who your coach is or who you think you are, if you think i made a bad decision and you and your ~ posse ~ decide to yell at me for the sake of trying to prove me wrong as opposed to trying to understand the decision i will just leave the room lmao

-i don’t really care that much about things and i am usually very tired

-be nice

-i don't care if you sit or stand please stop asking me

-please don’t shake my hand

-please start slow especially in the morning i am so tired spreading is so fast i do not know why people think it is a good idea to scream at me at 40000 wpm at 8 in the morning :(

Quick thoughts because I’m too lazy to write a real paradigm:

0) An introduction: hello I debated for Edgemont LD (2018) and now I go to Princeton where I don’t do debate because hahahahahahahaha. I was coached by Brian Manuel, Rodrigo Paramo, Jack Ave, and was heavily influenced by Aurelia Williams, Chris Randall, Eli Smith, Jacob Koshak, and Sydney Pasquinelli. Put me on the email chain: minaslee00@gmail.com

1) IMPORTANT: I like sass but don’t be mean! I almost quit debate on three separate occasions in my senior year alone. I also almost quit debate after my second tournament ever because I was laughed at for not knowing deontology. People suck. If someone is clearly not as experienced as you and you read 7 off I will give you a 25 and you may also lose! So! Don’t! Be! A! Dick! As much as this activity can suck sometimes there are things I have learned that I wouldn’t have been able to learn anywhere else in high school and I will always, always be grateful for that. Don’t be the reason someone feels like they need to walk away from those opportunities.

1.5) Evidence ethics/other out-of-round issues: a) dont be shady with your evidence b) if you're going to make accusations, then be willing to stake the round on it. i'll stop the round, look at the evidence, and decide the round based on whoever I think is right on the question. but tbh there are so much unnecessary politics and personal/ad-hom attack brought into rounds whenever this happens and they make me uncomfortable and sad and angry please treat debaters like people thank you

2) I'm honestly pretty expressive, just read my face and you'll have a good idea re: how I feel about the round

3) Arguments I read: I mostly read policy-esque arguments with critical impacts and then second half of senior year I said “fuck it” and went really hard for ID politics K debate. I finished out my career reading a performance aff that I also ran as a neg K in outrounds. That being said, if you can explain an argument really well to me I will probably vote for it. Don’t assume just because I was a “K debater” I know all your warrants and I’ll just make the arguments for you when you blip through them. In fact, if you do that and you’re missing warrants I will be EXTRA sad and so will you when you hear my rfd. My favorite neg strat my senior year was one-off K where most of my case arguments were just links to the K so if that tells you anything about how much I enjoy the explanation of complicated critical (or even philosophical) arguments, there ya go

4) JUST BECAUSE I READ AN ARGUMENT DOESN’T MEAN YOU SHOULD READ IT IN FRONT OF MEEeee. Do what you’re good at (for the most part) and if you explain it well to me I’ll probably vote on it. I don’t hate philosophy, I was just never good at it so I never read it in high school. But if you think Kant is a cool guy and you can get me to understand his nonsense, then sure! Go for it! I’m telling you right now though I have no problem just being like “I did not understand this argument so I did not vote on it”

5) EXCEPTIONS: If you read tricks/frivolous theory/a prioris/whatever etc. etc. in front of me I will just pretend I didn’t hear you and not flow it and just doodle some flowers on my flow and also kill your speaks (see: Rebecca Kuang)

6) Flowing and analytics: I’m going to flow what I hear so if I say clear and you don’t slow down or get clear and if I miss 25 of your 30 analytical arguments and any of your post-rounding includes “but it was in the speech doc” I will just shrug my shoulders, pack my stuff up, and go get myself a coffee. NOTE: I’ll say clear/loud/slow twice and then your speaks will probably go down, but I’ll keep saying clear to keep the round going

7) T v K: I know I read a performance aff but tbh I think I’m pretty 50-50 on the T v K aff debate. I am definitely not 50-50 on the K v frivolous theory to answer Ks because people don’t actually know how to answer Ks, and if you try to randomly up-layer to answer a K that you handled poorly, I will be sad and so will you when you see your speaks and probably also the results of the round

8) ON FAIRNESS: I don't really think it's its own voter, i'll vote on it but i usually just evaluate it as an internal link to education which means that i also care about in round abuse more than i care about norm setting by default, but i will listen to arguments to the contrary i suppose

9) More on theory in general: if there's actual abuse then obviously go nuts with theory but in general theory debates really bore me and so if you must run theory I will likely be very lazy in evaluating the debate and if I can find something easy to vote on or a simple reason to default to other flows where there’s more interesting offense, I will probably do so. I was also never particularly good at really detailed theory debates, so my evaluation of intense line-by-line argumentation will probably be shit. Sorry :)

10) disclose lol.

LD/CX: Easiest way to get my vote is to tell me how to frame the debate, then win within that framework. I like offense coming off of cases but it isn't necessary to win. I'll weigh basically any argument as long as it makes sense, but I usually don't buy theory shells.

PF: I evaluate Public Forum on two criteria: 1) who won most of the arguments and 2) who communicated their side best. The first point is the most important, but if the winning side is less eloquent than the losing side, I'll give a low-point win.

I was a varsity LD and PF debater in high school. I debated on the state and national level circuits (NFL, CFL qualifier, broke at several TOC bid tournaments). In university, I received the equivalent of a minor in philosophy, and conducted philosophy research. I have judged on the national circuit for a few years now.

Arguments should be coherent (both literally in presentation, and structurally/logically), and I will judge on a number of factors (importance loosely in order): validity of evidence/reasoning, organization of arguments, presentation/manners. I am fine with spreading, but if you are unintelligible, I will not be inferring arguments for you.

I will be on the email chain: ysaralee@gmail.com.

I judge, traditionally, based on whether or not a debate can stay on topic, and solve for the issue. Remain respectful and on pace. You must have the knowledge to articulate your knowledge and evidence in comparison to your opponent. Do this and you shall succeed.

*Updated for Scarsdale 2020*

Hunter '18, NYU '22 - I qualled to the TOC my senior year and went to 2 policy tournaments my freshman year of college.

I taught at VBI for two summers and coached a couple of debaters (with several bids/bid rounds) for two years, but I don't coach now. I have not done any topic research, and I don't care what you do as long as you do it well. I've left my old/more detailed paradigm up below if you have any questions/want to know how to get better speaks/want to know my preferences.

**ONLINE DEBATE:

-PLEASE start a little slower for the first couple of seconds of your speech. Also, in general, please slow down a bit if you're not clear. I'll try to call clear but like... it's online debate lol

-If you're recording speeches please record them separately! Sending a recording that's longer than a few minutes will take 10 years and I will never get to hear your speech

-You can still extemp arguments but including analytics in docs is probably helpful in case of potential internet issues

-I always say I'll try to time speeches but I never actually remember so time yourself+your opponent

*Update 3/9/19: I have now taken the hot Cheetos policy off my paradigm. Rest in peace.*

Tl; dr: feel free to read anything. As long as you have warrants, don’t rely on your lingo, slow down on plan/interp/standard/etc. texts, make your links/abuse stories as specific as possible, weigh, and are not blatantly offensive (sexist/racist/ableist/homophobic/etc.), we should be good. I like unique arguments of all "types." It is ultimately is your round, and you should go for your best/most comfortable arguments. I will take the route of least intervention. If you have any questions, feel free to fb message or email me!!

Email: limichelle0809@gmail.com I’ll only flow along with the speech doc for names of cards, but won’t rely on it so that I don’t miss extempted args. Compiling the speech doc is prep but flashing isn’t (unless it takes you a suspiciously long time to flash).

Things (I say "things" because some of you think these are arguments but they really are not) I will not vote on, and will dock your speaks for:

-Sexual assault doesn't matter/rape good/some other version of that -- I will actually stop listening to part of/the rest of the speech if you say this.

-Any version of "oppression doesn't exist/is good" (this is not the same thing as extinction outweighs)

-Unnecessarily bringing up your opponent's private life as a reason to vote for you -- especially if the implications are homophobic/sexist/etc.

Misc. Defaults (very, very loose, and only apply if no one makes any arguments in round) and other stuff:

-Tech>>>truth. I also think the burden is on the debaters to point out misrepresented/powertagged evidence, so I won't interfere

-Text>spirit

-Ethical confidence

-The more creative you are/entertaining the round is, the better your speaks will be

-I think CX is something that can only help and not hurt you. If you're really funny in CX, your speaks may go up, but it's cool too if you need all of it for clarification questions if you don't understand the other debater's position. I also think it's fine if debaters are somewhat sketchy in CX because you should try to avoid exposing your own case's flaws (note: this does not mean lie or not explain things if you get asked to explain a warrant) but I guess this is an unpopular opinion

-I'm fine with debating evidence ethics issues out in round unless both debaters agree to ending the round

-You can ask questions after the round or send me a fb message/email about my RFD, but if you or your 100 coaches grill me aggressively, I will change your speaks to a 0 and walk out of the room

Specifics:

K’s: I’ve realized that I have a higher threshold and more preferences for K’s than other arguments, so don’t just read one in front of me because I used to read them. I really enjoy judging good K debates. I read everything from identity politics to high theory throughout my career, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to explain your K in simple terms. I also want K debates to be more tech.

-Please know your K lit. If you botch it I will be sad :(, and you will also be sad about your speaks.

-I evaluate the ROB similarly to a normative FW debate. You need to be winning your specific ROB+offense linking back to it for me to grant you the K. This does not mean engage in Oppression Olympics — rather, tell me why combatting colonialism controls the internal link to liberating womxn, why analyzing media is key to the res, etc. Also, please don’t read a performance without justifying why that’s important in the ROB/somewhere in the method because I?? Don’t?? Know?? Why?? You’re?? Reading it?????? And will probably ignore it. If there are 2 competing ROB’s and both debaters pretend that that debate’s a wash, I will be frustrated.

-I think methods debate is low key dying. I’m very willing to pull the trigger on presumption. AFF’s need to do something (this can be as vague as utopian politics or be hyper-specific to the topic — just don’t rant about how the world is horrible for 6 minutes.)

-Please have specific dis-ads to the perms (preferably ones that aren’t just generated off the links), and respond to each perm individually.

-I like brief overviews on the K if you’re running one, especially if your lit is really dense

-I've voted on the Cap K multiple times but think the cap good turn is underrated (but it doesn't work in every scenario depending on what you're running so pls don't impact turn cap just because I said this lol)

-I love nuanced K v K debates and don't think they're done enough!!!

Performance: totally cool with it. I read these and I like unique methods. Again, just warrant why it's important in the ROB. Trigger warnings are good.

Non-T AFF’s: go for them. Please have reasons as to why we should reject the res/interpret it differently. More thoughts on these in the “non-T AFF’s/K’s vs T/theory” section.

Theory: I really couldn’t care less about how frivolous the shell is, just slow down on interps and weigh standards

-I won't default any voters; you should be reading them. If you don't, I probably won't vote on the shell.

-Semantic I meet’s are, of course, cool :) but they don't trigger RVI's

-I tend to think disclosure theory is true, and will like you more if you disclose. That being said, if you win why disclosure is bad, I will vote for you. If you’re running disclosure theory, please have a screenshot in the speech doc/ready if I call for it.

T: I like T, I suppose, especially against non-T AFF's that don't do anything/arbitrarily say fuck the topic.

Non-T AFF’s/K’s vs. Theory/T:

-I don’t have a preference/bias as to which comes first; you should be doing this weighing.

-I really dislike generic fairness bad/theory and T are oppressive dumps. I would much prefer you interact with the standards or articulate why that specific shell is oppressive. That being said, if you do win an impact turn on theory/T, I will vote on it.

-The more specific your interp is to the AFF/K, the happier I will be, and the higher your speaks will be. I would also be much happier if you linked some parts of the shell back as offense under the ROB instead of excluding the entire K.

Tricks:

-I like these! I tend to find these to be pretty funny. (Update: I've noticed a trend of debaters throwing random tricks in there because they think I'll like it but they can't explain it or clearly had no intention of going for it. I really dislike that.)

-I don't care if you're sketchy about them in CX.

-Please number your analytics

-I like creative/trolly a priori’s

-I will not be amused if you read these against a K AFF and go “haha! Oppression doesn’t exist!!!” I will give you a L0 (to clarify, I don’t care if you read these against K AFF’s, just don’t be a dick.)

Phil/FW: I’m familiar with the common LD frameworks, but don’t assume that I know your lingo !

-I’m extremely skeptical of epistemic modesty (and honestly not even sure how it really works ngl)

LARP: please please please weigh!!

-I like unique plans/CP's/PIC's/etc.

-I've realized I'm kind of bad at understanding what CP's do (esp. if it's some other policy), so err on the side of more explanation

-Bonus points if your util fw isn’t just Bostrom/Goodin/Woller/Sunstein/Paterson/Sinnott-Armstrong/Bryant/Coverstone/Sinhababu/Yudkowsky

-I like plan flaw

I was a local/regional/national circuit debater in both LD and PF for 4 years for Timothy Christian School, but I spent my senior year solely debating Varsity PF. I am a stock judge who requires a resolutional debate. DO NOT SPREAD.

Some things to consider:

1. Extensions. If you want me to look at an argument in your final speech, it is essential that you extend it previously.

2. Outweigh. Give me a reason as to why your 25% is more important than your opponent's $200,000. Tell me how the people you are affecting are more important than your opponent's. Essentially, do not make me assume anything and do not make me pick which is more important.

3. Write the ballot for me. Give me clear voters during the round. Literally, tell me what to write on my ballot. Again, do not make me pick which is more important. Tell me why your side is more important.

4. I do have a sense of humor, and I will consider that in a round if done well.

I will vote off of the flow, so make sure to signpost. I will only intervene on the account that there are no voting issues during the round and no real arguments standing, that being said be clear and very selective.

Regarding speaks, make sure you are respectful, or I will not hesitate to lower your speak points.

Overall, debate is about having fun and gaining knowledge, so make sure you that every round is focused around this.

Experience:

I did debate from 2012-2016 on the regional and national level for Timothy Christian School. I did mostly LD, and one year of PF in senior year. It has been a while since I've interacted with anything related to debate so keep that in mind.

LD

Argumentation:

Even though I have prior debate experience, treat me as a parent judge that understands jargon. I am not saying you can't run high-level arguments, but if you do, please explain it thoroughly or else I may not be able to follow along. I value the framework debate and essentially if you win the framework and make several key extensions, I will vote for you.

Spreading:

In terms of spreading, as long as you are clear I should be okay, but please don't start at your top speed at the top of the case and build up to the top speed you want to go so I have a chance to get used to your voice and don't miss important framework arguments. I DO NOT want to be flashed your case before the round because I believe part of debate is to be able to communicate your case, not have me read it while you read through it in a way that I would not normally be able to flow.

I am not going to vote for an argument I don't understand whether it be because of its complexity of said argument/lack of proper explanation or whether it be because it was read/said too fast for me to understand, so let that be a warning. I would recommend not trying to do anything too "fancy" to avoid all of us being uncomfortable at the end of the round if/when I give my RFD. If you are used to a specific type of argument I am not saying you cannot run said argument, just understand where I am coming from and explain everything, specifically what I am voting off of, very clearly.

PF

Argumentation:

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

Speed:

Fast PF speed is totally ok for me

History:

I competed in debate through both at the high school and college levels. Since then, I have worked with a couple of debate teams, most recently with my two teens who compete. I have judged many Lincoln Douglas and PF debates (novice / JV and Varsity levels.) I was a policy debater in my competition days so, I do know how to flow and follow arguments.

View of Debate:

I am like a vigorous clash of issues and I am not a fan of accusations from one side that the other has violated some unwritten technical rule. Please, debate the resolution, counter the opposition’s claims, and respond to attacks. I do like interesting analysis and interpretation of the resolution, but please have it make sense. I am not a fan of spreading and will stop flowing if you are speaking to fast to be understood. If I can’t flow the debate, I assume that neither can your opponent. I can accept “fast” but it must be understandable and at a rate I can flow.

I love to see debaters use cross-x in a manner to lead their opponents down a road, only to find a dead-end with an ambush ready for them. In cross, lead your opponents with intentional questions to direct them where you want them and make your points! Please keep up with current events. I am impressed when debaters understand the issues they are debating and they can relate to current world events. A debate plan must make common sense and most judges read news and keep current. Know your topic!

Final Note:

Lastly, be courteous and respect your opponents. The winner of the debate will be the side that has the most persuasive arguments for/against and makes the most sense.

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

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

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

hi! i'm angie khadijah. i studied philosophy at columbia (barnard class of '22) and competed on the houston circuit for 4 years @ cinco ranch high school. i've worked for the NYCUDL, judged at national circuit tournaments, and currently work with the Brooklyn Debate League (BDL) -- i'm passionate about speech advocacy!

questions about my paradigm? wanna chat? confused about my decision? feel free to email me! angie@brooklyndebateleague.org

tldr; give me a weighing mechanism so you don't leave the round confused by my decision. impact thru everything. link chains are super important. i will always look for the clearest path to the ballot and try to be as tab as possible.

speed is totally fine, but clarity is essential in this activity. use jargon when its needed please.

i will drop a debater who wields anti-Black/racist/unapologetically insensitive etc. speech or behavior if their opponent asks me to. this is a speaking activity: you are responsible for your words.

LD

please add me to the email chain: angie@brooklyndebateleague.org

i am down to hear anything. this is your space, please use it how you'd like. i recognize the labor and time invested in this activity by so many of you, and sincerely thank you for sharing it with me.

i like kritikal debates, though i aim to be an approachable and reasonable judge for all levels/styles of debate :)

i am *not* the judge for you if t is your entire neg strat. i am not as well versed on t as some other judges and often find complex theory debates to be frivolous. i will hear anything, but want to remain fair to you!

i vote tech > truth but will definitely discuss truth-y issues if its problematic or if you wanna philosophize after the round.

i love performance and GREATLY appreciate all attempts to make the debate space less elitist + more radical.

impacts and links are important to me!

i avg 28.5 speaks. earn a 30 by being unique and memorable :)

yes i disclose and always try to give constructive feedback to both sides

PF

summary is the most important speech of the round, followed by rebuttal.

weigh! impact! tell me how to vote!! i love unique args.

i vote off my flow, looking for the clearest path to the ballot.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

debate is about education imo. feel free to talk about this space w me before or after round (or in round...do what you want)

HAVE FUN!! seriously, this activity is great and i hope to foster an inviting and intellectually rigorous space in all my rounds.

Overview:

I look for clarity, coherence, logic, and argumentative rigor. I am unable to flow spreading and believe that speech docs defeat the point. I care about comprehensibility. I don't need slow, flowery language, I just need to be able to flow and digest your arguments. Just because I am traditional does not mean I do not appreciate line-by-line. I think if you are able to debate technically as well as persuasively, and at a conversational pace, that is all the more impressive. Signposting and directly responding to arguments are equally as important as giving big-picture framing. I will vote based on the arguments as they are presented and articulated; however, for arguments that strain credulity I have a very low threshold for responses. I would prefer that debate jargon is kept out of the round. A cheat sheet:

Framework - As long as it is justified and provides a clear mechanism for evaluating the contentions. I do not need a value-value criterion structure or to hear "justice vs. morality" debates, a standard text is fine. Your contentions should have clear, logical warranting and provide a clear impact image. On the negative, if you wish to concede your opponents framework and read your contentions as "disadvantages" that is fine, as long as you are debating the topic, or you may read your "NC" and contest your opponents framework. Weighing is important. Implausible impacts like extinction are not persuasive (unless it is something that could reasonably cause extinction, like climate change).

Plans - No. This is Lincoln-Douglas debate, not policy debate. I want to hear arguments about the validity of the resolution. In that same vein, I will not vote on non-topical affirmatives. I am highly sympathetic to topicality in both of these cases.

Counterplans - No. The negative should prove why the topic is not desirable, not present a tangential counter-advocacy.

Theory - No. Debate the topic, unless your opponent is very clearly not and you have no other option.

Kritiks - No. Perhaps if articulated very well and with a very clear link to the topic, but in practice the amount of explanation required makes this not a strategic choice. Stick to substantive debate.

No Spreading. If I don’t understand you it’s no good.

Cite resources.

Time management but finish your thought.

I competed for Bronx Science 2012-2014, coached Scarsdale 2014-2016, and am now entering my last year of being involved with this activity by coaching independently. Conflicts- Bronx Science, Scarsdale, Lake Travis, and a few others.

Go slower then your top speed, if I don't catch an argument I am not going to flow it. I honestly don't care what is run in front of me- just signpost well and explain your arguments. slow down on tags and analytics. I am cool with flex prep. flashing/emailing better not take over a minute or it eats your prep time. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at dam13@geneseo.edu (use email for your email chains.)

Edited for LHP RR and beyond: I honestly hate most of the arguments run this year. Don't get me wrong, I love this activity and think that it's awesome but it seems like a bunch of you on the national circuit have taken it upon yourselves to ruin this perfectly nice debate event to the point that I wish I could travel back in time and force myself to join Policy. I haven’t heard much that I thought was smart or creative aside for a few Ks, a couple plans, and a single framework shell. As I am forced to make a decision, I will do my best to adjudicate but I can’t promise you will like my speaker points nor my decision. I got a little better at flowing but being able to hear y’all’s arguments probably will just makes me dislike them a lot more. Best way to win my ballot is to establish a clear framing mechanism and offense back to it. The saving grace for your speaker points and my sanity is the way you present your arguments. Being funny, making gutsy strategic moves, reading interesting arguments, and/or being smart will be rewarded with really high speaker points. If you are a robot that just reads docs please strike me or just have your coach speak for you instead. If you have a coach that wants to waste my time please strike me. If you want to read a case full of analytic arguments that sounds like you are reciting the alphabet or practicing how to count please, for the love of god, strike me. If I judge you I apologize in advance cause if I do and you do not listen to my advice then chances are I am just going to be replaying an episode of "Entourage" in my head instead of paying attention to your boring/asinine arguments. If you want a free conflict, feel free to send me a couple bucks on Venmo and we can claim a financial relationship (just kidding). If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask me in person (please do not attempt to contact me) about my thoughts on debate.

My pronouns are He/him/his- let me know yours before the round to avoid any issue

Overview:

Hi, my name is Angela. This is my first year as a speech and debate coach in Arizona who primarily works with LD debaters. I am most comfortable with traditional debate, but I do enjoy some progressive as well (I will elaborate below) and am able to follow it and dissect it since that is what my LDers do.

I am a high school English teacher, first and foremost, so a structured, logical, connected argument is most important to me. I need to be able to see the link to the resolution and your points.

Speed:

I am able to follow speed that is faster than conversational, but I do flow on paper, so if I cannot catch what you are saying, it doesn’t go on my flow. Please emphasize new points and headings. It should be clear where you are in your argument. In other words, do not spread.

Progressive:

Kritiks- NO non-topical Ks or K Affs; otherwise, I enjoy a well fleshed out Kritik.

Theory- I just don't evaluate theory at all, so it's wasted time that will probably lose you the round.

Counterplans/ LARP- No PICs. My only requests is to please leave your opponent some ground by not spec-ing them out of the debate. I do not want to be adjudicating Topicality debates because you wanted to be sneaky. That being said, creative plans and creative counterplans will enhance the debate and (if executed well). I default to a comparative worlds paradigm.

Any other progressive type cases I did not mention means I am completely unfamiliar with it, and you should not run it with me.

Flow:

As stated above, I can flow as long as you sign post and are clear of how many offs you are going to run.

Speaks:

My speak policy will generally operate like:

26 and below- you did something offensive and/or you did not make arguments/ you spread and I couldn’t follow your arguments

27 – some issues speaking, but passable on varsity

28 – average varsity speeches

29 – well-executed round; could have helped the case slightly with better warrants, impacting, etc.

29.5 – incredible round, with well thought out arguments and time allocation

30 – quite literally an unbeatable speech. I have only seen a few ever, and only executed this maybe once or twice.

Experience:

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

LD

Argumentation:

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

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

Sorry if you disagree with my decision.

Spreading:

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

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

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

PF

Argumentation:

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

Speed:

Fast PF speed is totally ok for me

Hello debaters, my name is Justin Matyas and I am a Social Studies and Law teacher at Randolph High School. I was not a member of debate when I was in high school, but I have always had an avid interest in research and schools of thought. I view myself as an educator in debate and in that manner view debate topics as tabula rasa. With that being said, make sure your sources are credible and well informed as biases in source will be taken into account. Again, coming at debate from an educational approach, I feel that debaters should learn how to evaluate a multitude of sources and be well rounded in their topics. Strategy is paramount as some topics are naturally advantageous to one side, but that does not mean that a debate cannot be won by the other side.

In terms of my preferences during the debate, I prefer for debaters to speak at a slower and steady pace as opposed to rapid. If I cannot hear or understand a point you are making, then you did not make it effectively and it will cost you in the round. In terms of prep time, I prefer for the debaters to keep track of their own, as again, this is a learning experience and the onus of responsibility is upon you as the entrant. I constantly take notes during the rounds as you are speaking so that I can maintain key points and reflect upon these when judging the rounds. Although I read my notes, they are merely based upon the points you successfully make during the debate, I will not read into your evidence and make the points for you so make sure you are abundantly clear during the debate itself.

LD Judging Paradigm - Ria Mazumdar (Updated February 2019)

My name is Ria, and I debated Varsity LD and Varsity Policy for Albuquerque Academy from 2010-2015. I am currently a senior at Tufts University double majoring in IR and Quantitative Economics, and I competed in American Parliamentary and British Parliamentary debate during college.

It’s been over a year since I judged LD so please feel free to ask any questions as I’m sure there’s a lot I have missed.

Disclosure: please disclose.

Speed: I judged LD for Harvard in 2016 and 2017 but have not been involved with LD otherwise since high school. This means that I need you to be extra clear and to really slow down for taglines and complex cards. Please make sure that the claim, warrant, and impact of all your arguments is clear and more than a rapid blip. If I have to keep calling clear, I will stop flowing your speech.

Types of arguments: I will listen to and flow any argument (exception: I will drop you for claims that are blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.). I had policy experience so I have no problem with plans, Ts, Ks. I do not enjoy frivolous theory or unending T debates. Be strategic, but please keep the debate interesting.

Speaks: Actively being persuasive will help your speaks far more than cramming everything in with your fastest spread. Analyzing your opponent’s arguments and pointing out fallacies/dissecting the logic of their claims/warrants/impacts will raise your speaks far more than simply cross-applying all of your cards from the constructive. Crystallize cleanly and weigh at the end of the round. Be respectful during cx (and during the rest of the round, for that matter).

I debated all throughout middle school and high school. I attended Polytechnic High school in Pasadena, California. My main event was Parliamentary although I've also competed in World Schools. I taught Lincoln Douglas and Parliamentary over the summer after my senior year of high school and first-year of college. I currently attend Harvard college and am an active member of the Harvard College Debating Union (HCDU).

As a debater, I appreciate rigorous argumentation and expect a lot of engagement with the other team's ideas.

I like off time road maps. I like overviews with voting mechanisms that are carried down the bench. I need weighing that directly engages with the other side's impacts. Don't try to win everything. Just show why the things you're winning matter more. Signpost so I know where to flow. I get annoyed by messy debates. If something was dropped by the other team, just tell me to extend it because it was dropped; I don't need you to retell me the argument/idea/piece of evidence/etc. Don't be mean to the other team because it will almost certainly hurt your speaker scores. Being assertive is not being mean; being condescending is mean.

Also, time yourself and your competitors because I will not.

I am a parent judge and I have judged a few times before. Please make sure to make eye contact. Be respectful of your opponent. Please be aware that we may be hearing your argument for the first time, so please do not rush.

I debated two years of Varsity LD and Varsity PF in high school. I’m a year post college now and it’s been a few years since I’ve been around or judged any kind of debate. I'll probably stop flowing if you start spreading. At the same time, I'll evaluate any kind of argument. Feel free to make it interesting or unconventional. No need to be overly formal. Be clear, respectful, and make good args and you'll get good speaks. Also time yourselves and each other.

If you paraphrase a piece of evidence and your opponent calls the card and all you have is a link to an article and you have to control F your way through the page to find what you are referencing I WILL NOT EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE. CUT YOUR CARDS.

Hi, I'm Casey! Did both speech + debate events as a youngin'. I've worked in developmental disability care since high school.

"Strike me and I'll give you 30 speaks" -a judge much funnier than me.

I'm a big believer that debate is a place where anybody from anywhere can come, view the debate, and understand a decent chunk of what is being said. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible, but have outlined circumstances in this paradigm where that goes to the wayside.

If you give me something to judge, and don't tell me why and/or how to judge it, chances are I'm gonna put that point/contention/whatever way at the bottom of my 'things to care about in this debate' list.

♥ A TL;DR of this Paradigm ♥

Don't spread. Quality of arguments over quantity. Be topical (on the resolution)- I'm fine with K's and the like as long as you link it somehow to the resolution (I'm very liberal with this). I'm not the best judge by any stretch of the word- SO, please don't use super dense lingo and expect me to understand it. Explaining dense concepts to me, ESPECIALLY THEORY AND KRITIKS (please and thanks) is necessary if you want me to understand and flow your case.

I don't do email chains.

Tricks debate bad. Unique points good. Being a jerk bad. Positive vibes good. Being condescending big bad. Weighing points good. Roadmaps fine. Extending points good. Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo. Have fun + drink water.

♥ ALL BELOW POINTS MOSTLY CONCERN LD/POLICY ♥

Don't spread- it's straight up unnecessary + cheapens debate to quantity > quality. (Woohoo, strike me!)That being said, I'm fine with people speaking faster than 'normal'. Check before round and you'll be Gucci 2 GoGo.

♥ That's that ish I don't like ♥

I am biased towards cases that do work to make a "positive" outcome the most attainable scenario. This doesn't mean don't run arguments that say the world isn't gonna end- if you can prove the world is gonna end, then seriously, do it.

Nihilistic/depressing arguments made for the sake of being depressing arguments make me fall asleep and fall into the ever expanding void of Lovecraftian horrors that no doubt live in the Hudson Bay (or so I've been told). I can overcome this bias but be aware you should be weary running an argument like this without being thorough with your link chain.

♥ Uhh idk what to call this section, maybe like 'stuff you probably should and shouldn't do' ♥

I don't care how you access your criterion, I just care that you actually access your criterion. Run any K, plan, CP, or what have you and I'll happily flow it as long as you've linked to the resolution and framework (dead serious- that's it!). If you're running a K, make sure it's topical (like, seriously, I'm a big stickler with this) and assume I don't know what you're talking about in the slightest and go from there- I'll go out of the way to say that traditional K's are an easier way to win. If you're using a K, I need to understand the link and the terms you use! It is not my burden as a judge to flow a point in LD that doesn't link back to your criterion/value/philosophy.

If you're running a plan or counterplan, the more unique the better IMO. Obscure ≠ Unique (Policy debaters are quivering at me saying that- I know, I'm scary- fear me).

I'm not the biggest big fan of how LARP-y LD has become in the past few years. I'm not opposed to it, per se, but strongly believe moral/ framework arguments should always come first in LD. If you're going to run a LARP-y case, have at, but show me why we shouldn't look to a moral system (or whatever way you want to conceptualize it as) to achieve the end result of the round.

Disclosure theory by itself is boring and I almost will never vote solely for it. Linking to T/standards violations/ something else otherwise than just disclosure is necessary for me to flow an argument like this. If you're using 'theory lingo' when discussing T and expect me to vote for the newest Reddit meme strategy, you're almost def wrong.

I usually see right through trick debate and hate it with a passion. This stuff cheapens debate. Sophistry and my bias against it won't be overcome by you running heavy theory for it, trust me. Same thing with frivolous theory.

Weigh your points (give me them sweet sweet voters), especially in your final speech. I won't vote a point down because you don't extend it, but I'll be a lot more skeptical that you just gave up on the point somewhere along the way.

♥ In Closing ♥

I don't like it when people are haughty, pretentious, or talk over others. Don't simply assume your argument is the best because your coach said so. If you sound like a jerk who's simply trying to destroy or demoralize your opponent, I'm a lot more likely to give you less speaker points. That being said, you should still try to destroy your opponent... but like, ~metaphorically, my dude~. This is high school debate. Save the attitude for real-life stuff, like people who think that water isn't wet, people who think Chipotle is better than Moe's (you're literally just lying to yourself, stop smh smh), and people who don't think pineapple belongs on pizza.

Finally, have fun. Bring a sense of humor. Bring some sarcasm. Bring some water. Water is good. Always.

Have a fantastic day, and keep growing and thriving in your Speech and Debate adventure!

Experience

Current Director for DFW S&D. I did LD/Policy/PF for HS (primarily Policy and LD) and so have experience with either format. I also competed for 4 years on the NPTE/NPDA circuit with some policy here and there as well in college. Short of it is that I have experience with most argument styles and formats so you should be fine with whatever you want to run. I generally judge LD if I judge at all, so I've written this paradigm for that format. If there are any questions due to me not judging you in LD, feel free to email/ask about those prior to the round.

In addition, prior to anything about debate argument preferences, if at any time a competitor feels uncomfortable/unsafe, you are free to contact me via email or other means if you would prefer it to not be voiced in round.

My email for chains is ianmmikkelsen@gmail.com , please include me.

Important Notes

I'm using this section to note a few things that are probably important in terms of general style, more than specifics of arguments.

Speed - I'm generally fine with speed so long as it works for everyone in the round. I should note that between debate for however long and my time in various graduate programs, I now suffer from fairly consistent hand and wrist pain that sometimes flares up to the point that I can't type all of the arguments given at a top speed. To accommodate this, I will generally listen along while reading the speech document, and copy it over to my flow as it happens. If you are adding analysis or giving the rebuttal, I would recommend slowing down to a quick, but not spread, speed if you would like me to make sure to get all of the analysis you give. I have yet to be in a round where analytics are both understandable and not capable of being typed, but if for some reason that occurs, I will say clear/slow.

This all being said, as a personal preference, I do enjoy a single comprehensive strategy that is carried throughout the round more than a spread of options that then get whittled down through conditionality/kicking theory. Not to say that I'll be knocking speaks or actually upset/annoyed by the latter, just a personal preference.

Speech documents - Related to speed, but somewhat different, I have noticed that there are times where individuals will send a speech document that contains most of their analytics, but fails to include a few independent voters. If you maintain a top spreading pace, and simply blaze through a sudden independent voter analytic that was not included in record time, I'm unlikely to grant it to you. If you slow down for its delivery and note that it is not in the document, I will flow it and include it at that time. I generally dislike being forced into these types of judgement calls, but the convergence of tech issues, difficult in having consistent audio quality, as well as just accessibility concerns, means I'm not sure how to adjudicate a round where by the time a concession of these arguments happens it's too late to identify whether it was just missed or something else impacting the round.

Theory/T

I'm generally fine with whatever theory position so long as it is relatively well developed. I generally view it as whether it is a theoretically good as a precedent and not as an instance of this specific round (i.e., you can win potential abuse arguments), but only if the argument is developed to claim that there is a fundamental shift in strategy due to just the presence of arguments (didn't run x really good argument because y theoretically objectionable choice removes it as a viable option). That being said, that is typically only on more stock theory. The more specific the theory is to a condition that only happens under either the specific resolution or within a specific round the more I need the theory to focus on in-round issues.

Kritiks

I'm good with most critical arguments and theorists. I ran too much of Agamben, Cap, Lacan, and other language k's. Identity based frameworks are more what I've gotten into with my actual studies and research post-undergraduate, so I'm familiar with the authors (as well as having had researched them for debate), but generally only ran that literature when the topic for the round made it more related to the political as opposed to the ontological claims of the literature. I will listen to the ontological criticisms that come from it, but generally found that my attempts to contribute to that aspect was less helpful than preferred due to a lack of experience and understanding personally.

Tricks

I'll be honest, I'm not exactly sure what a "trick" is in debate. From what I can tell, it is either a fairly specific and complex bit of theory/logic that is predicated entirely in the game of debate (willing to listen to that) or the term that individuals use for one liners that come without the explanation of what precisely they mean or how to evaluate it. Due to the time differentials of speeches, spikes in the AC which are meant for expansion in the 1AR make sense to me, but if the argument is underdeveloped upfront my general reaction is to either 1) disregard expansion if it isn't explained until the final speeches and doesn't seem immediately obvious from what was said or 2) to give the expansion but also allow an expansion of arguments against it. I've voted based on not understanding or following arguments before and am generally willing to do so, but would vastly prefer being able to have the full argument as that generally makes everyone happier.

Philosophy

I've read most of the "stock" philosophers from traditional LD, gotten deep into Foucault, Hegel, Marx, and other European authors, and have used my time after debate to get into identity frameworks that I didn't focus on as much as I should've. I've noticed that some philosophy aff/neg will sometimes run entire cases that take works from well before the concepts of the resolution were even discussed and attempt to apply them to the recent developments. My general sentiment on this is that it can be done, but that it is probably preferable to spend the time of research on finding what philosophical arguments are based in the literature, and then find the foundational texts afterwards. It is difficult for me to accept an application of books written in the early 20th century (and sometimes prior) to the development of recent technologies, especially when the literature applying those theories to these developments is generally fairly rich itself, over someone who has more topic specific discussions of the literature. But, I can be persuaded otherwise on this.

I did LD for American heritage '18 for three-ish years. I cleared at the TOC, got 7 career bids, and taught at NSD. I go to Duke university. Debate is awesome and I love judging.

TL;DR I like all arguments and will do my best to evaluate whatever debate you want to have

I think that judge paradigms that list out specific likes/dislikes for certain arguments and strategies create unnecessary stress for debaters — particularly on out-round panels — and distort their in-round decision-making process. I always hated those situations as a debater.

I believe that my role is to make the best decision possible. It would be cool if you made the round interesting but you should prioritize your own strategy above everything else. I almost want you to come into the round without even thinking about how to cater to my debate preferences

I do not like voting for arguments that I have to warrant using my background knowledge unless it becomes apparent to me that I am intervening. This applies to more than just K debates. I will try not to vote on an argument if I do not think a warrant was made in the initial speech.

There is a low probability that I catch every single argument and I doubt I will understand the warrant/impact of an argument as well as you do. Please help me make the least interventionist decision I can by emphasizing what arguments are relevant and guiding me through the way you see the debate round. This is especially true for phil or theory debates.

Other stuff

please put me on the email chain. davidmin42@gmail.com

I think all cards and pre-written analytics should be send in docs — even case extensions and overviews. If you send a card after a speech I don't think ur opponent needs to take prep for that. I won't enforce this but it certainly does annoy me when debaters are slimy w their analytics.

I find myself often not being able to hear interp/counter-interp texts especially when they have multiple planks. I never went slow for interp texts as a debater lmao. unless you send it in chat or email please be slow on interp texts for your own sake.

You can be super quick on extensions of conceded arguments

Good weighing is good

I think using CX as prep is fine lmao

I have more experience with theory, phil, and tricks. I study literature in school so much more familiar with K lit now. Again, I have no preference for a particular style of debate. Just want to be honest about my background.

I am an active coach and former advisor for Forensic Debate and Speech with 10 years experience judging tournaments at the local, state, and national levels. I am familiar with requirements at each level of competition, novice through varsity, for high school students. My original training and education was as an English teacher at the secondary level (NYS Eng/Language Arts, 7-12). In that capacity the importance of developing skills in reading, writing, speaking, listening, analysis and research, was the focus of training. When debating, the mastery of clear communication skills, and the ability to present a well supported, convincing argument come alive. A strong argument will demonstrate sharp critical thinking and analysis of an issue; these are key elements in both Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas debate. Presenting with clarity and enthusiasm is vital to delivering both affirmative and negative positions. Be aware of your speed: "electronic speed" that does not enhance articulate delivery is not an advantage. Your thoughts, reasoning, and the development of your position are essential. I identify as a diversity enhancing judge and support inclusion. The art of debate is a challenging, highly original, and thought provoking experience for everyone to share.

Linda Mohlenhoff

This is a new tabroom account so please excuse the lack of judging history.

I have participated in PF, LD and Policy within the 8 years of me being in the debate community.

Please email me if you have any questions as I continue to update my paradigm thank you.

H.montague1998@gmail.com

OR - If you have any immediate question for PREFS you can always find me on facebook Heaven Montague

UNDER CONSTRICTION:

Tech or Truth?

I am a technical judge BUT I WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY ARGUMENTS THAT MAKE STATEMENTS SUCH AS RACISM GOOD AND ETC.

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.

V/VC

The value and value criterion are the center of the debate. Please make sure your framework is well laid out and logical. I'll accept pretty much any structure, but make sure you convince me of why it works and why it is important.

Speed

Spreading is a fun trick, but it's useless in the real world. I'd prefer you didn't do it. You can red quickly but remember that debate is as much an exercise in public speaking as it is writing, argumentation, and critical thinking.

Contentions

A contention by definition contends something. Every argument should have a claim, warrant, and evidence.

Evidence/Cards

A well researched and originally written case always comes off better than a canned, prepared set of cards you get out of a brief. Citing an endless stream of cards and complaining because your opponent didn't name-drop all of the same people in their rebuttal is not debate. The evidence should be good, no matter who wrote it. It is nothing more than support for the argument and framework.

Rebuttals

I generally vote more off of the rebuttal speeches than the constructive. Reading a well written case doesn't take much talent. It's in the rebuttal that real creativity, critical thinking, and argumentation skills come into play. Make every speech count.

Voters

While voter issues are not required, they help me on the flow, so I encourage you to use them. Try to save time for them. Also, focus on the few best, don't try to summarize the whole debate in thirty seconds.

Signposting

Please signpost when you move between parts of the case. Slowing down to tell everyone that you're moving to another contention, or to another case makes a great deal of difference in how easily I flow. If I flow more easily, I consider you to be a more organized debater.

Electronics

I honestly don't have a preference about reading cases off of paper or a computer screen. As long as you're in compliance with tournament rules, you can use electronics for anything you want. Whatever works best for you.

Questioning

During the questioning period I rarely take notes, but I put some emphasis on how well you question and handle being questioned. Learning how to ask a question properly in debate is an art form, as is knowing how to answer questions.

Ethical Issues

I pay close attention to unethical behavior and I take it seriously. I don't like debaters being rude, getting personal, abusing time or arguments, or acting in otherwise unacceptable ways. It's a professional activity and academic in its nature. The same rules apply. I know that debate has clash, but make sure that it never crosses the line into ad hominem. Likewise, I have no tolerance for cheating. This is value debate, and I expect that you'll embody the values you advocate.

Other

In general, I don't mind any unorthodox framework or arguments. I like the creative exercise that goes into them. Still, it has to be coherent and logical. Be cautious about using debate lingo that not everyone is familiar with. Debate is a pedagogical exercise, so if your opponent comes out confused and disheartened, it's not a win, it's a loss for the event overall.

I did some debate in high school, but I'm by no definition an experienced judge. Please be slow and clear.

Hi I'm Jeff Morris and I'm a parent judge. I have judged a decent amount of rounds and did policy in high school so I know some lingo and can understand speed to a certain extent but don't assume I know everything.

Plans, counterplans and disads are fine.

Please do not read complex frameworks.

I have a vague understanding of theory and kritiks but I would suggest not reading them.

Please go no more than 30-40% of your top speed and be clear.

Additionally, please put me on the email chain @jeffreytmorris@yahoo.com

I will evaluate speaks based on strategy and persuasiveness and try to average a mid 28.

Have fun!

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

krishnamuruganaz@gmail.com for your email chains

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

Anyways, first things first: DONT SHAKE MY HAND

I honestly hate when people do that.

Actual paradigm stuff:

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

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

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

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

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

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

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

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

Speaks:

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

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

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

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

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

I'm a parent judge who has judged a few times on the local circuit. Make sure to explain arguments clearly and speak at a reasonable pace.

Update December 2020: I am removing from a mild head injury, I would probably advise against spreading especially with the online format.

Update January 2021: 60-75% speed is OK.

I am a special education teacher and coach debate for New Trier Township High School (IL). I debated Lincoln Douglas and some PF at Valley High School 2008-2013.

Online Debate: Please start the email chain before the round starts. YES, I would like to be included. megan.nubel@gmail.com. PLEASE slow down. If tournaments have guidelines/protocols for what to do if someone drops off the call, I will follow those. If not, please:

-Record your speeches on your own end in case someone drops off the call. If you do NOT do this, I'm sorry but I have to consider that your problem. If you are unable to for some reason please let me know before the round. You may want to record the speeches individually because some platforms/iPhone have length limits for recordings. Audio recording only is fine.

-If YOU drop off the call in the middle of the speech: finish the speech via recording and then send immediately via the email chain. We will time-check to verify your speech was within the time limit, etc. Your opponent will be provided with the time necessary to flow the recording.

-If YOUR OPPONENT drops off the call in the middle of the speech: finish your speech (again, you should be recording) and then immediately send via the email chain. I will provide up to the length of the missed speech for your opponent to flow before they must take prep/begin their speech.

-If YOUR JUDGE (me) drops off the call, finish your speech and send the recording at the end. I may rejoin prior to the end of the speech, but still send the recording so I can fill in the gaps. I will attempt to do so during prep time but may need additional time.

Overall: Debate the way you know how in the best way you can. Clearly explain your arguments, impacts, and interactions in the round. Articulate what my reason for the decision should be. Here's how I evaluate the round once it ends: (1) Look at the 2ar, decide whether there's anything the aff can win on, (2) if yes, consider neg interaction with that/those argument(s) and consider comparable neg offense then decide what wins, (3) if no, look at the NR and decide if there's anything that the neg can win on, (4) if still no, ???

General/neither here nor there:

-Sit wherever makes sense. I don't care which side sits in which place in the room, and feel free to sit or stand at any point in the debate.

-Flash before your speech but you don't need to use prep time to do so. Please flash analytics.

-I think brackets are fine in evidence if they are used *properly.* Please line down cards honestly and include full citations.

-The value is not particularly important to me; the value-criterion is how I evaluate the framework if it’s relevant in the round.

-I judge on the national circuit a few times tournaments year, so please don't expect me to know the general happenings or stock arguments.

-I don't flow off of speech docs but I will look at cards after the round (sometimes prompted, sometimes unprompted)

-Please disclose. There are some exceptions to this that are more lenient (local debater and you're not sure what that means, wiki down, etc) but if your opponent asks what the aff is, don’t leave them on read. You probably don’t have to disclose >30 min before the round but I’m open to hearing otherwise.

Arguments:

-I don't default to anything on theory or T, I just sit there very confused when things aren't explicit and justified. If you justify the argument once and it's dropped, then it becomes my default.

-I'm familiar with most types of arguments (traditional, disads, advantages, plans, theory, topicality, critical, types of counter-plans, types of perms). I have heard of and judged most frameworks used in debate but I'm not deeply knowledgeable about any.

-Sometimes I’ll get questions like “are you ok with...” or “will you listen to...” and the answer is yes. There are no arguments I feel so strongly about that I’ll reject them outright. I don’t even really have arguments I prefer. It’s my job to judge the debate so I do. That being said, I will react negatively if your argument feels abhorrent.

-Complete extensions are a must. Claim, warrant, and impact. Please do your impact analysis for me and address all aspects of the debate in your crystallization. If I don't clearly understand your side and ballot story, you might not get my vote because of confusion or misinterpretation on my end. Pre-correct for my potential judging errors in your speeches.

Delivery:

-I have high-frequency hearing loss so my ears ring. If you anticipate your speech will include very loud noises or high-frequency pitches from music, etc, please let me know.

-I'm not going to flow what I don't hear or understand. Sometimes I say clear or slow or louder if necessary. I don't always look at my keyboard or computer when I'm typing, so if I'm looking at you it doesn't necessarily mean I'm not flowing. I can type very fast so sometimes I’ll just flow extensions verbatim to sort them out later.

-If I'm flowing on paper you probably need to go about 60% of your top speed. If I am flowing on a computer it’s all good, just work up to your top speed and slow down on tags, transitions between offs, etc. If I miss the author name I just write “CARD/“ on my flow.

Please feel free to ask me about anything not mentioned here that might be pertinent to your debate. I can't say I have many strong opinions in any direction way when it comes to debate styles, arguments, etc.

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.

Hi! I’m a student at Harvard College and a first-time LD judge. Try to avoid spreading, theory, and dense philosophy. Crystallize at the end of the 2N and 2AR.

Email: spencer.orlowski@gmail.com

please add me to the email chain

New Paradigm 4/26/24

Top level thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

Collapsing is a good idea generally.

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

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

General thoughts on arguments

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

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

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

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

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

For PF

2^nd rebuttal should collapse and frontline

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

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

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

she/her

email: arianamoira@gmail.com

Fine with anything, but the more complicated the arg the higher the threshold for arguing it!

I've judged very little since I've graduated (2017) so I really can't flow high speeds anymore. You won't lose speaks unless I have to say clear an unreasonable amount of time, but I become a much less reliable judge the less I can understand.

I studied philosophy in college so while I'm well-versed in a lot of thinkers, make sure you don't take for granted the niche-ness of high school debate rhetoric! This is not to discourage radical/experimental Ks or arguments though, it is very cool to hear how debate has evolved and what are the popular paradigms of the day :)

Anything else feel free to ask!

Hello! Welcome to my paradigm. I'm currently a 3rd year college student at Vanderbilt University, and I competed in LD debate all 4 years of high school. I was largely into running Ks and not really a tricks debater, but I'm open to listening to pretty much anything.

Things I like:

- framework debates

- K vs K

- policy-like rounds/arguments

- CLEAR and ENUNCIATED arguments. I'd rather you be slow than blaze through a speech that made zero sense.

- traditional debaters need not be scared of me-- nice, slow, classic LD rounds are often the most engaging to me.

- confidence

Things I don't like (I'll still vote on it but your speaks will suffer):

- when people run the same theory shell every round, I can tell

- a laundry list of interps and then triggering the one that gets dropped

- being mean

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!

Style:

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

Content:

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

College debater on both the American Parliamentary and British Parliamentary Circuit. Arguments should have a claim, warrant, and impact and be accessible to all debaters in the round. Weighing and comparison is very important to me - this and other analytics should be slower if you want them on my flow. Spreading too much will result in me not flowing your entire speech.

Hello,

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

I have been judging on the national circuit intermittently for the last 3 years for my daughters. In the last two years I have judged VLD (most often prelims and once a bid round) and VPF rounds, primarily the LD. I am a parent judge. Please go slowly, be persuasive, and avoid using debate-jargon.

I really enjoy cross examination and have been known to vote off of it. Be sure to make eye contact. I appreciate professionalism (being on time, being respectful, etc). I award speaker points based off of communication skills.

I do not fully understand high level arguments (kritiks, theory etc). I would prefer if you had more arguments rather than focusing on one idea. This doesn't mean just read several random cards, but 2-3 contentions or advantages will be much better than 1 off K.

Have fun and be nice! Thanks!

Reshini Premaratne (She/Her/Hers)

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

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

Conflicts: Maggie L. Walker Governor's School

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

Overall

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

Speed

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

Theory/Topicality

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

I am a very traditional judge.

Want to win?

Convince me of your value and criterion. Then show me that your side better upholds that criterion. Impact back to the criterion. Signpost. No spreading please.

Poems amuse, but do not convince.

Interpretive dance does not convince either, but will result in an automatic +1 speaker point.

When possible, quote Nietzsche.

My name is Zeran Qiu. i go by Oliver. I am an international student currently studying at Brandeis University. I have debated for three years in the NSDA Chinese division as a public forum debater. I would love it if debaters can respect everyone's pronouns and avoid excessive generalization during rounds. I would prefer debaters give arguments that are warranted and backed up with evidence. The speeches shall be delivered in a manner accessible to all people, i.e. avoid unnecessarily difficult terms and ideas and spreading.

I am generally a traditional judge. Speed is not such a big issue for me, but if you start spreading or speak erratically, I won’t flow. Just make you can articulate your words clearly and your argument itself is clear as well. However, I will most likely not flow if you start spreading.

Please respect your opponents. Just make sure you do clear signposting and show why you are winning the round over your opponent. The addition of new arguments where they should not be present is grounds for both speaker point reduction and won't be flowed towards any progressive argumentation of contentions that mention your new argument. I will vote off of the flow. Lastly, slow down at taglines/plans, and I focus on the quality of the argument rather than the number of your arguments. Overall, this debate is about having fun and gaining knowledge, so make sure that every round is focused on this.

For BQCFL:

I am only aware of the LD topic, I have not judged any rounds for it

For PF, I previously judged for Yale, so I know a few of the arguments for this topic

Flow Judge - If it is not on my flow it does not exist in the round.

Speed is fine. Enjoy technically proficient debaters. Poor time allocation is a pet peeve of mine.

Will doc speakers for uncivil/ungracious opponents.

Coach (LD/PF)

Former LD/Policy/PF Debater

I'm currently in my 3rd year of parli debate and debated in policy for Sci Tech for 4 years. This means that it's unlikely you'll be speaking too fast for me to understand at any point, but if you're unclear and don't become clearer after I've 'clear'ed you a couple of times, it'll hurt your speaks. Arguments should have a claim, warrant, and impact and be accessible to all debaters in the round. I am very open to any kind of argumentation (including K's) as long as those three things are included. Weighing and comparison is very important to me - this and other analytics should be slower if you want them on my flow. CX should be just as argumentative as your speeches.

And I shouldn't have to say this, but don't be mean.

I'm a Harvard student, newly hired for the Harvard Tournament this year. I'm not very experienced with LD specific debate strategies. I will choose the winner based on whose argument holds up the best.

Updated 9.25.2020

Hey y'all, I'm Claire (she/her/hers). I'm an assistant for NFA-LD debate at Lafayette College. I previously coached LD & CX for Ridge HS (NJ), and at Western Kentucky University. I competed successfully in NFA-LD (1-person policy) & limited preps @ WKU, and in a multitude of formats for Blaine HS (MN). I hold a B.A. in Communication Studies.

tl:dr/general -

I consider my self as tab as possible, and familiar with the conventions of all debate events beside PF. I spend nearly all of my time in the world of NFA-LD, though I still like to keep up with HS debate as much as is reasonable.

Treat others as you would want them to treat you. Stand up for yourself and others when others violate that expectation. I'll do the same. Forensics should be accessible and comfortable.

Performance skills matter and boost speaks/determine ranks, but of course it's different what that looks like in each event. Speed is fine, but be cognizant of your opponent, other judges, and which event you are actually competing in (Policy is policy, local LD is not circuit LD, and congress & extemp require public address skills). If you can't/don't want to stand, go for it.

Strategic execution (tech) always comes first, but any page can only be won with superior warrant analysis (truth) under an offense/defense paradigm. After that, weigh everything. Weigh dropped arguments, don't just extend them. While clearly dropped arguments can be devastating, if it's simply a poorly constructed argument then it probably won't factor heavily for me.

Don't advocate for fascist, racist, sexually violent, ableist, or otherwise bigoted arguments. I don't want to hear death good, skep, or religion. Other than that, you do you - Mearsheimer to Moten, I'll listen - but it's still your prerogative to properly articulate your argument. T/Theory is fine.

I read/went for the following most often (in order): big advantages & topic DAs, politics, impacts turns, T/Theory, advantage & agent CPs, post-structuralism, cap, a range of environment literature. I'm academically experienced (in order of depth) on semiotics, discourse theory, normative ethics, Marxist theory, post-structuralism, and existentialism. I pursue a personal reading interest in IR theory, criminal justice, environmental issues, and the milieu of national politics.

Event specific -

CX/NFA-LD --

Aff

Specificity of plan text and quality of solvency evidence matter to me. If the neg ultimately defends the status quo but doesn't have good case args, it's likely the neg will lose. It's surprising I have to say these things, but it happens more often than one might expect.

Kritikal and Performance affs are fine, topical or not. This does not imply I won't vote on framework if won by the neg. That, however, does not imply i automatically vote neg on framework every time. I hold the advocacy to the same scrutiny I would for a plan.

I enjoy framing & weighing out of the 1AC.

Disads

I most often see DA debate as a question of who controls the direction of the link offense. Obviously weighing is a must, but I put a lot of stock into this - that or impact turns. Solely defensive strategies, even with impact framing tend to be non-persuasive. Some terminal defense exists (like bill already passed, etc.) - definitely an exception.

I went for politics A LOT, and really enjoy these debates.

Counterplans

I'm open to most strategies.

It's pretty uncommon for me to vote on condo bad. I'm more open to positions like PICs or States bad.

Presumption doesn't necessarily flip to the aff - specifically if the 2NR has good case arguments with DA/Turns.

CP solvency/text should be at least as detailed than the 1AC's, if not more. That said, the CP doesn't necessarily need to solve 100% - whether on probability or scope, if CP has a high risk of solving the most of the aff that can be sufficient if the DA/Turns outweigh.

Kritiks

I enjoy good K debates the same as any other strategy. As a judge I end up seeing this debate a lot, and have no real preferences for or against any given strand of literature or in-round execution.

I'm most familiar with literature stemming from the continental branch of philosophy. Some of my personal favorite authors include Baudrillard, Bookchin, Butler, Deleuze, Debord, Foucault, Luxembourg, Marx, Morton, & Zizek. That said, the majority of K debates I judge tend to be questions of identity and security (respectively) - which I also enjoy. I feel comfortable evaluating most anything.

I don't think the neg must absolutely go for/win the alternative, so long as the neg has good framing. Really, though, the neg should always be winning framing.

I generally find pure theory to be unpersuasive as an aff response. Perms are usually the best route, so are researched defenses of contemporary policy-making.

I've been finding lately that really close K debates have come down to who better presents empirical examples of the link and alt to contextualize theoretical warrants.

T/Theory

I particularly enjoy good topicality debates. I default to competing interps & jurisdiction voters.

I like theory debate so long as it relates to a Plan/CP/Alt/RoB text, or another theory text (a good RVI is rare but persuasive). In other words, ASPEC is cool - bracket theory is meh. Strike me if you're going to complain about your opponent's attire.

I'm neutral when it comes to FW debates - I'll vote for performance/sans-plan K affs as much as I vote for Framework. I generally place a high value on arguments over the academic & personal value of one's scholarship. Fairness is important, but I see these debates as ultimately a question of who wins (in the context of the round) that their educational/pedagogical praxis is preferable.

Clear & specific wording of interpretations is critical. Same with contextualized violations. If you're going to go for it, make it clean.

Great 2NRs/2ARs go all-in, and put voting issues at the top of the speech.

I don't like abstract reasonability arguments - my likeliness to vote for reasonability is entirely based on either the strength of a legitimate I-meet or the counter-interp's ability to resolve a substantial portion of the neg standards.

Outside of framework, I generally think fairness comes first.

Misc.

Please use speechdrop. Prep stops when everything is put in your document. Don't steal prep.

Flex prep is fine.

CX is binding. I pay attention to CX. Excellent CX will boost your speaks.

Always weigh everything. Excellent weighing will boost your speaks.

Always collapse the debate. Excellent collapses will boost your speaks.

If the round is left unresolved, I will intervene and do my own comparison. I will be as fair as I can do each side and will let you know if this happens.

I'll always disclose unless told otherwise. More than happy to answer questions.

Bonus speaks for 'Good' Anarchism, DeDev, & Extraterrestrials arguments.

HS LD --

Progressive

You can really just check my CX paradigm for most of my substantive preferences. Here are some event specific thoughts:

Aff -

>Please justify your framework.

>I have a low threshold for 1AR/2AR extensions given the time, but warrants are still a must. I hate tag fights more than anything. 2AR impact weighing is fine.

>spending ~2:00 extending the aff card-by-card will likely lose you the round and tank your speaks. Part of the game is parsimony and efficiency. Have an overview for a page and do line-by-line.

>I will evaluate and occasionally vote on 1AR theory, but the stupider the argument, the less likely I am to vote on it. Things like CP theory, and RVIs against super abusive T/Theory NCs are infinitely better than, say "pre- or post-fiat, but not both" or "my opponent is wearing a tie". Even when 1ar theory is good (rare), there's usually not enough time to develop and win.

Neg -

> The 1NC should have framework comparison - waiting until the NR rarely pays off. 2NR impact weighing is fine.

> Please collapse in the NR - don't go for everything. Winning/high speaks NRs usually go all in on T/Theory or the K, or go for case and/or CP with a DA. Leaving yourself multiple outs is smart, but this should be done in reference to whatever you go for ('case or CP' or 'turns or DA') - not wildly extending everything in the NC.

>80% of my rounds end up being Policy-making or K debates, and I don't have any event specific thoughts here. K framing work should be done in the NC, though this seems obvious.

>'Phil' debate: I think ethics debates are super fun, and really enjoy the literature. I will evaluate these debates, though I have two thoughts: (1) Just because it's LD doesn't mean I have to/will automatically default to ethical theory over policy-making or the K (2) extending 5-second blips you label 'a prioris' without warrants and spewing jargon without explanation is not a winning strategy - understand your ethic and interact it.

> Again, T/Theory is fine, but the dumber the argument, the less likely I am to vote on it. I enjoy actual T debates over words in the res, and theory debates over writing of the plan (ASPEC, Vagueness, etc.). I can't stand 'formal dress theory' or 'bracket theory' - do some prep and make real arguments.

> I'm slightly more likely to vote on condo bad in LD than CX. Same thing with reasonability - though this is all relative.

Traditional

Do your thing - I'm super tab, keep a good flow, and am fairly well read. I've invested a lot of time into this style of the event as a coach and really enjoy it. I don't have many thoughts here - I'd check my tl:dr section for general debate things.

> Please justify your framework - it's shocking the proportion of debaters who don't or do so poorly.

> Warrant and weigh - the earlier the better.

> Don't take excessive prep for early speeches (NC/1AR).

> If you want to kick framework and go for case, go for it. These debates are often the most fun.

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.

I am a parent judge from Westborough, MA with three years of judging in local and natcircuit tournaments.

Talk slow and do not spread

Organize your speeches and explain your arguments well

Avoid debate jargons

Do not assume I know all the abbreviations

Relative numbers provide lot more information than absolute numbers. For example, if you tell me the impact is $50 million, Is that on a GDP of $20 trillion or on a country with a GDP of $500 million

If you are providing a statistic, check on what the other team is talking about too. For example, one team could say that imports increase of 15% and the other team could say exports decrease by 20%. Ideally both teams should talk about the same statistic and the impact. If not, you should tell me what matters the most (import or export) and the impact in terms of dollars, employment etc.

Try to build a narrative and a theme throughout the round

Overwhelming me with data and evidence tags is not good. I am looking for a combination of logical reasoning with data

Exclude Extinction arguments and theory

A few well defended high impact arguments are way better than going all over the place

Please weigh well and provide clear reasons to vote for you

I debated in LD for 2 years at Cambridge Rindge and Latin. This is my first time judging.

Overall: I will listen to any argument as long as it's not explicitly racist/homophobic/etc. I generally want to be as tab as possible, but I naturally have some biases.

K: I read a lot of these in high school. I'm fine with anything you want to read, but I'll give you more speaks if your Ks are not just run of the mill Ks (generic cap Ks)/if you give specific links to the aff.

T/Theory: They're fine. I like listening to good/creative T arguments, but I don't necessarily want to hear your 5 year old teammate's recycled theory shell. Be clever and creative. I default no RVIs, but of course this can change through the debate.

Framework: Please explain especially dense frameworks.

Stock: Also can be very fun if executed well.

Speaks:

I won't give speaks below 27.5 unless you truly did something bad in round. That being said, my point scale is roughly:

30.0 - I expect you to win this tournament

29.5 - I expect you to be in late elims

29.0 - I expect you to break

28.5 - You are close to bubble

28.0 - There were some glaring mistakes in your strategy

27.5 - Your strategy was incoherent.

Things I will doc speaks for:

- Being blatantly disrespectful to your opponent or to me.

- Texting/messaging/not paying attention to the 2AR.

About me: I am a parent judge in LD, PF, and Parli. My professional background is in IT.

Basics:

• Tell me why and on what grounds you’re winning -- this matters a lot
• Tell me how I should evaluate the round. Give me the standards
• ALWAYS make comparative claims about the other teams evidence & arguments (in relation to yours). Direct clash is important
• Speed is good, but clarity is far better. Be efficient with your speeches. If you can’t speak quickly without slurring, don’t speak quickly
• LD and Policy Specific -- Favorite strats to least favorite. Respect this order, but avoid if possible.
• Politics/Case
• Impact turning the whole case
• Topic specific T
• Politics/Process CP
• PIC with internal net benefit
• Ks
• Be nice. I will not give good speaks to people who act inappropriately in rounds or to their partners/team. Being offensive is not funny. I refuse to accept abuse in round.

General

Performance/Non-traditional: I default to traditional.

Speaks: 28 is average. I doubt you'll get a 30. Try not to talk into your paper/flows/laptop because I won't say "louder" unless it's really extreme and I might be missing arguments. Speak clearly and persuasively.

Participated in LD my final year of high school in Utah. Currently, I am a sophomore at Boston University and have been doing American parliamentary as a part of BU Debate Society for the past year and a half. I've been judged several tournaments before.

Disclaimer Regarding Debate Etiquette:

How you dress, style your hair, etc. is completely irrelevant to me. What I value highly is respect. Please do not be distracting in any way, especially when a speech is being made. Any bigotry, such as sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, classism, etc. will not be tolerated in any form whatsoever. All gender identities are welcome. Please use any other persons preferred pronouns if given. I expect all debaters to be mature and respectful of their opponents at all times. I also expect each debater to be mindful of their arguments as to not in any way be or appear to be insensitive to another debater or myself.

Round Preferences:

- With regards to speaking, I don't care if you speak fast or speak slow. It will not affect my judgment. I've judged rounds where debaters have had issues with stuttering, and it in now way affected the round. Just please be clear when speaking.

- Please be aware of your time. Don't continuing giving your speech when your time is done. I'm pretty illiberal when it comes to time. If desired, I may give warning signaling how much time is left in your speech.

- Be thorough with your arguments. 2 great offensive arguments are better than 3 weak ones. That's not to say that you shouldn't include as many arguments as you want or need. Do whatever you think helps you.

- I need clear warrants and meaningful impacts. Any warrant I'm given I'm immediately neutral towards, so you need to explain in detail why it is true and therefore why your argument works. Impact I find to be unlikely or unimportant I'll probably ignore. Even if I know the impact is important, I won't vote on it well if its not explained to me. Your arguments should be weighed in the round so I know exactly what you think is most important in the context of the round and can adjudicate accordingly. I shouldn't have to assume what the most important arguments are in the round.

- I'd prefer evidence and examples be given frequently. It adds more weight and importance to your argument. But providing evidence or given an example is not an argument in itself, so use them appropriately.

- Humor is fine. Just please keep it appropriate and not terribly offensive. I'm really bad at understanding sarcasm, so it's likely any sarcastic comment will go over my head.

- You probably already know this, but don't lie, make stuff up, etc. Any false information probably won't help all that much, and if I can tell you're knowingly lying one way or another, it will affect my decision. If you're oblivious to any false info given, you should probably do better research.

Pace adequately and modulate to get your argument heard. Be concise, persuasive, clear, and understandable. Spreading is fine as long as it is not at the expense of being incomprehensible.

I give due credit to the framework and impact analysis they deserve.

I do value contemporary and relevant arguments. Any studies/anecdotes/quotes that very much align with your standpoint are welcome.

If you are referring philosophies, ensure they carry enough relevance. I would scrutinize any esoteric or complex philosophy to ensure they are represented and referenced appropriately to your arguments.

Emphasis is on a hybrid of Flow & Policy. Preferably the case with the most logical, relevant, and pointed arguments both qualitatively and quantitatively.

I am a traditional judge. If you spread, or otherwise speak too fast (such that I cannot follow the flow), you will lose points. I will not read an outline and cannot provide points or wins for arguments that I cannot follow simply by listening to them. If you make up evidence and your opponent shows that, you will lose points. You should be basing your arguments on real support, as well as the logic and reason that flows therefrom. You must be professional in all aspects of your presentation, particularly cross examination - sarcasm is not a valued tool in a debate. Respect both your opponent and the judges.

I debated for Lake Highland for four years qualifying to the TOC my senior year.

Ultra-short version: I’m comfortable evaluating rounds that are K, framework, or theory heavy. I’m fine listening to util/LARP rounds, but I might not be the best judge to adjudicate them. Don’t forget about Hume.

Warrants: Unless you justify why I should accept something without a warrant (for example, oppression is wrong), arguments must have warrants. Fancy rhetoric != a warrant. Repeating the claim twice != a warrant. “My author says so” != a warrant (unless there’s a reason the author is an authority and is making a descriptive claim they are qualified to make). Arguments without warrants are just claims, as a result I will not vote on something that does not have a warrant. I will, however, vote on arguments with warrants that are clearly false and essentially nonsense so long as your opponent doesn’t point out the nonsense.

Ks: I'm familiar with a lot of K lit ranging from Wilderson to Heidegger so feel free to run whatever you have in front of me.

Theory: Offensive counter-interps are great. I might be a bit annoyed if you run a clearly absurd and obscure shell, but I’m fine evaluating theory rounds. I think education and fairness aren’t voters arguments are underutilized. I default CI until/unless reasonability is justified.

Extensions: If and only if the claim is uncontested, you don’t have to extend the warrant. I’ll be pretty lenient on 2ar extensions. You don’t have to extend theory interps or violations if no I-meets are made (still extend counter-interps).

Speaker points: Here is a list of things I think are awesome and will earn great speaks:

• Science or mathematics used to justify positions (automatic 30 if original/unique/uncommon)
• Hume’s inductive fallacy
• Condo logic
• Original/uncommon positions
• Impact turns
• Cleverly triggered permissibility

Speed: Start slow then ramp up speed. Your speed should be inversely proportional to the blipy-ness of your speech. If you want to emphasize something specific, slow down slightly for it.

If you have any questions, ask me before the round.

I vote for the side that better convinces me, so make logical, coherent arguents and speak clearly so I can understand you. I will not tolerate spreading in the round; if you spread in the round, I may vote against you for that reason alone. Also, I dislike tech. So, avoid running DA's, counterplans, plans, theory, kritiks, and other technical arguments.

The way I judge is straightforward and methodical. Keep this in mind when I am judging your debate. This is the way I judge rounds:

1. First I decide which framework (i.e. value and value criterion) is best suited for the round

2. Then, I go through each contention on either side individually and evaluate whether the aff or neg on each contention. If the aff won an affirmative contention, then I will consider that in my final decision. However, if the neg won that contention, I will drop that contention. Same goes for the neg side.

3. Finally, I weigh the standing contentions on each side against each other. I decide which contention(s) are stronger in the context of the winning framework.

So, these are the things you should do to win a round that I am judging:

1. First and foremost, do not spread. I cannot understand a debater that spreads and will tend to vote against them. As a general rule, do not talk faster than 7.

2. To ensure that I catch all the most important parts of your case (like the value, value criterion, and each of your contentions), try to slow down and emphasize when you are introducing your framework and each of your contentions. Throughout your entire case, speak clearly.

3. Make sure you clearly advocate for why you won your contentions and why your opponent lost their contentions.

4. Make strong weighing arguments and explain clearly why your contentions fit the winning framework better than the opponent's contentions.

5. Keep track of time and maintain formality throughout the round.

I am looking forward to judging your debates. Good luck debaters!

Coach since 1996 - started team at Clover Park High School (3 years) (Coach at Puyallup High School since 2000)
Competed in high school and college - Policy, LD, platforms, and interp.
Charter Board member of The Women's Debate Institute

General - (scale of 1-10) 1=low, 10 high
Speed - 6ish -7 ish, if you are ridiculously clear
Topicality - 3 - I have little regard for T, if you are going for it, it better be your only card on the table and the violation should be crystal clear and beyond egregious.
Kritical Arguments - depends - I'm very interested in language kritiques, but generally speaking I have little tolerance for po-mo philosophy - I think the vast majority of these authors are read by debaters only in the context of debate, without knowledge or consideration for their overall work. This makes for lopsided and, frankly, ridiculous debates with debaters arguing so far outside of the rational context or the philosopher, as to make it clear as mud and a laughable interpretation of the original work. It's not that I am a super expert in philosophy, but rather a lit teacher and feel like there's something that goes against my teaching practice to buy into a shallow or faulty interpretation (all of those dreary hours of teacher torture working on close reading practices - sigh). Outside of that, I'm interested on a 7ish level.
Framework - 9 - I'm all in favor of depth v. breadth and to evaluate the framework of a round or the arguments, I believe, can create a really interesting level of comparison. What drives me crazy is, what appears to be, the assumption that framework is a done-deal. That there is only one way to view framework, is faulty and counter-intuitive. It is the job of both teams to advocate, not just their framework, but the logic behind their framework.
Theory - 8ish. While I'm generally fascinated, I can, very quickly be frustrated. I frequently feel that theory arguments are just "words on the page to debaters" - something that was bought on-line, a coach created for you, or one of the top teams at your school put together at camp. It quickly falls into the same category as po-mo K's for me.

Just a me thing - not sure what else to label this, but I think that I should mention this. I struggle a lot with the multiple world's advocacy. I think that the negative team has the obligation to put together a cohesive strategy. I've had this explained to me, multiple times, it's not that I don't get it - I just disagree with it. So, if at some point this becomes part of your advocacy, know that you have a little extra work to do with me. It's easiest for my teams to explain my general philosophy, by simply saying that I am a teacher and I am involved with this activity bc of its educational value, not simply as a game. So go ahead and lump perf con in with the whole multiple worlds advocacy

Ok, so my general paradigm is 1.) play nice. I hate when: debater are rude to their own partner, me, the other team. Yes, it is a competition - but there's nothing less compelling than someone whose bravado has pushed passed their ability (or pushed over their partner). Swagger is one thing, obnoxiousness is another. Be aware of your language (sexist, racist, or homophobic language will not be tolerated. In my mind, this is not just as issue that will affect speaker points but potentially the round.) 2.) Debate is a flexible game; the rules are ever changing. The way that I debated is dramatically, different then the way that is debated today, versus the way that people will debate 20 years from now. I believe this requires me to be flexible in my paradigm/philosophy. However, I, also, believe that it is your game. I hate it when teams tell me over and over again what they believe that they are winning, but without any reference to their opponent’s positions or analysis as to why. Debate is more of a Venn diagram in my mind, than a "T-chart".

I don't actually believe that anyone is "tabula rasa". I believe that when a judge says that, they are indicating that they will try to listen to any argument and judge it solely on the merits of the round. However, I believe that we all come to rounds with pre-conceived notions in our heads - thus we are never "tabula rasa". I will try my best to be a blank slate, but I believe that the above philosophy should shed light on my pre-conceived notions. It is your job as debaters, and not mine, to weigh out the round and leave me with a comparison and a framework for evaluation.

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!!

I competed in circuit LD for 4 years at MSJ and went to the TOC twice. I haven't been involved with debate in over a year.

I will evaluate every argument you present to me to the best of my ability. That being said, my abilities are quite limited, so proceed with caution and explain your arguments well.

If you read anything other than theory, Kant, util/structural violence, and basic K's (cap, black nihilism/afropess, fem, imperialism), assume I have no background in whatever you are talking about. I’m horrible at pomo.

I long to see a good theory or T debate. If you have one, I will be happy and reward you with speaks.

I like it when you give me clear overviews and write my RFD for me. If you don’t weigh, I reserve the right to resolve impacts however I see fit. If you fail to clarify something, I will default to however I’m feeling in the moment.

Extra speaker points if you conduct a fire cross ex or sit down early. Lower speaker points for making people cry, saying something that offends me, and/or being rude. Speaks determined by strategy not speaking ability (stolen from Fink). I will yell slow and clear. The sooner the round is over, the happier I will be and the higher your speaks will be.

I don’t care if you disclose. If you’re mean to me after the round, I will leave the room and give you a 25.

I suck at flowing so include me on your email chain. You get five minutes of prep but that includes flashing cases (stolen from Travis Fife).

I make a lot of facial expressions. Pay attention to them. The angrier you make me the less likely I am to resolve unclear issues your way.

Don't be mean to novices.

I enjoy strong framework. Present your case, support your case and weaken your opponents case. This is about you, so do your thing.

 Hi. 

I am a parent. Pref accordingly. 

THE OG PARADIGM

Former Competitor: 2008 - 2011

Coach - 2011 - 2019

Speed - Go for it, I am not the best with speed but if you go for it, it isn't going to lose you points. I won't say clear or give you any indication that I am missing things though so you are taking a slight risk.

Weighing - Do it. Seriously, If I am given any clear weighing analysis in the round I will go for it. My resume and background reads like a moderate Republican's fantasy. You probably don't want me making personal decisions about how I think we should craft policy or evaluate vague concepts.

Signposting - Clearly tell me where you are going in the round. If I get confused I get disinterested and if I get disinterested I get onto Netflix and watch West Wing with the subtitles on.

Off-time Roadmaps - Do them. If you say you are going to read an overview or a framework, tell me where to put it or I will put in in my computer's trash file and empty it after your speech.

Crossfire - I might look like I am not paying attention to your crossfires. That's because I am not. Thats for you to clarify the round and for me to add detailed comments to the ballot. If something interesting happens, let me know in a speech. If you are going to start hitting someone, let me know and I will get out a camera.

Extending Defense - Meh. You don't really have to do this in my opinion but obviously if your opponents go through ink you might want to remind me of that fact, especially if it is on something you really want me to care about.

Weighing Pt.2 - Please do this. I am begging you.

SPECIAL LD EDITION

If I had a PF team that had the capacity to come this wouldn't be necessary but, for now, here we are. Doomed to dance this dance until my obligation of a minimum of three ballots are up and I have left your hopes and dreams broken at my feet.

Let's start this off on the right note. I know enough about LD and all of its components to be dangerous. In clearer terms, when you tell me what you are going to try to do I will conceptually understand what you are going for but I will lack the experience or wherewithal to implement your vision on my flow. See? Dangerous.

Don't take this to mean I don't care about the event or that I don't look forward to these rounds. Do take it to mean that if you are planning on taking any risks or doing anything tricky, that your opponent stands to benefit from my ignorance as much as you.

Speed (Preface): Good luck. Seriously, good luck. Speed is an excellent tool to put more arguments out there on the flow but maybe we want to make sure I understand the basic ones you are dropping first? Just a suggestion. And no, I won't do that "Clear" business. Adapt or die. This is forensic darwinism.

Technical Debate: Solid meh. You can. I won't drop you for it and I get that the adaptations I am asking for will mean that you need to adjust in ways that will force you to use it.

Defaults: Let's return to that dangerous thing. I don't really have any default preferences that I have developed over my lackluster experience judging. You can read my paradigm below for PF to see if you glean any information from that but otherwise, I am tabula rasa to a fault and will stick to what I am given in the round despite any personal beliefs or pre-existing knowledge.

Disclosure: Unless you are disclosing who wins the round before I need to judge it, it's not something I really care about. I buy why disclosure is a good thing and I also get how it can be abused given enough resources. If it becomes an issue I will evaluate it based on the arguments in the round and not the ones in my head.

I hope this helps although it undoubtedly will leave you in a state of fear akin to the people of Pompeii as the ash cloud descended on their once-idyllic town.

For email chains my email is jstagey@gmail.com.

I debated competitively for four years at the Bronx High School of Science. I primarily debated on the national circuit and I got a bid in my senior year, while competing in many bid rounds during my sophomore, junior, and senior years. Since then, I worked at NSD and VBI for 2 summers, coached multiple independent debaters and coached Bronx Science. I coached 3 kids to the TOC.

Email: john.staunton1011@gmail.com

Conflicts: Bronx Science

Short Version: I ran almost all types of arguments throughout my career, so I'll be fine listening to anything. Make sure you weigh back to some sort of framework and compare your arguments. I take the route of least intervention. If you're running a confusing position, please explain it well. Spreading is cool and I will yell "clear." If you have any questions, my email is at the top.

Long Version:
1. Theory/T: I read this extensively during my sophomore and junior years and enjoyed having these debates a lot. I don't default to any voters or paradigms, meaning you will have to justify those yourself. If no voters are read and there are no arguments that tell me to evaluate the shell otherwise, I will evaluate it as a response to whatever argument violated the shell. That being said, if paradigms and voters are conceded in the following speech, it is not necessary to extend it, but at your own risk. If your opponent points out that you didn't extend it and makes arguments as to why that means theory is no longer a voting issue, I will then move on to the next layer. I would prefer it if these debates are based on weighing offense back to each interpretation. I also don't care if you use it as a strategic tool or not. However, if you hit a K, I would prefer you read it as a link to the role of the ballot rather than something that just excludes any and all discussion on their issues. Lastly, asking me to gut check frivolous theory isn't a response to theory, so I will not do that, absent some mechanism telling me what theory shells to "gut check" and why said theory shell fits that description.

2. Kritiks: I read Ks a lot more often later in my career, starting junior year, and I also enjoy these debates a lot. I probably enjoy listening to K debates more than anything else, granted there is comparison and weighing. You should start your later rebuttal speeches with the role of the ballot or other framing arguments. I try to be well read on as much literature as possible, so I know and understand most of the common K arguments on the topic (from identity politics to high theory). However, that does not necessarily mean I, or your opponent, will understand your particular position; so, be sure to explain it well. That does not mean repeating what your tagline says; rather, it means you should explain it in a different way, using simple terminology and concrete examples. These examples don't even have to be real historical occurrences, since you can often relate an argument to some physical scenario (I know what yellow is because it is not any other color). When it comes to making a decision, it is necessary that I understand how each argument functions in round: why it answers your opponent's argument, the relevant advantages and disadvantages, etc. In other words, you should aim to explain your positions in the best way possible, but I will be primarily concerned with the interactions I see on the flow. Non-topical ACs are cool, but I think it's better if they're disclosed. It's hard to have a debate against a case you had no idea would be run and it is impossible to expect that you'll have prep against it absent disclosure. You will not be penalized for not disclosed your non-topical cases and I will not have a bias for disclosure theory in this instance.

3. Framework: Framework debates can be very interesting and have some of the best interaction. Not many debaters opt to do framework debate anymore, which is sad. Make sure you explain how offense functions under your framework and what the arguments in your framework mean with complicated philosophy. I enjoy cases that use non-utilitarian frameworks with a plan. I am also open to hearing framework arguments against Ks. You can make arguments for why your framework comes first, but you can also read your framework as a counter method. Just don't make arguments for why your framework means their issues don't matter, as the other option is not only more interesting and involves better interactions, but it also ensures that debate remains a safe space. Impact justified frameworks aren't great either. The only impact I assume is bad coming into the round is oppression.

4. LARP: Unique plan texts are fun to hear and they should be disclosed. However, I prefer plans in the context of non-utilitarian frameworks. I think politics DAs, and most extinction scenarios are rather ridiculous, but that just means if your opponent loses to these arguments, that's completely their fault. I also will not automatically prioritize evidence over analytics, absent reasons to do so.

5. Tricks: I enjoyed running this a lot - just not against Ks involving issues of oppression. Those debates are uncomfortable for everyone else in the room, and if you use tricks to conclude that oppression is permissible, then you should expect to be dropped with low speaks. That being said, I will definitely evaluate tricks and will enjoy rounds with interesting and unique tricks - even if they are straight up ridiculous. I'll probably laugh, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Also, tricks don't necessarily mean just "skep" or "presumption." They can be topical and substantive too. Putting substantive tricks inside your T and theory shells is something I'd find cool too.

6. Speaks: I will generally follow the guidelines for calculating speaker points in the document under "Speaker Points Calculation." Your speaks will automatically go to 0 if you are offensive or violent in the round. Additionally, I do not think it is under my jurisdiction to evaluate arguments about speaker points in round. Clearly, they are not a source of contestation or impact my decision calculus, and so I will ignore arguments that ask me to change your speaks.

7. Miscellaneous:
a. Sit or stand - I don't care. Just be clear (and yes, I will yell "clear" or "slow.")
b. It would be nice if you slowed down on taglines, author names, interps, plan texts, and important stuff like that.
c. I want CX to start right at the end of the speech and prep to start right at the end of CX. Don't waste time asking "Is everyone ready?"
d. I think disclosure it good for debate, but I also think forcing your opponent to disclose is bad. In general, I prefer seeing disclosure.
e. I personally don't think flashing should count as prep, but I don't think that is under my jurisdiction. If both debaters want flashing to count as prep, then it will.
f. Spreading is good. I will yell "clear."
g. I tend to not evaluate embedded clash, unless I cannot logically come to a decision without evaluating it. If the aff is winning an argument for why pineapple pizza is terrible on one part of the flow and the neg is winning an argument on another part of the flow that pineapple pizza is great, I will have to evaluate embedded clash in that instance, even though the aff is probably correct.
h. If you have any questions you can ask me in round or email me. My email is at the top.

Decision Calculus:
Generally, I try to evaluate rounds by making the most logically consistent decision, while also intervening as little as possible. First, I look at all of the framing arguments that tell me how I should prioritize layers in the round. For example, which comes first: substance or theory? Once I sort through the layers in the round, I start from the top. If a debater wins that layer and wins that it is a reason I should vote for them, then I will vote for them. On a particular layer, I have to have some sort of framework for how I evaluate arguments on that layer, so I evaluate those framing issues first. Then, I need impact calculus for how to evaluate arguments under that framework on that layer. Lastly, I determine who wins the best impacts under that framework. For example, say that fairness is a voter and theory is drop the debater with competing interpretations and no RVIs. Then, the impact calculus is that impacts to strategy come before any other standard no matter what. So, I have to determine which interpretation is best for strategy and I determine who wins on the theory flow there. If the person responding to theory wins, then I simply move on to the next layer below that since there is no RVIs. This is a very simple example, but the same logic applies for any situation. This describes how I view the round at a macro level.

At a micro level, things get a little bit more complicated because we have to consider questions such as whether I evaluate embedded clash, whether I can even evaluate arguments that I don't fully understand, etc. The general way I go about evaluating arguments on the micro level is to compare the claims and see which person has the best warrant. Of course, what counts as the "best" warrant is subject to the judge and is why judge intervention is inevitable, but to minimize the risk of intervention, you should tell me why your warrants are the better warrants. This is just basic warrant comparison. Given this, I do need to understand the argument's premises and how it interacts. I find that in most rounds, only one debater will be doing warrant comparison on any given issue, so resolving that is easy. I evaluate arguments primarily on the place of contestation. Physically speaking, this would mean where the arguments are on the flow. Therefore, I will not freely evaluate embedded clash, unless I'm told to. If I'm told to, then I will just cross apply whatever arguments you are making to the correct place on the flow. However, after I draw a conclusion from a specific place on the flow, it needs to be logically consistent with every other part of my decision calculus. Therefore, I will evaluate embedded clash if and only if conclusions I draw from two different parts of the flow contradict. For example, consider a round where the aff wins on the AC that material strategies are good because the state is inevitable. Say this argument was conceded. However, on the K flow, there are arguments for why the state is not necessarily inevitable and those arguments are won. It would be logically inconsistent to say that material strategies are good since the state is inevitable if I can also say that the state is not inevitable. The way I resolve this is to take the arguments on different parts of the flow and see what comparisons exist.

There are three categories of arguments that I find to be paradigmatically outside my jurisdiction, and so I will not evaluate these arguments even if you make arguments as to why I should. The first category of arguments are offensive ones. If you make a claim that someone needs to warrant why oppression exists, or if you make a claim that is outright offensive or violent, then I will not only ignore the argument, but I will also drop you and give you a 24 (or lower depending on the degree of violence I find in the argument). The second category is arguments about speaker points. Clearly, your opponent is not going to focus on disproving your argument for why I should give you 30 speaks and so it is not a source of contestation and is not relevant to my decision calculus. Therefore, I will just ignore these arguments. The third category of arguments are new arguments in the last rebuttal speech. I will not evaluate new arguments in the 2AR, with the one exception that you criticize an egregious form of violence in the 2NR. This means I will not vote on 2AR theory in almost any circumstance. I will only evaluate new arguments in the 2NR if you explicitly justify why that is allowed (allow new 2NR responses to spikes). So, while I generally follow a specific path to deciding the round, this outlines the few exceptions to that.

Judging Record:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m7jyhz92n6dwyre/Judging%20Record.xlsx?dl=0

Speaker Points Calculation:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uiw9hvdy5yl0t1h/Speaker%20Points.pdf?dl=0

Judging Statistics:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/epbimew2a3syy56/Statistics.pdf?dl=0

Update for 2024-2025 Policy topic: I did a bit of coaching on the evergreening LD topic a few years ago so I might recognize some buzzwords but I probably don't remember what they mean.

Update for Sep/Oct LD topic: My professional experience is in financial advice. Do with that what you will.

Former debate coach for American School Fez. I competed in Policy debate at W.B. Ray High School from 2015-2018. I competed in Policy debate at UT-Austin in 2019. Currently an Assistant Financial Advisor with Ameriprise.

Put me on the email chain: stearcd247@gmail.com

I do not coach anyone currently so please do not assume I have any knowledge about what's happening in the literature or at camps.

TL:DR

I am down for whatever you want to do. I am probably just as good for PoMo goo vs PoMo goo as I am for stock issues.

Please don't throw things at me or your opponents or light things on fire.

I would like to intervene as little as possible, so please explicitly tell me how to weigh the round.

Arguments that run towards clash are always better in front of me than arguments that try to skirt around your opponent.

Judge instruction is paramount.

I believe that each debate round is a story. The better story at the end of the debate wins. This means I will attempt to view the round holistically instead of looking at just the last two speeches.

Quick Prefs:

PF:

Strike - You don't want me here

LD:

1 - K v K, Policy v Policy, Traditional

2 - Performance, Clash, T

3 - Theory

4 - Phil

Strike - Tricks

CX:

Same as LD w/o the weird stuff

Speaker Points

28.5 is default. 29 is breaking. 29.5 is speaker award. LD tends to go up by about a .2 since speaker points are just higher in the event. I will try to change based on tournament norms and competition level. If you'd like a more in-depth breakdown, read Ali Abdulla's paradigm. I will say clear twice during the whole debate, not just a particular speech. If you do not become clearer after the second time, I will stop flowing and put my head on the desk/table.

Things that will make me your speaker point fairy:

• Executing high level argumentation at a conversational pace

• Bringing cross-ex answers into speeches

• Making me laugh

General Gripes. This section is for things I've found annoying/bad about debate and have chose to impact my speaker points, but not my ballots:

• Ontology debates. If you read ontology and do not have a coherent explanation by the end of the debate, your speaks are capped at a 28.5. If you do have a coherent explanation, speaks are floored at a 29.

• Turns case on DAs. Turns case does not mean that you also read an internal link card to the aff's impacts. Turns case means that the DA turns the solvency mechanism of the aff. A good turns case is floored at a 29. A bad turns case is capped at a 29.

• Debating slow. I personally find speed to be incredibly strategic. I also find it to be incredibly grating. If you debate at a circuit level slowly, speaks are floored at a 29.2 and I will probably give you more leeway on implicit clash. No penalty for debating fast.

• If you go for self harm good, I will vote for the other debater and give you the lowest speaks possible. If the other debate asks me to stop the round, I will stop it. This does not mean you cannot read death good, just no Liggotti.

• If you use Patrick Fox as a reason policy affs are good, I will cap your speaks at a 27.

• Do not call me Chris. I don't like when anyone calls me Chris. Stearns or judge are fine. Christopher is fine if I've judged you a couple times and recognize you.

LD

I like LD theory when it's about content. I'm not especially fond of it when it's about form. That translates to content=default to competing interps and form=default to reasonability. These positions are not set in stone as every argument is winnable. That being said, I still tend to not like them as I did Policy for most of high school. Please slow down on all of these. I'm not familiar enough with judging these debates to catch the intricacies of your arguments at the same speed I can hear your read cards about hegemony and capitalism.

T RVIs probably need to be all 3 minutes of the 2AR and dropped by the neg. Theory RVIs need to be all 3 minutes of the 2AR. The greater the number of theory/T shells, the more likely I am to buy an RVI.

Don't use big analytical philosophy words you never define. I will not understand them. I will most likely understand any big critical philosophy words you never define. This is not true in every instance, so please define them all to me. I'm familiar with philosophy but not the way it's talked about in LD.

Tricks have to be full arguments from the get go. LD is hard enough when there isn't any sandbagging, and down right impossible when there is. However, most of these can still be answered by a thumbs down, fart noise.

I hate disclosure theory and usually only accept it when particularly egregious. I will gladly vote on misdisclosure theory and have a very hard time imagining voting down the shell if the violation is proven. New affs bad is probably a justification for CP comp, not DTD.

If you read DAs/Plans/Ks/Performance/Things read in Policy, read below

POLICY

Affs:

You do you. I did performance, kritikal, and policy affs. I was a 2A for most of high school and and college. Please have fully explained internal link structures. I will vote neg on presumption if I have no clue what the aff does.

The worst part of any aff is always the internal link. Please have a rigorous explanation of what your aff does and how that process changes the status quo to solve your impacts.

Survival strategies are very important but I would prefer if they were tied to a method outside the ballot.

I think inherency is important and will gladly vote on it. Existential inherency is mixing burdens.

Framework/T-USfg:

Most debates that I judge center on this question. I tend to view framework as competing interpretations of what kind of debates we should be having. What does this mean for you? A) I'm probably less interested in hearing your impact turns to framework. B) The neg probably still has to answer case. C) I am very interested in the TVA. D) I am very interested in creative definitions of the words in the resolution.

I'm probably more interested in creative FW interpretations than I am in T-USfg.

I used to coach in Morocco. This means I tend to hold aff teams going for no CI + Impact turns to a higher standard than most judges. I was recently pressed on this, my reasoning is that most K literature is illegal in Morocco. This means my auto-default is that there should be some kind of stasis point for contestation outside of banned literature.

I am fairly persuaded by the argument that "should" denotes action, while "ought" denotes theoretical underpinnings. Feel free to change my mind.

Maybe I'm crazy, but no one has gone for the TVA as a CP in front of me in a while. If these debates still happen in front of other judges, then this fact makes me sad.

I don't understand why the only stasis point debaters go for is USfg is federal government and Resolved: is legislative action. If the aff never even mentions intellectually property rights, maybe try going for that.

Skills/fairness are probably better than some nebulous clash impact.

T:

T debates are awesome when there is clash, but that can sometimes be more dependent on the topic than on the debaters (I'm looking at you, education topic). I went almost exclusively for T my first year in policy debate but didn't the next three years.

I usually judge this in an offense/defense paradigm but I can be persuaded by a highly developed reasonability argument. I have recently learned that my definition of these two framings might be different that other judges. To me, offense/defense = preponderance of evidence (i.e. civil litigation) while reasonability = beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e. criminal litigation). This means that reasonability is not an auto aff ballot, the standards will still be weighed but the negs barrier is at 98% instead of 51%. Feel free to change my mind on this.

Someone has recently begun persuading me that reasonability should mean the reasonable man standard from contract law. This will not change how I'm viewing debates these next couple of weeks as some people may not reread my paradigm before prefs must be input. If my mind does change, I'll update my paradigm after Greenhill.

I am probably good for a debate about the terms of art in the topic. Probably bad for grammar.

DAs:

DAs are fun. Please have a counterplan or highly developed turns case. Turns case does not mean turns the impact, it means turns the solvency mechanism of the plan. Turns the impact is probably impact framing, so see below.

I do not have a stance on uniqueness controls the link or link controls uniqueness. Feel free to make an argument for either.

Politics:

Politics can either be a lot of fun, or an absolute disaster. I am not up to date on what is occurring in the political landscape unless it involves financial institutions in the US. Please take this into consideration.

I am probably more susceptible to an intrinsicness/fiat solves argument than most judges.

Rider DAs are probably a non-starter

CPs:

All CPs are justified until proven otherwise. Some CPs hold up poorly to theory arguments, others hold up well.

Advantage CPs with one aff advantage turned are great debates.

Textual competition seems silly. Functional competition and opportunity costs seem important. Feel free to change my mind.

I generally tend to think CP theory as a justification for a permutation, rather than a reason to drop the arg/debater. I can be persuaded otherwise, especially by arguments such as solvency advocate theory or object fiat bad.

Judge kick on an instinctual level is bad because I think strategic choices are one of the best things students learn in debate. Feel free to change my mind though.

Judge kick is probably an additional world in a condo debate context. Please consider this when writing your interps or have a compelling argument for why it's not.

I haven't heard someone debate CP competition in front of me in a hot minute. These debates are fun and I miss them.

I'm probably better for no neg fiat than most.

Ks:

At TOC-type tournaments, great! At NSDA-type tournaments, probably not the best idea.

This is the second most popular argument in front of me. I can probably count on one hand the number of round judged this year that did not include some form of K debate.

I read Ks back in the day. I used to read kritikal literature for fun. I have not had the time to be up to date on the lit base like I used to. If you're reading cutting edge research, please take your time in explaining it to me.

I am very familiar with Queerness, Agamben, Magical Realism, Settler Colonialism, and Cap. I am very comfortable with Afropessimism, Afrofuturism, Bifo, and Foucault. I am not very comfortable with Baudrillard just because he makes me feel uncomfortable. I can flow a Derrida, DnG, or Psychoanalysis round but please hold my hand when extending.

The link probably isn't as strong as the neg thinks, but also not as weak as the aff thinks, please clash on it.

I'm probably not good for kicking the alt and going for the links as linear DAs. This has always seemed nonstrategic to me. If you're winning your theory of power necessary for the linear DA, you're probably ahead on FW or the alt.

FWs that negate the weighing of plan action are probably more offensive than some middle ground thingy without an explanation of what those rounds look like.

Analytics:

Please for all that is good in this world, slow down. Debaters tend to go far too fast on these and if I don't catch your warrant I'm not very likely to buy your argument.

Case Defense/Turns:

This is the second least utilized part of the debate. Solvency cards are usually bad. Impact cards are always bad. Please capitalize on this. I will give you just as many speaker points if you go for a CP/DA, a K, or Dedev so please don't be worried about the argument that you choose.

CX:

This is the least utilized part of debate. Not because debaters don't try to use it (unlike the case debate) but because debaters don't know how to either A) not be rude or B) don't know how to use it in a speech. If you use CX properly then you can win the debate nearly immediately, if you use it improperly you can lose the debate immediately.

I have yet to see a debate this year where I didn't know which debater was probably going to win after the first cross. If this happens, I'll update.

I will flow cross if I think it has an impact on the round. I will probably flow cross if I think it doesn't have an impact on the round.

Every time you ask a question that shows you aren't flowing, I'm mentally deducting speaker points. Probably about .1 to .2.

Impact Framing:

All positions require it, so be good at it. If neither team does it then I'll do it myself. Trust me, you don't want that happening. I generally default to probability > magnitude > timeframe. This is in no way set in stone so feel free to change my mind. You do not need cards to change my mind on this, just a well developed argument.

Performance:

My favorite aff I ever wrote was a queer ballroom X-Men magical realism aff. Go wild but have a compelling reason why I should sign your name(s), rather than the other team's, on this ballot.

I don't think performance gives you a pass on being shitty (not answers cross, double standards on rules like speech times, forcing the other team not to spread when one of your debaters can). I can be convinced these are all good things, but it'll probably hurt your speaks.

General Thoughts

I was a 2A, if that matters.

The best way to win a round is clear judge instruction. I want to intervene as little as possible and that requires explicit instruction from the debaters. If you do not instruct me how to judge, my own bias will come into play. I don't want that, you don't want that, and your coach doesn't want that. The only person that does is your opponent.

I was a flex debater because I think debate is more fun when there is contestation on the content of an argument. I also was very very bad at framework/T-USfg. Please keep this in mind when you decide to pref me for clash rounds.

Tech over truth generally, but truth can sometimes overcome tech when you are just patently false. If you have a two minute long explanation about how Bifo is a materialist because he has material impacts, and your opponent says you're on crack, I'm probably voting for your opponent. If you spend two minutes explaining how your specific argument takes into account materialism even if Bifo the author does not, and your opponent says your on crack, I'm probably voting for you. In both scenarios you're probably not materialist, but in the second I'm far more likely to give you the ballot.

I do my best to leave my biases outside the room, but that will always be a difficult thing to do.

If you want any other information about how I think feel free to email me or read John Henry Stearns' or Ali Abdulla's paradigms. One is my brother, the other is one of my best friends growing up. Both think very similarly to me and reading their paradigms might help.

Other people who influenced me, in order of impact: Andrew Garcia, Aron Berger, Michael Antonucci, Walker Perkins, Tillman Huett, Preston Stolte, Shaneal Harun, Steven Pipkin

Mr. Stearns is mydad,Mrs. Stearns is my mom. If you call me either, I will assume you would rather be judged by one of them and adjust my judging accordingly.

I only flow warrants. If I am not actively flowing, it's probably because I don't think you have made an argument yet.

I am not a flow bot. I am human and will miss things. If you think something is important, make sure you tell me.

I would actively prefer if debaters spoke at a conversational pace. This does not mean that I can't flow your spreading, but talking normally is just a lot more comfortable.

If you read an ethics challenge and wish to stake the debate on it, I will stop the round and go to tab. If you do not stake the debate on it, I will not adjudicate it.

Subtlety is for cowards.

I voted on presumption in about half of last year's debates.

I think I suck at writing ballots. I think I'm coherent while giving the RFD. Please let me know if I'm not. If you get your ballot back and it is illegible, please email me.

I tend to give RFDs very quickly. This is because I am at all times attempting to evaluate win conditions for each debater. I will try to be as informative and constructive in my RFDs as possible.

Having Fun

I know this is a competition, but please have fun with it. I know that I did and I hope you do too.

I debated LD for three years for Strake Jesuit (after a brief period in PF). I qualified for TFA State and TOC in LD, and I have instructed at TDC and NSD. I am conflicted with Strake Jesuit. Contact me/add me to docs at jpstuckert@gmail.com

You can call me "JP." "James," "Mr. Stuckert" or "judge" are fine but weird to me.

For online rounds:

1. Keeping local recordings of speeches is good. You should do it.
2. If I or another judge call “clear” video chat systems often cut your audio for a second. This means (a) you should prioritize clarity to avoid this and (b) even repeat yourself when “clear” is called if it’s a particularly important argument.
3. I don’t like to read off docs, but if there's an audio problem in an online round, I will glance to make sure I at least know where you are. I would really prefer not to be asked to backflow from a doc if there's a tech issue, hence local recordings above.
4. You should probably be at like 70% of your normal speed while online.

· I aim to be a neutral party minimizing intervention while evaluating arguments made within the speech times/structure set by the tournament or activity to pick one winner and loser for myself. Some implications:

o The speech structure of LD includes CX. Don't take it as prep and don't go back on something you commit to in CX (unless it's a quick correction when you misspeak, or is something ambiguous). I generally flow cx and factor it into speaker points, but arguments must still be made in other speeches.

o The speech structure also precludes overt newness. Arguments which are new in later speeches should be implications, refutations, weighing or extensions of already existing arguments. Whether 2N or 2AR weighing is allowable is up for debate and probably contextual. Reversing a stance you have already taken is newness -- e.g. you can't kick out of weighing you made if your opponent didn't answer it. (Obviously you can kick condo advocacies unless you lose theory.)

o I won't listen to double-win or double-loss arguments or anything of the sort. You also can't argue that you should be allowed to go over your speech time.

o Being a neutral party means my decision shouldn't involve anything about you or your opponent that would render me a conflict. If I were involved in your prefs, I would consider myself to essentially be a coach, so I won't listen to pref/strike Ks. If other types of out-of-round conduct impact the round, I will evaluate it (e.g. disclosure).

o Judge instruction and standards of justification on the flow are very important, and if they are not explicit, I look to see if they are implicit before bringing to bear my out-of-round inclinations. If two debaters implicitly agree on some framing issue, I treat it as a given.

o Evidence ethics: I will allow a debater to ask to stake the round on an evidence ethics issue if it involves: (1) brackets/cutting that changes the meaning of a card; (2) outright miss-attribution including lying about an author's name, qualifications, or their actual position; (3) alterations to the text being quoted including ellipses, mid-paragraph cutting, and changing words without brackets. Besides these issues, you can challenge evidence with theory or to make a point on the line-by-line. For me, you should resolve the following on the flow: (1) brackets that don't change meaning; (2) taking an author's argument as a premise for a larger position they might not totally endorse; (3) cases where block quotes or odd formatting makes it unclear if something is a mid-paragraph cut; (4) not being able to produce a digital copy of a source in-round. If another judge on a panel has a broader view on what the round can be staked on, I'll just default to agreeing it is a round-staking issue.

· Despite my intention to avoid intervention, I am probably biased in the following ways:

o On things like T framework and disclosure I think there is an under-discussed gap between "voting on theory can set norms" to "your vote will promote no more and no less than the text of my interp in this activity."

o I will be strongly biased against overtly offensive things (arguments which directly contravene the basic humanity of a marginalized group). I don’t think it’s prima facie offensive to read moral philosophy that denies some acts are intrinsically evil (like skep or strict ends-based ethical theories) or which denies that consequences are morally relevant (like skep or strict means-based theories). I also don't think generic impact turns against big stick impacts are innately offensive. But I will certainly listen to Ks or independent voters indicting any of those things.

· Other:

o Speaks: each speech counts, including CX. Strategy and well-warranted arguments are the two biggest factors. My range typically doesn't go outside 28 to 29.5. I adjust based on how competitive the tournament is. I don't disclose them.

o Be polite to novices, even if you can win a round in 20 seconds it’s not always kind to do so. Just be aware of how your actions might make them feel.

o I am usually unpersuaded by rhetorical appeals that take it for granted that some debate styles (K, LARP, phil, theory, tricks) are worse than others, but you can and should make warranted arguments comparing models of debate.

I am a parent judge. I debated in high school but that was in the last century. This is my third year judging LD debate. My daughter is an LD debater so I have heard about progressive debate but am more familiar judging traditional.

Hi I'm her daughter and I'm gonna explain how she judges. She likes you to speak clearly, it doesn't have to be completely slow, but don't spread. Be persuasive and use good evidence to back up your points. She will flow. She is very tabula rasa and if your opponent drops an argument she sees that as standing even if it isn't super true. Quality over quantity. Evidence and real-world implications are more important than values. Don't run any crazy progressive arguments.

The things:

Npiredebate@gmail.com

Affil: Baylor, Georgetown University, American Heritage and Walt Whitman High School.

If you think it matters, err on the side of sending a relevant card doc immediately after your 2nr/2ar.

**New things for College 2023-24(Harvard):

Weird relevant insight: Irrespective of the resolution- I am somewhat of a weapons enthusiast and national security nerd.

Yes, I am one of those weirdos that find pleasure in studying weapon systems, war/combat strategy and nuclear posture absent debate. Feel free to flex your topic knowledge, call out logical inconsistencies, break wild and nuanced positions etc. THESE WILL MAKE ME HAPPY(and generous with speaks).

In an equally debated round, the art of persuasion becomes increasingly important. I hate judge intervention and actively try to avoid it, but if you fail to shore up the debate in the 2nr/2ar its inevitable.

Please understand, you will not actually change my mind on things like Cap, Israel, Heg, and the necessity of national security or military resolve in the real world...and its NOT YOUR JOB TO; your job is to convince me that you have sufficiently met the burden set forth to win the round.

Internal link debates and 2nr scenario explanation on DAs have gotten more and more sparse...please do better. I personally dont study China-Taiwan and various other Asian ptx scenarios so I will be less familiar with the litany of acronyms and jargon.

***

TLDR:

Tech>Truth (default). I judge the debate in front of me. Debate is a game so learn to play it better or bring an emotional support blanket.

Yes, I will likely understand whatever K you're reading.

Framing, judge instruction and impact work are essential, do it or risk losing to an opponent that does.

There should be an audible transition cue/signal when going from end of card to next argument and/or tag. e.g. "next", "and", or even just a fractional millisecond pause. **Aside from this point, honestly, you can comfortably ignore everything else below. As long as I can flow you, I will follow the debate on your terms.

Additional thoughts:

-My first cx question as a 2N/debater has now become my first question when deciding debates--Why vote aff?

-My ballot is nothing more than a referendum on the AFF and will go to whichever team did the better debating. You decide what that means.

-Your ego should not exceed your skill but cowardice and beta energy are just as cringe.

-Topicality is a question of definitions, Framework is a question of models.

-If I don't have a reason why specifically the aff is net bad at the end of the debate, I will vote aff.

-CASE DEBATE, it's a thing...you should do it...it will make me happy and if done correctly, you will be rewarded heavily with speaks.

-Too many people (affs mainly) get away with blindly asserting cap is bad. Negatives that can take up this debate and do it well can expect favorable speaks.

More category specific stuff below, if you care.

Ks

From low theory to high theory I don't have any negative predispositions.

I do enjoy postmodernism, existentialism and psychoanalysis for casual reading so my familiarity with that literature will be deeper than other works.

Top-level stuff

1. You don't necessarily need to win an alt. Just make it clear you're going for presumption and/or linear disad.

2. Tell me why I care. Framing is uber important.

My major qualm with K debates, as of late, mainly centers around the link debate.

1. I would obvi prefer unique and hyper-spec links in the 1nc but block contextualization is sufficient.

2. Links to the status quo are links to the status quo and do not prove why the aff is net bad. Put differently, if your criticism makes claims about the current state of affairs/the world you need to win why the aff uniquely does something to change or exacerbate said claim or state of the world. Otherwise, I become extremely sympathetic to "Their links are to the status quo not the aff".

Security Ks are underrated. If you're reading a Cap K and cant articulate basic tenets or how your "party" deals with dissent...you can trust I will be annoyed.

CP

- vs policy affs I like "sneaky" CPs and process CPs if you can defend them.

- I think CPs are underrated against K affs and should be pursued more.

- Solvency comparison is rather important.

T

Good Topicality debates around policy affs are underappreciated.

Reasonability claims need a brightline

FWK

Perhaps contrary to popular assumption, I'm rather even on this front.

I think debate is a game...cause it is. So either learn to play it better or learn to accept disappointment.

Framework debates, imo, are a question of models and impact relevance.

Just because I personally like something or think its true, doesn't mean you have done the necessary work to win the argument in a debate.

Neg teams, you lose these debates when your opponent is able to exploit a substantial disconnect between your interp and your standards.

Aff teams, you should answer FW in a way most consistent with the story of your aff. If your aff straight up impact turns FW or topicality norms in debate, a 2AC that is mainly definitions and fairness based would certainly raise an eyebrow.

I debated for two years at Strake Jesuit High school in Houston, Tx. I've competed at TFA, Nationals, and the TOC. I worked five weeks over the summer with NSD and coach a handful of kids independently. I agree with my old coach Chris Castillo on most things so I'm just going to paste his paradigm below (Matthew Chen's paradigm is another good jumping off point). My email is thorbura@bc.edu, feel free to email me any questions and include me on the email chain.

I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. Be clear, both in delivery and argument function/interaction, weigh and develop a ballot story.

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

Non-T affs: These are fine just have a clear ballot story.

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

Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity.

Prep: 1. I prefer that you don't use cx as prep time. 2. It is ok to ask questions during cx. 3. Compiling a document counts as prep time. 4. Please write down how much time you have left.

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

Paradigm Update:

I haven’t judged in a while. Going slightly slower than usual and over-emphasizing will be appreciated.

Contact
Email is andrew.torrez@gmail.com for the email chain.

NEW for TOCs (4/19/2022)

I did not judge much during 2021-22; I have 10 rounds on the Jan/Feb topic and three are from outrounds. In those rounds, I voted Aff 5 times (50%), and in out-rounds I voted Aff once (33%). I sat once (Octos @ Golden Desert). I've been through this paradigm recently and it reflects my current judging preferences.

2020-2021 Summary

I judged 60 rounds at last year at 13 different TOC bid-distributing tournaments. In prelims, I voted Aff 24 of 53 rounds (45.2%). In out-rounds I voted Aff 1/7 (14%) (Oof.) I did not sit out on a panel last year (Stanford, Emory, Big Lex, College Prep, Glenbrooks, Grapevine outrounds).

How To Pref Me:

LARP 1 - I'm a LARP hack. I want good, specific topic lit. Longer cards >>>>> more cards.

Ks - 2/3 - treat me like a college policy judge on these; I want a thorough explanation of what the world of the neg looks like in the 1N. You're solid running Cap, Fem, Set Col, Securitization, most post-fiat stuff. Specific links to the 1AC are key. Update: If you want me to vote pre-fiat, the K needs an alt; I will buy a floating PIK as essentially a DA but I'm highly likely to allow new 2AR weighing.

Theory - 2/3 - My threshold for voting is genuine abuse, and I'd prefer to see that in terms of models of debate. I will listen to even frivolous theory arguments but my threshold for answers is very, very low. I vote on RVIs more than most judges. I will vote on Nebel T.

Phil - 2/3 - Happy to evaluate your NCs. The status of most LD phil debate right now is not great - it tends to be a lot of blippy spikes, and I'm definitely on team "give me new 2AR responses on anything extended into the 2N," see tricks below.

Performance/Non-T Affs: 3 - I'm open, and I've enjoyed some of these cases but you probably don't want to pref me high if this is your jam. If you run T/Framework on the neg, I'm likely a very good judge for you.

Lay - 4 - I really love lay debate and can appreciate when it's done well, but I'm tab enough that you're almost certainly better off taking some random parent judge. Note: if you're a circuit debater hitting a lay debater and you adapt to them (i.e., no spreading, no theory args, just run your larp case) and win, I will reward you with a 30. Note: if you're an insecure circuit debater worried you're going to lose to a lay debater and you don't adapt to them, I'll just judge the round normally. If you're the lay debater, be smart in the round.

Tricks - 5 - The most I can say is that I will listen. I voted for Nate Krueger all the time, but he was kind of amazing at trix. My threshold for answers here is very, very low.

Stuff I don't like

Tricks and blippy one-line extensions that foreclose on your opponent's offense.

I'm sticking with 2020's "don't be squirrelly." That means: don't pretend you don't know what an a priori is in CX, don't hide spikes, don't lie about stuff you didn't extend, don't "explain" your crazy-ass Baudrilliard K with 3 minutes of nonsense in CX and then all of a sudden tell a straightforward story in the 2N, don't lie about your super-vague "I'm whole rez!" methods to exclude all clash in the 1AR, etc. Don't be squirrelly!

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

Longer stuff if you've got time:

Speed

UPDATED - Particularly online, I can no longer handle your top, top speed; it just becomes a kind of hazy whine in my headphones. Call me a 6 or 7 out of 10. Slow WAY down for tags and analyticals, particularly in rebuttals and especially if it's not on your speech doc. If you're spreading prewritten analyticals, send those with your speech doc to me and to your opponent. I'll clear you if I have to.

Evidence

Like I said, long cards >>>> more cards. Don't power-tag. I love love love when debaters re-cut their opponent's evidence in the next speech to show that it was power/mistagged - that has to be read, not inserted.

Nebel T

I think Nebel is correct, but this winds up being a lot more nuanced in the context of an LD round. Yes, semantics outweigh pragmatics on interpretation, but pragmatics control when we're talking voters/remedy. Here's a real-world example of how that played out. So, I agree with Nebel in the abstract that it's kind of silly that on a topic like "RT: States ought to ban their nuclear arsenals," the most common 1AC was Indo-Pak because that's literally not at all what the topic committee wanted you to debate. That being said, I don't think I ever voted for T on the nukes topic against spec affs because the 1AR answer of "come on, there are only 7 nuclear nations, if you're not prepared for Indo-Pak, you haven't done enough research" was probably sufficient. On the other hand, if your plan was to ban landmines in Myanmar as a spec for "states ought to ban lethal autonomous weapons," then yes I voted for Nebel T every time. The Niemi "indict" is crap and we all know it.

On Embedded Clash

I find that I'm evaluating a lot of embedded clash, especially in late outrounds. Here are my thoughts on that: (a) the best thing you can do is give me a real OV that explains the layers; (b) in the absence of strong ink on the flow, I'm open to applying arguments from one sheet to another, even if the overall sheet is a kick; (c) I'm not likely to credit a single-line blip extension as decisive when there are 130 lines on my flow; (d) you can weigh new in the 2N, but don't make new substantive arguments; and (e) I'm strongly disinclined against 1AR theory that basically forces new 2N/2AR responses unless you have a very strong abuse story.

1AR Theory

I'm open, but from a practical perspective, I think you really need to be winning your abuse story since 1AR theory pretty much requires judge intervention since the 2N CIs will be new and the 2AR will be asking me subjectively to evaluate whether they're "good enough." IOW, my threshold for 2N answers is pretty low.

Ks

In terms of my familiarity and preferences: give me post-fiat, topic-specific Ks like cap and set col over incomprehensible generics like Weheliye, Baudrilliard, D&G, etc.. That being said, you do you -- for example, I think the fem killjoy K is 100% true.

Also: chances are virtually 100% that I'm not at all familiar with your literature, and it seems (to me, anyway) that a lot of judges are giving K debaters waaaaaay too much credit for warrants in the underlying lit that are not read/explained in round. I'm not going to do that. This means that if you're exclusively a K-debater, you probably want to pref me lower, to be honest. Be explicit about whether your K is pre- or post-fiat. K vs. K rounds need to be clear about uplayering and internal links if on the same layer.

Disclosure Theory

Update - particularly at TOCs, I think it is important to have good disclosure practices; you all are the debaters that the rest of the community is trying to emulate. Open-sourcing with highlighted cards is the minimum of what I consider "good." I am not a fan of running friv disclo theory against a debater whose practices are, at minimum, "good." I will happily pull the trigger on an RVI on disclo if you've run something appallingly stupid like "must disclose the precise tournament name" against a debater with "good" disclosure practices.

"Don't be shady" applies here, too - don't misdisclose, don't waste your opponent's time before the round and then drop a doc 4 minutes before the round begins, etc.

I will listen to "new 1ACs bad" theory.

Defaults

I will never use a default if an argument is made on the issue, but in the absence of argumentation:

• T > K
• T and Theory are on the same layer; Metatheory uplayers
• Reasonability over competing interps if not specified
• No RVIs (my threshold for warranting this is low, 'I get RVIs' suffices)
• Drop the arg on theory, drop the debater on topicality
• Presume NEG
• Affirming is harder because duh, 1AR
• Neg gets 1 Condo advocacy
• PICs must be uncondo
• Weigh case against K

Speaks

I default to a 28.7-ish. I give 30s whenever the debater a) doesn't make any obvious technical or analytical mistakes and b) does at least one really cool/clever analytical thing, so, you know, reasonably often. Oh, I also give 30s when a tech-heavy debater adapts out of courtesy to a lay opponent. The only thing that will get me to tank your speaks is if you're bullying/obnoxious/abusive in the round.

IF YOU STILL DON'T KNOW, ASK! I'm happy to answer any questions about my paradigm before the round. I love LD, and I try to make it so that debaters enjoy debating in front of me.

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.

I've judged LD and PFD earlier and had been a debater myself in a different format.

I'm open to the various formats and delivery of speeches. Content matters more to me, the speaker has to maintain dignity about other speaker, any type of Abuse to any person, religion or culture is absolutely unacceptable.

I understand lay the most but larp is also fine.

I prefer speech delivery at a rate which has words clear to understand. Fast pace is ok, as long as words are clear.

I am a graduate of Virginia Tech with a BA in Business Management. I have led people for over 35 years in my professional career and have lots of experience in evaluating proposals, developing people, and making decisions. I say this to let you know, that I listen with a critical ear, looking for value in statements, and overall connectivity in thoughts. I am more of a traditional / framework judge and typically don't go for arguments such as "We live in a multiverse therefore..." Simply put, for a successful debate with me, just make a clear and cogent case.

When it comes to debating, I have very few preferences. I like to have Aff sit on my left and I ask that you do not spread (If I can't capture your points, it's hard to give you credit for them). That is it. Sit, stand, look at me, don't look at me...does not matter. Just give me your best performance.

I ALWAYS declare...That's only fair to you. I will give some feedback as well. This is meant for your benefit. As with all advice, only you can determine it's value.

Hi my name is Emily Valle and I am a student at Wellesley College. I can handle speed, but slow down on tag lines and complex cards. If I cannot understand you, I will not flow your arguments. Analyzing your opponent’s arguments and pointing out fallacies/dissecting the logic of their claims/warrants/impacts will raise your speaks far more than simply cross-applying all of your cards from the constructive. Make sure to clearly weigh at the end of the round.

Debate Experience:

- High School Policy Debater

- Yale Mock Trial

Judging Experience:

- NYCUDL Middle School/ High School Policy Debate Judge

- BDL Middle School/ High School Policy Debate Judge

Background

I have a masters in computer science and a PhD in electrical engineering. I am the Director of Technology for an intellectual property firm, which means I manage people with technical backgrounds in doing research and proving infringement of patents. I work closely with attorneys and am myself a patent agent, who often has to work on rebuttal arguments and invalidating our counterparty’s positions. This is my second year of debate judging and I am looking forward to it because of its logic and closeness to my work.

Preferences

I prefer clear arguments to speed and spreading. It is important to make clear what your argument is and what supports it. Proving your point and why it holds is key rather than confidently arguing about something without evidences. Please be clear, respectful to your opponent and have fun in the process.

Thank you and good luck.

Former coach, more often in tab rooms than at the back of the room with a ballot, electronic or otherwise. As a judge, I’m probably considered a very traditional flow judge. I’m likely not as well-read on the resolution as you are, haven’t taught LD in any camp or class, and don’t judge LD especially often. To me, a good LD round involves a debate between two individuals using logic, reason, and clarity around the resolution at hand; if I find myself open to critical approaches to the resolution I’ll update my paradigm accordingly.

No exhaustive list of my thoughts on different arguments, though these 3 are pretty representative of my general thoughts on LD:

1. Disclosure theory is a non-starter. Use it if you want, but I will not vote on the basis of whose case is or isn’t on the wiki so in front of me it’s a waste of time.

2. I’m not interested in time skew. I trust that you were aware of the structure of an LD round before walking into the tournament.

3. Debate is an educational activity. The role of the ballot is to communicate to you, your opponent, and your coach(es) observations about how effective your argumentation was in a given round and offer suggestions for improvement. The ballot may be an opportunity for me to learn and grow as well, but my ballot will not affect grand societal change no matter how hard we try.

I ultimately want to vote for something at the end of the round. To accomplish this, take the following into account:

1. Like I said, I don’t judge often which means I likely won’t be able to keep up at the rate many circuit debaters prefer. About half as fast as your maximum is probably acceptable for me to flow and think (but no faster).

2. I don’t want cases flashed to me or share a Google Doc during the round. If I wanted to read argumentation I would pursue competitive essay-grading.

3. Your ideas and those of your opponent should engage with one another. Trying to cram as many responses against each point made by your opponent doesn’t do this and won’t help you win my ballot or earn very high speaker points. Neither will ignoring your opponent’s case and insisting that yours is the only thing that matters in the round.

4. Effective crystallization is critical. For me to vote for you I need to know specifically what arguments you won, why, and how.

I am a parent judge who has judged ~ 25 debates.

I appreciate slow and clearly articulated argumentation. I expect debaters to demonstrate respect for their opponents and their opponents' arguments. I will not tolerate condescending and disrespectful behavior.

I have a background of traditional LD debate, however I'm familiar with all debate styles and willing to listen to all arguments as long as they're well warranted.

Evidence is necessary to add credulity to arguments, but it MUST link to framework to be weighed in round. I prefer solid analysis and clash of ideas over strings of evidence with no place on the flow.

Speed okay with clear tags/authors.

I am an assistant coach with some experience in debate. I debated in high school, but I have been out of the debate community until the 2018-2019 school year. I primarily prefer a lay debate but I can understand well-explained and topical LARP positions. I will not vote on theory, kritiks, or very dense framework because I will not understand it. I look for clarity in your arguments and clarity in speech. I will award speaker points based on confidence, voice projection, argumentation skills, and poise. Please do not spread in front of me as I will not be able to follow. I can understand slightly faster than conversational but I would prefer conversational. I will vote you down if you are overtly rude or offensive, regardless of how well you debate. If you want to run dense framework and theory, I am not the judge for you. All I ask is that you uphold the integrity of a traditional LD round and be respectful.v

I did not debate LD in high school, but I debated American Parliamentary and British Parliamentary throughout college. I have previously judged PF at this tournament, and have served as a middle school debate coach.

In rounds, I try to avoid interventionism, and let the arguments in the round speak for themselves. This ensures more transparent weighing.

In my ideal world, I prefer a more moderate speaking speed, but I won't penalize speaking fast, in and of itself.

For me, the best debaters are those who take their opponents' arguments at their best, and still successfully refute them, avoiding being dismissive, for the most part.

Overall, keep me engaged with nuanced (and unique if possible!) argumentation and analysis!

I am a parent judge. However, I try to be a fair and open-minded judge who is able to discern a good argument.

Please don't spread - you can go fast, but make sure I can clearly understand your arguments. I am familiar with traditional case structures, but I'm not familiar with kritiks, theory shells, etc. so if you are going to run those arguments please explain them clearly.

I believe that an argument should be well thought out, logical and well structured. I flow rounds, listen, and take notes.

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!

Bio - Former CUNY Debater (2013-14) and current high school coach

For the e-mail chain: julwash@gmail.com

For PF: You're getting a judge with some policy background and policy (let's just face it) is a more rigorous form of debate. This means you have liberty to run more than the CBI and debate blog vetted positions in front of me. You will be better off taking advantage of that. However, I don't appreciate the mental gymnastics it takes to understand many policy positions and you folks get less speech time to spin arguments so please keep it relatively simple.

For Policy: I'll try my best to be a fair judge and vote based on the merit of the arguments presented in a given round. That being said, I think that debate (at least the way it's done at tournaments) is a game and thus do not appreciate teams who try to avoid being topical or enjoy running far left identity arguments. Beyond that, what you would deem as wise strategy and advice from most circuit judges applies for me as well. Some side notes though....

- I lean generally on the side on Condo good in theory debates.

- Any type of competition works for a counterplan. Explain the net benefit clearly if you plan to go for a CP

- Affirmative teams should spend as much time as possible on the case debate explaining why the aff is a good idea and outweighs the negative

- Good impact calc is necessary to resolve close debates and can clean up messy link clash on the off case flows.

- Politics DA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nearly every K

I am a traditional judge. I want to understand what you say. Diction, pace, volume are part of the presentation. Being a professional also means you look and act the part of a professional! I want to see sportsmanship and grace. I also want to see you enjoying yourself.

Debaters, you must make quality points not necessarily quantity points. Remember, it needs to have facts backed up. You have been researching these points for months, use your research to support your views. Use the research to turn your opponents arguments your way when you can.

The purpose of debate is to persuade and sway an argument. This is done with facts and logic. Know your stuff! Debaters need to make logical arguments that are easy to follow. Good debaters should be GREAT listeners and are always respectfully listening to the opposition in order to counter their points.

Debaters should not use progressive arguments and should not spread. I promise it will not be rewarded in my rounds.

In Speech rounds, make me FEEL it. Show me that your really understand the piece and character(s). Use your voice and inflection as well as your facial and physical traits to bring the piece to life. If it is funny, make me laugh. If it is sad, make me cry. When you pantomime hit all the positions right on and make sure to use the same actions over again and again, don't get sloppy as the piece continues. Stay in character all the way through. When "switching" characters, make sure you really distinguish the personalities. Have fun..... Good Luck!

Thank You!

Note for TOC: I haven't judged in a couple months, so don't assume I'm up to date on all the recent topic trends. Also, when flowing virtually I've noticed that I need a few more seconds to isolate sections of the debate so please don't transition too quickly between signposts.

I'm Reed (He/Him). I did LD for four years at Lexington High School ('14-'18), went to TOC my junior and senior years, and reached elims at a bunch of bid tournaments & round robins along the way. I've taught at NSD over the summer and currently coach a number of students through Flex Debate.

I'll try my best to be objective and will evaluate pretty much any argument as long as it is properly warranted and implicated, with the exception of arguments that are actively exclusionary/racist/homophobic/ableist/etc.

I read mostly policy, philosophy, and theory my senior year, but have experience with and am totally comfortable voting on Ks and tricks. I don't think my preferences as a debater carry over a ton into how I evaluate rounds. I'll be just as happy watching a dense deleuze v. kant debate as I will be judging plan v. counterplan debates. Regardless of the content of your positions, all I really care about is whether you can execute your arguments well, demonstrate strategic vision, and explain things in a clear & understandable way.

I'm cautious of overly-long paradigms but if you're looking for any more clarification either Sam Azbel or Grant Brown's paradigm would be a decent reference for how I approach debates.

Things that will get you higher speaker points:

-good CX :)))

-unique Ks

-genuine clash in framework debates

-smart/tricky LARP strategies

-persuasive abuse stories on theory

-demonstration of topic knowledge

-good ev comparison

*I will not make a decision that procedurally excludes any of the 5 speeches. What this means is if you ask me to "evaluate the debate after the 1ac/1nc/1ar/2nr", i will most likely ignore it, as I've found that doing so would create an incredibly arbitrary decision procedure that I don't feel would benefit anyone in the way they are hoping.

Do your best, have fun, and please ask questions if you have them. I am always willing to discuss my reason for decision/give comments after the round. If you feel the need to ask me anything before the round, shoot me an email: rw9427a@student.american.edu

Debate Paradigm

Paul Wexler Coach and judge. Debated CEDA,College Parli, HS LD and Policy, College and HS Speech Current Affiliation: Needham High School Coach (speech and debate) I coach a little with Arlington HS (Massachusetts)
Previous Affiliations: Manchester-Essex Regional, Boston Latin School, San Antonio-LEE, College of Wooster (Ohio) (competitor) , University of Wisconsin (Madison)(coach): Debate and Speech for Irvine-University HS (CA) (competitor).

Coach: All debate events (LD, PF, WSD, Congress) plus spectrum of speech events.

PLEASE NOTE SECTION BELOW REGARDING DISCLOSURE BY NEEDHAM AND ARLINGTON HS (MA) TEAM MEBMERS!

PUBLIC FORUM

I've judged it and coached it since the creation.

I default to voting on the whole resolution. I vote for whichever side shows it is preponderantly more desirable That may include scope, impact, probability, timeframe etc.

Note on September October 2024 topic. Making arguments grounded in racist appeals (such as claims group X is more prone to criminality or diease) will result in a loss and low speaker points

Most of what I say under Lincoln-Douglas below applies here, regarding substance as well as theory/and Ks. The differences OR key points are as follows.

1) I judge PF as an educated layperson- i.e. one who reads the paper (credible news sources) but doesn't know the technicalities of debate lingo.

As such your 'extend this" and "pull that" confuse me for the purposes of the round - I will ignore debate lingo unless you explain the argument itself.

1b) I shall ignore 'theory' arguments completely (in PF, I will also ignore 'education' theory arguments, as well as 'fairness'-- '. ). Frame those arguments in terms of substance if you opt to make them, if there is a connection you will be fine). Theory arguments as such shall be treated as radio silence on my flow. I will also default to thinking you are uninterested in doing the work necessary to understand the topic, and that you are publicly announcing you are proud of being ignorant.

If someone's opponent is prima facie unfair or uneducational say so without running a 'shell'.

1c) I WILL evaluate K's when based on the topic literature. Many resolutions DO have a reasonable link when one does the research.

Your rate of delivery should be appropriate to the types of arguments you are making.

2)Stand during the cross-fire times. This adds to your perceptual dominance.

3) Offer and justify some sort of voting standard I can use to weigh competing arguments.

-4)-Blips in constructive speeches blown up large in summary or final focus are weighed as blips in my decision calculus

5)No 'kicking' out of arguments unless the opponent agrees with said kicking. "You broke the argument, you own it."

-6)-Be comparative when addressing competing claims. The best analytical evidence compares claims directly.

7) On Evidence...

--7a)Evidence should be fully explained with analysis. Evidence without analysis isn't persuasive to me. (the best evidence will have analysis as well, which is the gold standard- but you should add your own linking to the round itself and the resolution proper).

7b) In order to earn higher speaker points, I expect evidence usage to adhere to the full context being used and accessible. This doesn't mean you can't paraphrase when appropriate, it does mean reciting a single sentence or two and/or taking excessive time when asked to produce the source means you are still developing your evidence usage ability. Of course, using evidence in context (be it a full card or proper paraphrasing-) is expected Note #6 below.

You will also want to make note of the 'earn higher speaker points' in the novice section below it also applies to varsity.

--Quantitative claims always require evidence, the more recent the better.

--Qualitative claims DO NOT always require evidence, that depends on the specific claim.

-8)Produce requested evidence in an expeditious fashion- Failure to do so comes of YOUR prep time, and eventually next speech time. Since such failure demonstrates that organizational skills are still being developed. Being in the 'developing skills' range is, like with any other debate skill, reflected in speaker points earned.

'Expeditious' means within ten seconds or so, unless the tournament invitation mandates a different period of time

9) I will most likely only ask for cards at the round's end in the case of ethical challenges, etc, or if I failed to make note of a card's substance through some reason beyond a debater's control (My own sneezing fit for example, or the host school's band playing '76 Trombones on the Hit Parade' in the classroom next door during a speech.

10) What I have to say elsewhere in this document about how to access higher speaker points, technical mattters, and how to earn super low points by being offensive/rude also applies to PF.

Most Importantly- as with any event " Have fun! "If you are learning and having fun, the winning shall take care of itself."

Note below '
OLD SCHOOL IDIOSYNCRASY and the portion which follows, if interested)

Novice Version (all debate forms)

I am very much excited to be hearing you today! It takes bravery to put oneself out there, and I am very happy to see new members join our community.

1)The voting standard ( a way to compare the arguments made by both sides in debate) is the most important judging tool to me in the round. Whatever else you do or say, weighing how the different arguments impact COMPARATIVELY to the voting standard is paramount.

2)I believe that debaters indicate through analysis and time management what their key arguments are. Therefore, a one-sentence idea in case, if used as a major voting issue in rebuttals/final focus/, will receive 'one-sentence worth' of weight in my RFD. even if the idea was dropped cold. That's not no weight at all. But it ain't uranium either.

Simply extending drops and cards is insufficient, be sure to connect to the voting standard and explain the argument sufficiently. I do cut the Aff a little more leeway in this regard than the neg due to time limitations, but be careful.

3) As noted above, be sure to weigh your arguments compared to the arguments made by the other side. That means " We are winning Argument A - It is more important than the other sides Argument B (even if they are winning argument B) for reason X"

4) Have fun! Learn! If you have questions, please ask. This is an amazing activity and to repeat what I said above, am 'glad and gladder and gladddest' you are part of our community.

To earn higher speaker points...(Novice Version)

Be kind/professional towards those less experienced or skilled. i.e. , make their arguments sound better than they probably are, make your own arguments accessible to them, organize the disorganized ideas of opponents, etc. while avoiding being condescending.

If clearly outclassed, stay engaged and professional. Try to avoid being visibly frustrated. We have all been there! You will absolutely get this eventually. (Plus, you never know- you may make the 'golden ticket argument ' to winning the round without knowing it...)

If I think you have done either of these, it will always result in bonus speaker points.

ALSO...

-Engage with your opponent's ideas. Clash with them directly, prove them wrong, demonstrate they are actually reasons to vote for you, etc., or at least of lesser importance,

Exhibit the ability to use CX /crossfire effectively ( This DOES NOT mean 'stumping the chump' it DOES mean setting up arguments for you to use in later speeches.)

To earn lower speaker points (novice version)

1) Act like a rude, arrogant, condescending, ignoramus. (or just one of these)

In other words, making arguments which offend, 'ist' arguments or behaving like a jerk - If you have to ask, chances are you shouldn't. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Being racist or sexist or classist or homophobic means one loses regardless, but behaving like a jerk in a non-'ist' way still means you lose speaker points and if offensive enough I'll look for a reason to vote against you.

2)Use cases obviously not your own or obviously written by a super-experienced teammate or coach. Debate is a place to share your ideas and improve your own skills. Channelling or being a 'ventriloquist's dummy' for someone else just cheats yourself. Plus, for speaker point purposes, you are not demonstrating you have mastered the skill of communicating your OWN ideas, so I can't evaluate them.

3)Avoid engaging with your opponent's ideas. Avoiding engaging through reliance on definitions, tricks, etc., or other methods may win you my ballots, but will earn lower speaker points.

4) For outrounds and flip rounds, please especially note section marked 'outrounds' at end

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

LD Debate -Varsity division

Note on January February 2023 topic. Making arguments grounded in racist appeals (such as claims group X is more prone to criminality) will result in a loss and low speaker points.

Shorter Version (in progress) (if you want to run some of these, see the labeled sections for most of them, following)

-Defaults to voting criterion.

-Theory-will not vote on fairness or disclosure. It will be treated as radio silence. See below for note regarding both Needham HS and Arlington regarding disclosure of cases by team members.

-Education theory on the topic's substantial, topic-related issues OK but if frivolous RVIs are encouraged.(i.e., brackets theory, etc ) I will almost always vote on reasonability.

--Will not vote on generic skepticism. May vote on resolution-specific skepticism

-Blips in constructive speeches blown up large in rebuttals are weighed as blips in my decision calculus

-It is highly unlikely I shall vote on tricks or award higher speaker points for tricks-oriented debaters

-No 'kicking' out of arguments unless the opponent agrees with said kicking. "You broke the argument, you own it."

-Critical arguments are fine and held to the same analytical standard as normative arguments.

-Policy approaches (plans/CPs/DAs) are fine. They are held to same prima facie burdens as in actual CX rounds- That also means if you want me to be a policy-maker, your evidence better be recent. If you don't know what I mean by 'prima facie burdens as in actual CX rounds' you should opt for a different strategy.

-Narratives are fine and should provide a rhetorical model for me to use to evaluate approach.

-If running something dense, it is the responsibility of the debater to explain it. I regard trying to comprehend it on my own to be judge intervention.

As I believe debate is an ORAL communication activity (albeit one often with highly specialized vocabulary and speed) I (with courtesy) do not wish to be added to any 'speech document ' for debates taking place in the flesh or virtually. I will be pleased to read speech documents for any written debate contests I may happen to judge.

Role of ballot - See labeled section below- Too nuanced to have a short version

To Access higher speaker points...

Be kind/professional towards those less experienced or skilled. i.e. , make their arguments sound better than they probably are, make your own arguments accessible to them, organize the disorganized ideas of opponents, etc. while avoiding being condescending.

If clearly outclassed, stay engaged and professional. Try to avoid being visibly frustrated. We have all been there! You will absolutely get this eventually. (Plus, you never know- you may make the 'golden ticket argument ' to winning the round without knowing it...)

If I think you have done either of these, it will always result in bonus speaker points.

ALSO...

-Engage with your opponent's ideas. Clash with them directly, prove them wrong, demonstrate they are actually reasons to vote for you, etc., or at least of lesser importance,

exhibit the ability to listen.(see below for how I evaluate this)

exhibit the ability to use CX effectively (CX during prep time does not do so) This DOES NOT mean 'stumping the chump' it DOES mean setting up arguments for you to use in later speeches.

To Access lower speaker points

1) Act like a rude, arrogant, condescending, ignoramus. (or just one of these)

In other words, making offensive arguments, 'ist' arguments or behaving like a jerk - If you have to ask, chances are you shouldn't. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Being racist or sexist or homophobic means one loses regardless, but behaving like a jerk in a non-'ist' way still means you lose speaker points and if offensive enough I'll look for a reason to vote against you.

2)have your coach fight your battles for you- When your coach browbeats your opponents to disclose or flip- or keeps you from arriving to your round in a timely fashion, it subliminally promotes your role as one in which you let your coach do your advocacy and thinking for you.

3)Avoid engaging with your opponent's ideas. Avoiding engaging through reliance on definitions, tricks, etc., or other methods may win you my ballots, but will earn lower speaker points.

4)Act like someone uninterested in knowledge or intellectual hard work and is proud of that lack of interest. Running theory as a default strategy is a most excellent and typical way of doing so, and in public at that.-- (But there are other ways).

Longer Version

1)The voting standard is the most important judging tool to me in the round. Whatever else you do or say, weighing how the different arguments impact COMPARATIVELY to the voting standard is paramount.

I strongly prefer debaters to focus on the resolution proper, as defined by the topic literature. I tend to be really, REALLY bored by debaters who spend the bulk of their time on framework issues and/or theory as opposed to topical debating.

By contrast, I am very much interested in how philosophical and ethical arguments are applied to contemporary challenges, as framed by the resolution.

You can certainly be creative, which shall be rewarded when on-topic. Indeed, having a good command of the topic literature is a good way to be both.

My speaker points to an extent reflect my level of interest.

2) I evaluate a debater's ENTIRE skill set when assigning speaker points, including the ability to listen. See below for how I assess that ability.

3)One can use alternative approaches to traditional ones in LD in front of me. I am receptive to narratives, plans, kritiks, the role of the ballot to fight structural oppression, etc. But these should be grounded in the specific topic literature- This includes describing why the specific resolution being debated undermines the fight against oppressive norms.

4) I am NOT receptive to generic 'debate is bad' arguments. Wrong forum.

5) Specifics of my view of policy, critical, performance, etc. cases are at the bottom if you wish to skip to that.

ON THEORY-

I will not vote on...

a)Fairness arguments, period. They will be treated as radio silence. - See famed debate judge Marvin the Paranoid Android's (which I find optimistic) paradigm on this in 'The Debate Judges Guide to the Galaxy.' by Douglas Adams.

"The first ten million (fairness arguments) were the worst. And the second ten million: they were the worst, too. The third ten million I didn’t enjoy at all. After that, their quality went into a bit of a decline.”

Fairness debating sounds like this to me.(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFvujknrBuE)

And complaints about having to affirm makes the arguer look and sound like this from 'Puddles Pity Party'

Instead, tell me why the perceived violation is a poor way to evaluate the truth of the resolution, not that it puts you in a poor position to win.

b) I will not vote on disclosure theory, it shall be treated as radio silence. The following sentence applies to both Needham HIgh School and Arlington High School. I have assisted a little with Arlington High. Both Needham and Arlington High Schools, by team consensus, do not permit its' members to disclose except at tournaments where it is specified as required to participate by tournament invitation. I find the idea that disclosure is needed to avoid 'surprises' or have. a quality debate to be unlikely.

c) I will vote on education theory. In most cases it must be related to the topic literature. However, I am actively favorable to RVIs when run in response to 'cheap' , 'throw-away' , generic, or 'canned' education theory. Topic only focused, please.

d)Shells are not always necessary (or even usually). if an opponent's position is truly squirrelly ten seconds explaining why is a better approach in front of me than a two or three minute theory shell

e) I am highly unlikely to vote on arguments that center on an extreme or very narrow framing of the resolution no matter how much framework you do- and 100% unlikely based on a half or full sentence blurb.-

'Extreme' in this context means marginally related to the literature (or a really small subset of it)

ON BLIPS AND EXTENSIONS

I believe that debaters indicate through analysis and time management what their key arguments are. Therefore, a one-sentence idea in case, if used as a major voting issue in rebuttals, will receive 'one sentence worth' of weight in my RFD. even if the idea was dropped cold. That's not no weight at all. But it ain't uranium either.

Simply extending drops and cards is insufficient, be sure to connect to the voting standard and explain the argument sufficiently. I do cut the Aff a little more leeway in this regard than the neg due to time limitations, but be careful.

ALL FORMS OF DEBATE (LD,PF, WSD, Congress, etc)

OLD SCHOOL IDIOSYNCRASY- THE IMPORTANCE OF LISTENING

1) On sharing cases and evidence,

Please note: The below does not apply to the reading of evidence cards, nor does it apply to people with applicable IEPs, 504s or are English language learners.

1) I believe that listening is an essential debate skill. In those cases where speed and jargon are used, they are still being used within a particular oral communication framework, even if it is one unique to debate. It makes no sense to me to speak our cases to one another (and the judge), while our opponent reads the text afterwards (even more so as the case is read) and then orally respond to what was written down (or for the judge to vote on what was written down). If that is the norm, we could just stay home and email each other our cases.

In the round, this functions as my awarding higher speaker points to good listeners. Asking for the text of entire cases demonstrates you are still developing the ability to listen and/or the ability to process what you heard. That's OK, this is an educational activity, but a still developing listener wouldn't earn higher speaker points for the same reason someone with developing refutation skills wouldn't earn higher speaking points. My advice is to work on the ability to process what you have heard rather than ask for cases or briefs.

As I believe that act of orally speaking should not be limited to being an anthropological vestige of some ancient debate ritual, I will courteously turn down offers to be added to any speech documents, except at contests designed for such a purpose.

Asking for individual cards by name to examine their rhetoric, context etc, is acceptable, as I don't expect most debaters to be able to write down cards verbatim. I expect those cards to be made available immediately. Any time spent 'jumping' the cards to an opponent beyond minimal is taken off the prep time of the debater that just read the case.

I will most likely only ask for cards at the round's end in the case of ethical challenges, etc, or if I failed to make note of a card's substance through some reason beyond a debater's control (My own sneezing fit for example, or the host school's band playing '76 Trombones on the Hit Parade' in the classroom next door during the 1AC)-

On Non Debater authored Cases

I believe two of the most valuable skills in debate, along with the ability to listen, are the ability to write and research (and do both efficiently).

I further believe the tendency of some in the debate community to encourage students to become a ventriloquist's dummy, reading cases authored by individuals post-HS, is antithetical to developing these skills. Most likely it is also against most schools' academic code of conduct. I reject the idea that students are 'too busy to write their own cases and do their own research'

Therefore

I will drop debaters -with minimal speaker points- who run cases written by any individual not enrolled in high school.

In novice or JV rounds I will drop debaters who run cases written by a varsity teammate.

Further, if I suspect, given that debater's level of competence, that they are running a position they did not write ( I suspect they have little to no comprehension of what they are reading) I reserve the right to question them after the round about that position. If said person confirms my suspicion about their level of comprehension, they will be dropped by me with minimal speaker points.

THAT SAID my speaker points will reward debaters who are trying out new ideas which they don't completely understand yet- I think people should take risks, just don't let yourself be shortchanged of all that debate can be by letting some non-high school student - or more experienced teammate- write your ideas for you. Don't be Charlie McCarthy (or Mortimer Snerd for that matter)

Finally, I am not opposed to student-written team cases/briefs per sae. However, given the increasing number of cases written by non-students, and the difficulty I have in distinguishing those from student-written positions, I may eventually apply this stance to any case I hear for the second time (or more) at a tournament. That day has not yet arrived however.

ON POLICY ARGUMENTS (LARPING)

I am open to persons who wish to argue policy positions as opposed to voting standard If that framework is won.

Do keep in mind that I believe the time structure of LD makes running such strategies a challenge. I find many policy link stories in LD debate, even in late outrounds at TOC-qual tournaments, to be JVish at best. Opponents, don't be afraid to say so.

Disadvantages should have clear linkage to the terminal impact, the shorter the better. When responding, it is highly advantageous to respond to the links. I tend to find the "if there is a .01% chance of extinction happening you have to vote for me" to be silly at best if there is any sort of probability weighing placed against it.

Policy-style debaters assume all burdens that actual policy debaters have, That means if solvency -(or at least some sort of comparative advantage, inherency, etc. is not prima facie shown for the resolution proper, that debater loses even if the opponent does not actually give a response while drooling on their own cardigan. (or your own, for that matter).

That means if you want me to be a policy-maker, your evidence should be super-recent. Otherwise, I may decide you don't meet your prima facie burdens, even for 'inherency' which virtually nobody votes on ever. Why? The same reason one shouldn't read a politics DA from October 2022

Side note: If your OPPONENT does so, please be sure to all call them out on it in order to demonstrate CX or refutation skills. (I once heard someone ignore the fact a politics DA was being run the Saturday AFTER the election, it having taken place the Tuesday prior.... I was sad.

I do have some sympathy for the hypothesis-testing paradigm where up-to-date evidence is not always as necessary- if you sell me on it. Running older evidence under such a framework may or may not be strategic, but it WOULD meet prima facie burdens.

If you don't know what I mean by 'prima facie burdens', or 'hypothesis-testing' you should opt for a different strategy. - Do learn what these terms mean if interested in LARPing, or answering LARPers.

I am also actively disinclined to allow the negative to 'kick out' out of counterplans, etc., in face of an Aff challenge, during the 1NR. Think 'Pottery Barn'- to paraphrase Colin Powell- "You broke the argument, you own it."

ON NARRATIVE ARGUMENTS

In addition to the 'story', be sure to include a rhetorical model I can use to evaluate the narrative in the course of the round. if you do so effectively, speaker points will be high. If not, low.

One can access the power of narrative arguments without being appropriative of other cultures. This is one such approach (granted from a documentary on Diane Nash)

ON CRITICAL ARGUMENTS

I hold them to the same analytical standard as more normative or traditional arguments. That means quoting some opaque piece of writing is unlikely to score much emphasis with me, absent a complete drop by the opponent. And even if there is a complete drop, during the weighing stage I could easily be persuaded that the critical argument is of little worth in adjudicating the round. When debating critical theory, Don't be afraid to point out that "the emperor has no clothes."

In the round, this functions as debaters coherently planning what both they and their sources are being critical of, and doing so throughout the round.

Identifying if the 'problem' is due to a deliberate attempt to oppress or ignorant/incompetent policies/structures resulting in oppression likely add nuance to your argument, both in terms of introducing and responding to critical arguments. This is especially true if making a generic critical argument rather than one that is resolution-specific.

Critical arguments all take place in a context, with the authors reacting to some structure- be it one created and run by 'dead white men' or whomever. The authors most certainly were familiar with whom or what they were attacking. To earn the highest speaker points, you should demonstrate some level of that knowledge too. HOW you do so may vary, your speaker points will reflect how well you perform under the strategy you choose and carry out in the round

In any case, be sure to SLOW DOWN when reading critical arguments.

ROLE OF THE BALLOT-

I believe that debate, and the type of people it attracts, provides uniquely superior opportunities to develop the skills required to fight oppression. I also believe that how I vote in some prelim at a tournament is unlikely to make much of a difference- or less so than if the debaters and judge spent their Saturday volunteering for a group fighting out-of-the-round oppression Or even singing, as they do in arguably the best scene from the best American movie ever.--

I tend to take the arguments more seriously when made in out rounds with audiences. The final round of PF in 2021 at TOC was important and remarkable. In fairness, people may see prelims as the place to learn how to make these arguments, which is to be commended. But it is not guaranteed that I take an experienced debater making such arguments in prelims as seriously, without a well-articulated reason to do so.

Also bear in mind that my perspective is that of a social studies teacher with a MA in Middle Eastern history and a liberal arts education who is at least tolerably familiar with the literature often referenced in these rounds. (If sometimes only in a 'book review' kind of way.) But I also default in my personal politics to feeling that a bird in hand is better than exposing the oppression of the bush.

if simply invited or encouraged to think about the implications of your position, or to take individual action to do so, that is a wild card that may lead to a vote in your favor- or may not. I feel obligated to use my personal knowledge in such rounds. YOU are encouraged to discuss the efficacy of rhetorical movements and strategies in such cases.

ONE LAST NOTE

Honestly, I am more than a little uncomfortable with debaters who present as being from privileged backgrounds running race-based nihilist or pessimist arguments of which they have no historical part as the oppressed. Granted, this is partly because I believe that it is in the economic self-interest of entrenched powers to propagate nihilist views. If you choose to do so, you can win my ballot, but you will have to prove it won't result in some tangible benefit to people of privilege.

ON MORALLY OFFENSIVE ARGUMENTS

Offensive debaters, such as those who actively call for genocide will be dropped with minimal speaker points. The same is true for those who are blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

I default to skepticism being in the same category when used as a response to 'X is morally bad' types of arguments.

By minimal speaker points, I mean 'one point' (.1 if the tournament allows tenths of a point) and my going to the physical (virtual) tabroom to insist they manually override any minimum in place in the settings.

If an argument not intended to be racist or sexist or homophobic or pro-murder could be misused to justify the same, that would be debatable in the round- though be reasonable. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Arguing over if general U.S. immigration policy is irredeemably racist is debatable in the round, arguing that an entire group of people should be excluded based on religion is racist on face, and arguing that it is morally permissible to tear gas children is a moral travesty in and of itself.---

Outrounds/Flip Rounds Only

I believe debate offers a unique platform for debaters to work towards becoming self-sufficient learners, independent decision-makers, and autonomous advocates. I believe that side determination with a lead time for the purposes of receiving extensive side specific coaching particular to a given round is detrimental to debaters developing said skills. Further, it competitively disadvantages both debaters who do choose to emphasize such skills or do not have access to such coaching to start with.

Barring specific tournament rules/procedures to the contrary, in elimination rounds this functions as

a) flip upon arrival to the round.

b)avoid leaving the room after the coin flip (i.e., please go to the restroom, etc. before arriving at the room and before the flip)

c) arrive in sufficient time to the round to flip and do all desired preparation WITHOUT LEAVING THE ROOM so that the round can start on time.

d)All restrictions on electronic communication commence when the coin is in the air

Doing all of this establishes perceptual dominance in my mind. All judges, even those who claim to be blank slates, subliminally take perceptual dominance into account on some level. -Hence their 'preferences'. For me, all other matters being equal, I am more likely to 'believe' the round story given by a debater who exhibits these skills than the one I feel is channeling their coach's voice.

Most importantly

Have fun! Learn! "If you have fun and are learning, the winning will take care of itself"

POLICY Paradigm-

In absence of a reason not to do so, I default to policy-maker (though I do have some sympathy for hypothesis-testing).

The above largely holds for my policy judging, though I am not as draconically anti-theory in policy as I am in LD/PF because the time structure allows for bad theory to be exposed in a way not feasible in LD/PF.

Congress

To Access better ranks

1) Engage with your opponent's ideas. Clash with them directly, prove them wrong, further develop ideas offered previously by speakers on the same side of legislation as yourself, demonstrate opposing ideas are actually reasons to vote for you, etc

2)Speech organization should reflect when during a topic debate said speech is delivered. Earlier pro speeches (especially authorships or sponsorships) should explain what problem exists and how the legislation solves for it. Later speeches should develop arguments for or against the legislation. The last speeches on legislation should summarize and recap, reflecting the ideas offered during the debate

3)Exhibit the ability to listen. This is evaluated through argument development and clash

4)Evidence usage. Using evidence that may be used be 'real' legislators is the gold standard. (government reports or scholarly think tanks or other policy works. Academic-ish sources (JSTOR, NYRbooks, etc) are next. Professional news sources are in the middle. News sources that rely on 'free' freelancers are below that. Ideological websites without scholarly fare are at the bottom. For example, Brookings or Manhattan Institute, yes! Outside the box can be fine. If a topic on the military is on the docket, 'warontherocks.com ', yes!. (though cite the author and credentials. in such cases)

4b) Souce usage corresponds to the type of argument being backed. 'Expert' evidence is more important with 'detailed' legislation than with more birds-eye changes to the law.

5)exhibit the ability to use CX effectively - This DOES NOT mean 'stumping the chump' it DOES mean setting up arguments for you or a colleague to expand upon a speech later. Asking a question where the speaker's answer is irrelevant to you- - or your colleagues'- ability to do so later is the gold standard.

6)PO's should be transparent, expeditious, accurate and fair in their handling of the chamber.

6b)At local tournaments, 'new PO's will not be penalized (or rewarded) for still developing the ability to be expeditious. That skill shall be evaluated as radio silence (neither for, nor against you)- Give it a try!

To Access worse ranks

1) Act like a rude, arrogant, condescending, ignoramus. (or just one of these)

In other words, making offensive arguments, 'ist' arguments or behaving like a jerk - If you have to ask, chances are you shouldn't. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Being racist or sexist or homophobic or transphobic means one loses regardless, but behaving like a jerk in a non-'ist' way still means I'll look for a reason to rank you at the very bottom of the chamber, behind the person who spent the entire session practicing their origami while engaged in silent self-hypnosis.

2)If among any speaker other than the author and first opposition, rehashing arguments that have already been made with no further development (no matter how well internally argued or supported with evidence your speech happens to be backed with)

3)Avoiding engaging with the ideas of others in the chamber- either in terms of clashing with them directly or expanding upon ideas already made

4)Evidence usage. Using evidence that may NOT be used be 'real' legislators is the gilded standard. Examples include blatantly ideological sources, websites that don't pay their contributors, etc. This is especially true if a technical subject is the focus of the debate.

4b)In general, using out of date evidence. The more immediate a problem the more recent evidence should be. Quoting Millard Fillmore on immigration reform should not more be done than quoting evidence from the Bush or even the Obama Administration. (That said, if arguing on the level of ideas, by all means, synthesize important past thinkers into your arguments)

5) Avoiding activity such as cross-examination

5b)'Stalling' when being CXed by asking clarification for simple questions

6)Act like someone uninterested in knowledge or intellectual hard work and is proud of that lack of interest

7)POs who show favoritism or repeatedly make errors.

What (may) make a rank or two of positive difference

Be kind/professional towards those less experienced or skilled. i.e. , make their arguments sound better than they probably are, make your own arguments accessible to them, organize the disorganized ideas of others, etc. while avoiding being condescending. Be inclusive during rules, etc. of those from new congress schools or are lone wolves.

If clearly outclassed, stay engaged, and professional. Try to avoid being visibly frustrated. We have all been there! You will absolutely get this eventually. (Plus, you never know- you may make the 'golden ticket argument ' to ranking high without knowing it...)

If I think you have done the above, it will improve your rank in chamber.

World

First, Congrats on being here. Well earned. One piece of advice- Before starting your speaking in your rounds , take a moment to fix the memory in your mind. It is a memory well-worth keeping.

I have judged at the NSDA Worlds Invitational since 2015 with the exception of two years, though I have coached the New England teams each year. I judged WSD at a few invitationals and competed in Parli in college.

While I am well-experienced in other forms of debate (and I bloviate about that quite a bit here) for this tournament I shall reward teams that do the following...

-Center case around a core thesis with supporting substantial arguments and examples. (The thesis may- and often will- evolve during the course of the round)

-Refutation -(especially in later speeches) integrates all arguments make by one's own side and by the opposition into a said thesis

--Weighs key voters. Definitions and other methods should be explicit

Effectively shared rhetorical 'vehicles' between speakers adds to your ethos and ideally logos.

---Blips in constructive speeches blown up large in later speeches are weighed as blips in my decision calculus

--Even succinct POIs can advance argumentation

-Avoid using counterintuitive arguments.(often popular in LD/PF/CX) If you think an argument could be perceived as counterintuitive when it is not, just walk me through that argumentation.

Debate lingo such as 'extend this" and "pull that" confuse me for the purposes of the round - I will ignore debate lingo unless you explain the argument itself.

--Use breadth as well as depth when it comes to case construction (that usually means international examples as well as US-centric, and may also mean examples from throughout the liberal arts- science, literature, history, etc.- When appropriate and unforced.

If a model is offered, I believe 'fiat' of the legislative (or whatever) action is a given so time spent debating otherwise shall be treated as radio silence. However, mindsets or utopia cannot be 'fiat-ed'.

To earn higher speaker points and make me WANT to vote for you-

-Engage with your opponent's ideas for higher speaker points. Avoiding engaging through reliance on definitions or other methods may win you my ballots, but will earn lower speaker points. (This DOES NOT mean going deep into a line by line, it does mean engaging with the claim and the warrant)

Be kind/professional towards those less experienced or skilled. i.e. , make their arguments sound better than they probably are, make your own arguments accessible to them, organize the disorganized ideas of opponents, etc. while avoiding being condescending.

If clearly outclassed, stay engaged and professional. Try to avoid being visibly frustrated. We have all been there! You will absolutely get this eventually. (plus, you never know- you may make the 'golden ticket argument ' to winning the round without knowing it...)

If I think you have done these, it will always result in bonus speaker points.

and needless to say, I'm sure, offensive debaters, such as those who actively call for genocide will be dropped with minimal speaker points. The same is true for those who are blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

If an argument not intended to be racist or sexist or pro-murder could be misused to justify the same, that would be debatable in the round- though be reasonable. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Arguing over if general U.S. immigration is irredeemably racist is debatable in the round, arguing that an entire group of people should be excluded based on religion is racist on face, and arguing that it is morally acceptable (or even amoral) to tear gas children is a moral travesty in and of itself.

Again, congratulations on being here!! You have earned this, learn, have fun, make positive memories...

World

First, Congrats on being here. Well earned. One piece of advice- Before starting your speaking in your rounds , take a moment to fix the memory in your mind. It is a memory well-worth keeping.

I have judged at the NSDA Worlds Invitational since 2015 with the exception of two years, though I have coached the New England teams each year. I judged WSD at a few invitationals and competed in Parli in college.

While I am well-experienced in other forms of debate (and I bloviate about that quite a bit here) for this tournament I shall reward teams that do the following...

-Center case around a core thesis with supporting substantial arguments and examples. (The thesis may- and often will- evolve during the course of the round)

-Refutation -(especially in later speeches) integrates all arguments make by one's own side and by the opposition into a said thesis

--Weighs key voters. Definitions and other methods should be explicit

Effectively shared rhetorical 'vehicles' between speakers adds to your ethos and ideally logos.

---Blips in constructive speeches blown up large in later speeches are weighed as blips in my decision calculus

--Even succinct POIs can advance argumentation

-Avoid using counterintuitive arguments.(often popular in LD/PF/CX) If you think an argument could be perceived as counterintuitive when it is not, just walk me through that argumentation.

Debate lingo such as 'extend this" and "pull that" confuse me for the purposes of the round - I will ignore debate lingo unless you explain the argument itself.

--Use breadth as well as depth when it comes to case construction (that usually means international examples as well as US-centric, and may also mean examples from throughout the liberal arts- science, literature, history, etc.- When appropriate and unforced.

If a model is offered, I believe 'fiat' of the legislative (or whatever) action is a given so time spent debating otherwise shall be treated as radio silence. However, mindsets or utopia cannot be 'fiat-ed'.

To earn higher speaker points and make me WANT to vote for you-

-Engage with your opponent's ideas for higher speaker points. Avoiding engaging through reliance on definitions or other methods may win you my ballots, but will earn lower speaker points. (This DOES NOT mean going deep into a line by line, it does mean engaging with the claim and the warrant)

Be kind/professional towards those less experienced or skilled. i.e. , make their arguments sound better than they probably are, make your own arguments accessible to them, organize the disorganized ideas of opponents, etc. while avoiding being condescending.

If clearly outclassed, stay engaged and professional. Try to avoid being visibly frustrated. We have all been there! You will absolutely get this eventually. (plus, you never know- you may make the 'golden ticket argument ' to winning the round without knowing it...)

If I think you have done these, it will always result in bonus speaker points.

and needless to say, I'm sure, offensive debaters, such as those who actively call for genocide will be dropped with minimal speaker points. The same is true for those who are blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

If an argument not intended to be racist or sexist or pro-murder could be misused to justify the same, that would be debatable in the round- though be reasonable. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Arguing over if general U.S. immigration is irredeemably racist is debatable in the round, arguing that an entire group of people should be excluded based on religion is racist on face, and arguing that it is morally acceptable (or even amoral) to tear gas children is a moral travesty in and of itself.

Again, congratulations on being here!! You have earned this, learn, have fun, make positive memories...

POLICY Paradigm-

In absence of a reason not to do so, I default to policy-maker (though I do have some sympathy for hypothesis-testing).

The below on LD largely holds for my policy judging, though I am not as draconically anti-theory in policy as I am in LD/PF because the time structure allows for bad theory to be exposed in a way not feasible in LD/PF.

I abhor bullying, which I most recently saw a coach carry out in an elim round in policy at this tournament. . Coaches, if I believe you are bullying the 'other' team I will contact tab.

Now-a-days- I solely judge policy at NCFLS, and not every NCFL at that.

Special note- I will not vote on disclosure theory, it shall be treated as radio silence. The following sentence applies. Needham High School, , by team consensus, does not permit its' members to disclose except at tournaments where it is specified as affirmaively required to participate by tournament invitation. I find the idea that disclosure is needed to avoid 'surprises' or to have. a quality debate to be unlikely.

Novice Paradigm is here first, followed by PF, and then LD (though much of LD applies to PF and nowadays even policy where appropriate)- Congress and Worlds is at VERY end.

I put the novice version first, to make it easy on them. Varsity follows. LD if below PF (even though I judge a good deal more LD than PF).

I debated for 4 years in high school, I have been judging LD/PF for 11 years and coaching LD/PF at Fenwick High School for 8 years. I will be evaluating each team based on their clarity, logical coherence, evidence, rebuttal, delivery, cross-examination, and respect. I will be looking for the team that presents the strongest argument overall, based on these criteria.

In general, I am open to nearly every argument; with a few exceptions/variations.

1. Theory - I am fine with it. I find some theory debates to be quite interesting, however I will not vote on frivolous theory, especially not on disclosure theory.

2. Kritiks - In general, I think they can be very educational arguments. However, I am not a fan of performance arguments. I just do not enjoy them. Plain and simple.

3. Plans/CPs/Disads - Even though I believe these often stunt an otherwise incredibly intellectual atmosphere, there are exceptions to this rule. If you can run a good plan, I can see myself voting on it. As for counterplans—no PICs. Please. I do not find that these make for a decent debate round.

4. Voters Issues - Please have them.

Speed is okay but I will say “clear” if I cannot understand you or if you are speaking too
fast; because if I can’t hear it, I can’t flow it. Be intelligible and make sure to signpost

Jon Williamson

B.A. Political Science; M.A. Political Science; J.D. & Taxation LL.M Candidate - University of Florida Levin College of Law

Experience:

Competitor: HS Policy Debate 2001 - 2005; College Policy Debate 2005-2007; College NPDA Parli Debate 2009-2010

Coach: 2007-2020: Primarily Policy and Public Forum; but coached all events

Basic Judging Paradigm Haiku:

I will judge the flow

Weigh your impacts at the end

Don't be mean at all

Public Forum: All arguments you want me to vote on in the final focus must have had a minimum of a word breathed on them in the summary speech.

Lincoln Douglas/Policy:

I attempt to be tabula rasa, but when no decision-rule calculus is provided, I default to policymaker. I tend to see the debate in an offense/defense paradigm.

I default to competing interpretations on Topicality, and reasonability on all other theory.

I am fine with speed, but clarity is key.

I particularly enjoy critical debate like Feminism, Foucault, and Security and impact turn debates like Spark & De-development. Not a fan of nihilism but I get the argument.

I tend to avoid reading evidence if it is not necessary. I would like to be on your email chain (my name @gmail.com) so I can look at cards that you reference in cross-examination.

LD Note: I tend to view the value/value criterion debate as less important than substantive arguments. Impacting your arguments is incredibly important. Cheap shots / tricks are not the way to my ballot (because: reasonability). I also will not vote for an argument I don't understand based on your explanation. I will not read your case later to make up for a lack of clarity when you spread. If I can't flow it, it's like you never made that argument.

I'm a parent judge from Harrison High School. DO NOT SPREAD. I want to see a traditional and substantive round about the topic. Do not read progressive arguments in front of me. Please use real world examples and evidence.

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

Background

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

General

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

Things I like

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

-Plans/Counterplans/PICs/Disads

-A good topicality debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Default Assumptions (unless proven otherwise in the round)

-I operate under an offense/defense paradigm.

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

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

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

-No RVIs on T.

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

Any other issue should be resolved by the debaters

Overall - I will vote on anything I can understand - this includes speed/spreading. I won't tell you if I can't understand you. Speed at your own risk. I'm mostly non-interventionist, although if you're making grossly false statements about empirical facts, I reserve the right to not accept them. You can be aggressive, but at all times remain respectful to your opponents. Argumentation and logical reasoning are the foundations of debate. I don't care about your cards or meta-analysis unless you tell me why I should. Shake hands with your opponent, not with me.

LD Specific:

LD is a value debate. LD is a value debate. LD is a value debate. If upholding your value isn't the point of your case, I'm not going to vote for you. A value is not a "framework." Your contentions should link to your VC and your VC should be measuring your value. LD is not 1 person CX - don't talk to me about plans or solvency. LD is a value debate.

PFD:

Don't turn your presentation into policy-lite. Make arguments, don't just read evidence. I don't inherently care about any of your evidence unless you tell me why it matters.

My primary judging philosophy is that the judge should adapt to the debaters, and not the other way around. You should do whatever you feel puts you in the best position to win, or get whatever else it is that you might want from this activity (but i recognize this is a competitive activity with a winner and a loser, so by all means feel free to prioritize winning if you want). I really will vote on anything so long as you explain to me, using clear warranting and impacting, why that should be the voting issue and why you win it. Just write my RFD for me. I'll always do my best to adjudicate based solely on the words that come out of your mouth and nothing else. Lastly, intelligent arguments that are well warranted, weighed, and developed throughout the round will get you the highest speaks.

Other notes:

- The easiest way to win my ballot is to win the round. Winning the round makes it extremely easy for me to vote for you (and, conversely, losing makes it virtually impossible to do so).

- I will only vote on arguments present in the round, so if you want me to vote on an argument you should deliver it in the round I'm judging you. Arguments made in, say, April 2017 will not factor into my decision, nor will any future arguments you think you might make.

- Racism, sexism, and homophobia are bad.

- When weighing, imitating a scale motion with your hands will clue me into the fact that the arguments you're making aren't any old arguments - they're weighing arguments.

- Don't be afraid to treat me like I'm a little stupid if you're explaining something obscure. I'm a senior studying econ/math at BU so I know a couple of things, but err on the side of over explaining if it's something I really need to understand to vote for you. My smooth brain and I will appreciate it.

- Quoting Kanye is like fine or whatever, but quoting Jasper Primack in your speech is what guarantees you a 31 from me.

Of course, feel free to let me know of any specific questions you have before the round! Facebook messenger will be your best bet to get a hold of me.

Background

I am a student at Harvard studying Mathematics. I haven't debated for 2 years and everything is foggy. My email is raxu@college.harvard.edu. Please put me on email chains!

General

Everything flows unless they're clearly false or abhorrent. For example, I will not vote off of "racism/sexism good" (abhorrent), "2+2=5" (false) or "1+1=2 so affirm" (no link).

Be considerate to the other debater or I'll tank your speaks. This means putting in trigger warning when necessary and not spreading 400 wpm if they're novice. Everything in the round stays in the round. Just be courteous!

Spreading: I flow on my laptop but I'm not good at it. I am okay with spreading as long as you're clear. However, if you do not speak clearly that I cannot follow, I'll drop that argument.

Extensions: If an argument is uncontested I'm okay with you saying "extend *** b/c uncontested". If it is contested, beat back the defense or weigh before extension.

Prep time: Do not delay the round in any way. Internet connections and computer breakdowns do not grant you extra prep time.

Speaks: As I said before, be considerate and everything should stay in the round. If you crystallize and weigh your arguments, you make my decisions easier. I'll reciprocate and make you happy.

Defaults

These will only be used if no one has made a single argument in the area. Please do not get to defaults. No rounds decided on defaults is interesting.

K, Th and T on the same layer. MetaTh above that, FW below that.

Competing interps over reasonability. No RVIs.

Drop the argument on Th, Drop the debater on T.

Truth Testing over Comparing Worlds.

If the round is wash with no offense made, I'll flip a coin to decide who wins.

Have fun and enjoy the tournament!

I did 4 years of PF during high school, currently a Junior in college.

I vote off the flow. Clarity and warranting are the best way to win my ballot. Don't spread.

NYU ‘22

Stuyvesant High School ‘18

She/Her Pronouns

Conflicts: Stuyvesant High School

Please do email chains, flash drives are obnoxious (pacy.yan@gmail.com)

If you have questions about my paradigm/preferences/whether or not I would tank speaks for certain things, email me or ask me before the round. This would be preferable to me having to resolve the issue in round or lowering your speaks unnecessarily.

*Brief TOC Update: I have not judged in a long time. I coach a bit still, but I am not caught up on the current meta as much as I was before. This means two things for you: a) you should absolutely not act as though I know what you're talking about and b) really listen/slow down when I ask you to.

*Dogmatism: I have recently written an article with Joanne Park about my position on some of the ongoings in debate culture, specifically on the issue of dogmatism. You can find the article here.

Short

1) Tech>Truth Do whatever. I will not paradigmatically hack against any particular real arguments. I do not care what you do in terms of how I judge. I have arguments that I strongly dislike and arguments that I like, but will try not to reflect this in my speaks as much as possible.

2) Don't be mean. I hold the position that I cannot ethically vote for arguments that would be endorsing acts of particular forms of interpersonal violence. This line might become hard to draw. I am fine with heg good, authoritarianism good, skepticism, etc., and it is a bit unclear to me what the difference between some of these positions and the arguments I might find ethically hard to vote for are such as racism good, sexual assault good, etc. are so this might result in me making judgement calls during round. I will attempt to be as reasonable as possible. I also dislike it when more experienced debaters purposely make rounds exclusionary to younger and less resourced debaters. Of course, this judgement is hard to make sometimes as well, but I will lower speaks if I am certain it is happening.

3) I'll say clear/slow unless its obvious you are not listening when I do.

4) I don't flow off the speech doc.

Longer Version:

1) I did LD for four years and ran whatever. I ran Ks for a year and I ran theory and phil for a year. As a result, I know some range of literature, but that should not be relevant. I go to NYU now and study philosophy.

2) I aim to be as least interventionist as possible. The more irresolvable a round is, the more I have to intervene. I get annoyed when I have to do this. I view having to use defaults as intervention.

3)I don’t flow off the speech doc and I’ll only check it if a) I messed up on my own and missed something or b) it’s a round where the quality of evidence matters. I'm really bad at flowing author names, so reference arguments only by author at your own risk.

4) Here's some stuff related to framing that I think makes sense to default to and you probably will not change my mind on:

- Tech > truth

- Truth > Tech requires tech for you to win it. I am extremely unconvinced that judges can have a role in the debate that requires them intervene based on what they think is true. The only exception I can see is when there is an obvious violation of or issue related to the safety of the students. In those cases, I will, if aware of the situation, stop the debate and report it to tab if I deem that it is appropriate to do so.

- Nothing is a voter until you've made an argument that it is.

5) Here's some stuff related to framing that I think makes sense to default to, but would heavily prefer to hear a debate about if it is relevant:

- Generally probably low threshold for warrants if they are conceded, but if the argument is directly interactive with other warranted arguments and you are light on your warranting in extension, I will probably be receptive to “no warrant was extended” and not be super persuaded by that argument. Light warranting is also at your own risk because if the debate gets muddled, my threshold for warrants rises as I sift through arguments in an attempt to make the debate more resolvable and if the opponent points out that there isn’t a warrant for the extension of the argument that might hurt you.

- You don’t have to bother extending paradigm issues if they’re conceded, but this might harm you if the opponent makes it an issue.

- Fairness > Education

- T = Theory

- Competing interps

K v Theory or Substance

- Non "Prefiat" Ks = Substance

- K ROBs = Ethical Frameworks

- "Prefiat" Ks = Fairness/education (on theory)

6) Here are some thoughts I believe. Most function indifferently to how I judge rounds if both debaters make good arguments.

General

- Debate's a game. I have never heard a good argument against it being so. Debate being a game is not mutually exclusive with it having other important things.

- Disclosure is good. Full text disclosure is not preferable to non-full text disclosure. Open source is good. I am, however, unsure as to whether voting on out-of-round violations is a defensible norm.

- I do not like it when people rely on ethos to win rounds. I expect you to make arguments, not assertions said in a nice way. Because of that, I will likely be decently picking when deciding between warrants.

T/Theory

- Nothing is a voter until you make an argument. Theory doesn't have an impact until you make an argument.

- Metatheory does not paradigmatically come before theory.

- A lot of theory is silly. I do not care that much about the content of your shell, but if its not strategic that will be reflected in your speaks.

- Theory/Spikes heavy affs are fine. If I didn't catch it, it doesn't exist.

- I am unsure on whether certain violations e.g. evidence ethics are good enough reasons to stop rounds. I will try avoid doing so while I remain unsure.

- I do not think I can coherently evaluate “evaluate theory after x speech” if x is the speech you’re currently giving. I have the intuition that it is additionally outside of the debater's jurisdiction to make such an argument, but I'm unsure exactly why.

Tricks

- I am not totally sure what counts as a trick, but "tricks" are a part of the debate lingo, so I figured I'd say a few things about what I think. For the sake of the paradigm, I am generally referencing to what people might refer to as tricks or tricky debate.

- Many tricks are quite unintelligent. It is silly to act as if they're intelligent. I would appreciate if you did not. I do not like unintelligent tricks much, but I find them amusing sometimes. I do not like arguments that purely exist so that your opponent misses them, but I am not sure this is unique to "tricks" as opposed to other areas of debate.

- Some tricks, on the contrary, are quite intelligent. Well-developed logical arguments that reach seemingly odd or unintuitive conclusions might be considered a trick by some, but many of these arguments are really quite fun to me. Tricks or tricky arguments that are well-developed make me really happy!

- If I didn't flow it, it doesn't exist.

Phil Framework

- In debate, ethical confidence makes more intuitive sense to me than ethical modesty.

- Probably my favorite part of debate, but also frequently bastardized.

- People who know what they're talking about are good!

- I think tech and efficiency on framework debates is sometimes my favorite part of debate.

- The NC AC 1NC makes me happy.

- I do not like impact justified frameworks.

- I am sad that phil debate is frequently seen as being the same as tricks debate.

Ks

- I am not paradigmatically against Non-T affs. I did read them in my career. I do not like it when debaters pretend to be topical when they are not. I do not believe there are "pseudo-topical" affs.

- Many word PIKs are silly to me. People shouldn't use slurs, but I am not sure other words are significant enough to justify word PIKs. Part of the reason many of them feel silly to me is because they are very rarely taken seriously by the people who read them.

- I do not think framework Ks are voting issues. I also really strongly dislike the way framework Ks are read. I think there are genuinely interesting points of philosophical interest to consider when thinking about whether an author's personal views can be disconnected from philosophy, but this debate is never had.

- A lot of K debate can be somewhat boring. Debaters frequently only extend taglines and rely on buzzwords and judge familiarity to get away with arguments. Redundancy and lack of specificity are things I strongly dislike and something I observe on a lot of K debates.

- A lot of continental philosophy sounds and looks like actual nonsense. I do not like personally trying to make sense out of nonsense nor do I like it when other people try and do it. The more I study analytic philosophy, the less appreciation I have for the esoteric and often unnecessary language in continental philosophy. Because of that, I also have even less appreciation for the esoteric and often unnecessary language debaters use in debate as they try and replicate that philosophy.

- I am not super into the call-out culture that debate sometimes has. I think this is a particularly untenable model in the context of HS debate, given that many of these people are minors. I think genuinely serious accusations should be brought to administrative adults in the community or, if necessary, other authorities. I am sympathetic to the idea that one might not want to debate someone who has done something problematic, especially to them, but I am unsure whether rounds themselves are a productive or good channel to communicate this issue with. I am also sympathetic to many of the reasons why one might not want to approach authorities or other adults in the community, but this does not wholly convince me that rounds are the solution to this problem. If I am put in the position to resolve issues related to serious violations of personal safety e.g. things that would constitute violations of the law, I will probably contact tab unless I have a very good reason not to. For issues that do not fall into that category, if I feel qualified to evaluate them, I will do so as I would a normal debate. If I feel that your "call-out" appeared unnecessary, unproductive, and done for the purpose of strategic value or for the sake of ethos guised in trying to be good, I will, at a minimum, tank your speaks.

Policy

- These debates are cool, but I will preface this by saying that coming from the Northeast means that I come from an area that really sucks at case debate and substance.

- Making creative solves case arguments is awesome, especially against affs that one wouldn’t think could be solved by the PIC (i.e. phil affs, K affs).

- I think LDers should utilize more of some of the weighing mechanisms and rhetoric used in policy (uniqueness args, sufficiency, etc)

- Structural violence makes me sad as a framework.

Non-T/K v Fwk/Theory

- The more I think about impact turns to theory/fwk, the less I am convinced they're voting issues. To me, they're either one of two things: 1) impact turns to the literal content of the shell e.g. fairness/education bad, in which case they need an RVI or 2) impact turns to the act of reading theory, which is meta theory. In my experience, it is very rarely justified as either.

- I do not think education is the most important impact of debate. I think fairness is the only thing that debate needs to be debate. It being a gateway to education is just an interesting FYI, not a reason education is preferable.

- Fairness bad arguments are really confusing sometimes.

- Framework is probably true.

To Do:

1) Be nice

2) Know what you’re talking about

3) Line by line stuff

4) Explain arguments

Not To Do:

Problematic things

- Being demeaning

- I will not evaluate "give me higher/30 speaks" arguments.

Technical Debate Things

- Spreading faster than you can

- Saying “gut check”

- Shadow extensions

- Putting case on the bottom of substance

- Not giving roadmaps by flows but instead by arguments

Email: xanderyoaks@gmail.com

Experience: I have taught at NSD, VBI, TDC. I've been coaching since I graduated in 2015 and I am the former director of debate at the Woodlands High School. My main experience is in LD, but I competed in/coached in NSDA nationals WSD (lonestar district), judge policy and PF somewhat irregularly at locals and TFA State. Across events, the way I understand how things work in LD applies. (WSD Paradigm at end)

Update for series online:

1. I have not judged any circuit-y debate since Grapevine, go slightly slower especially since it is over zoom. I do not like relying on speech docs to catch your arguments, but this is somewhat inevitable in zoom land. If you do go off doc or skip around you need to tell me.

2. Do whatever your heart desires. The paradigm below is merely an explanation of how I resolve debates, not a judgment on what kind of debate you like/have fun with. You can read pretty much whatever you want in front of me (with caveats mentioned below).

LD Paradigm (sorry this is long)

TL;DR: Use TWs, do not be rude, I am truly agnostic about what kind of debate happens in front of me. If you do not want to read through my whole paradigm check pref shortcuts and "things that will get your speaks tanked/I won't vote on."

Pref Shortcuts:

Phil: 1

K: 1-2 (more comfortable with identity Ks like queer theory, critical race theory, etc. I know some post-structuralist like Derrida, some Deleuze, Butler, Foucault, Anthro). Give me a 3 if you read Baudrillard unless you're good at explaining it

A bunch of theory: 2. I have been judging a lot of this lately, so do what you will. More specific theory stuff below.

Tricks: 2-3 I like good tricks but please have the spikes clearly delineated. There have been a couple rounds recently where I started to believe negating was in fact harder due to the affs that were being read. This kind of debate makes my head explode sometimes so collapsing in this form of debate is essential to me.

Policy/LARP: 3 (I guess?) I understand all of the technical stuff when it comes to this style, but I am not the judge for you if you're hoping that I would give you the leg up against things like phil or Ks. I vote on extinction outweighs a lot though (just bc I think LD has made a larger ideological shift towards policy args)

The trick to win my ballot regardless of the style/content: Crystallize!!!! Weigh!!!! Your 2nr/2ar should practically write my ballot.

I know that all of these have me in the 1-3 range, just consider me 'debate style agnostic'

Kritiks:
I am familiar with most kinds of K lit, but do not use that as a crutch in close rounds. Underdeveloped K extensions suck equally as much as blippy theory extensions. Here are some other things I care about:
1. Make sure the K links back to some framing mechanism, whether it is a normative framework or a role of the ballot. You can't win me over on the K debate if you don't clearly impact it back to a framing mechanism. The text of the role of the ballot/role of the judge must be clearly delineated.
2. Point out specific areas on the flow where your opponent links. I'm not going to do the work for you. Contextualize those links!
3. If the round devolves into a huge K debate, you must weigh. Sifting through confusing K debates where there isn't any weighing is almost as bad as a terrible theory debate.

Overview extensions are fine, people forget to interact them with the line by line which makes me sad. If there are unclear implications to specific line by line arguments I tend to err against you

Non-black people should not read afro pess in front of me. You will not get higher than a 27.5 from me if you read it, I am very convinced by arguments saying that you should lose the round for it.

"Non-T" Affs

I vote on these relatively consistently, the only issue that I have seen is an explanation of why the aff needs the ballot -- I rarely vote on presumption arguments (e.g. "the aff does nothing so negate!") but that is usually because the negative makes the worst possible version of these arguments

I am just as likely to vote on Framework as I am a K aff -- to win this debate, I need a decent counter-interp, some weighing, and/or impact turns. Recently, I have seen K Affs forget to defend a robust counter-interp and weigh it which ends up losing them the round. Maybe I have just become too "tech-y" on T/Theory debates

Also, generally, a lot of ppl against Ks have just straight up not responded to their thesis claims -- that is a very quick way to lose in front of me -- I sort of evaluate these thesis claims similar to normative frameworks (e.g. if they win them, it tends to exclude a lot of your offense)

Phil
This is the type of debate I did way back when, so I am probably most comfortable evaluating these kinds of debates (but I only get to rarely). I studied philosophy so I probably know whats happening

Make all FW arguments comparative

Unless otherwise articulated, I probs default truth testing over comparative worlds when it comes to substantive debates

Phil debaters: stop conceding extinction outweighs. It is my least favorite framework argument and it makes me sad every time I vote on it

Theory

If you are reading theory against a K aff/K's then you need to weigh why procedurals come first and vice versa. If the K does not indict models of debate/form then I presume that procedurals come first (e.g. if the neg just reads a cap k about how the plan perpetuates capitalism, then I presume that theory arguments come first if there is no weighing at all)

You should justify paradigm issues, but I default competing interps and no RVIs. Reasonability arguments need a specific/justified brightline or at least a good enough reason to 'gut check' the shell. I think people go for reasonability too little against shells with marginal abuse

I tend not to vote on silly semantic I meets unless you impact them well (e.g. text>spirit) my implicit assumption is that an I meet needs to at least resolve some of the offense of the shell. So, if the I meet does not seem to resolve the abuse, then I likely will not vote on it absent weighing

aff/neg flex standards: need to be specific e.g. you cant just say "negating is harder for xyz therefore let me do this thing" rather, you should explain how aff/neg is harder and then granting you access to that practice helps check back against a structural disadvantage in some specific way

If there are multiple shells, I NEED weighing when you collapse in the 2nr/2ar otherwise the round will be irresolvable and I will be sad

Really, just weighing generally.

Shells I consider frivolous and won't vote on: meme shells, shoe theory, etc

Shells I consider frivolous and will vote on: spec status (and various other spec shells beyond specifying a plan text/implementation), counter solvency advocate, role of the ballot spec (please do not call it 'colt peacemaker')

Combo shells are good but please be sure that your standards support all planks of the interp

Tricky Hobbits
Alright, so you roll up into the room and you got this really tricked out case with 100 different a prioris, so many theory spikes that they are literally jumping off the page to fight for fairness, and the classic incontestable descriptive offense, and you are ready to win. I just have a couple of requests:
1. I want the spikes clearly delineated. None of that hidden theory spikes between substantive offense bs. I won't catch it, your opponent won't catch it, so it probably doesn't exist (like absolute moral truths).
2. Slow down a little for theory spikes. I was and continue to be terrible at flowing, so help me out a little by starting out slower in the underview section.

Sometimes these debates make my brain explode a little bit, so crystallization is key -- obvi it is hard to be super pathosy on 'evaluate the debate after the 1ac' but overviews and ballot instruction is key here

Also, I likely will never vote on evaluate the debate after "x" speech that is not the 2ar. So if that is a core part of your strategy I suggest trying to win a different spike. I probably voted on this once at the NSD camp tournament, which was funny, but not an argument I like voting on. Similarly, I will evaluate the theory debate after the 2ar; you can argue for no 1ar theory or no 2nr paradigm issues however.

Against Ks, I will likely not vote on tricks that justify something abhorrent. I think 'induction fails takes out the K' is also a silly argument (again, I voted on it like once but I just think its a terrible argument)

Policy style

Unsure why I have to say this but DAs are not an advocacy and if I hear the phrase "perm the disad" you immediately drop down to a 28. If you extend "perm the disad" then you will drop to a 27. I'm not kidding.

Perms need a text, explanation of how the advocacies are combined, and how it is net beneficial (or just not mutually exclusive)

I do not really have any theoretical assumptions for policy style arguments, I can be convinced either way re:condo and specific CP theory (PICs, consult, etc)

Extinction outweighs: least favorite argument, usually the most strategic argument to collapse to against phil and K debaters

Unsure what else to say here, do what you want

Speaks
Speaker points are relatively arbitrary anyways, but I tend to give higher speaks to people who make good strategic decisions, who I think should make it to out rounds, who keep me engaged (good humor is a plus) and who aren't mean to other debaters (esp novices/less experienced debaters). Nowadays, I tend to start you off at a 28 and move you up or down based on your performance. The thing I value most highly when giving speaks is overall strategy and arg gen. If I think you win in a clever way or you debate in a way that makes it seem that you read my paradigm before round, then the higher speaks you will get. I think I have only given out perfect 30s a handful of times. At local tournaments, my standards for speaks are a lot lower given that the technical skill involved is usually lower.

Things I like (generally) that ensure better speaks: overviews that clear up messy debates and/or outline the strat in the 1ar/2nr/2ar, effective collapsing, making the debate easy to evaluate (about 7 times out of 10, if I take a long time to make a decision it is due to a really messy round which means you should fear for your speaks; the other 3/10 times it is because it is a close round).

If you are hitting a novice, please don't read like 5 off and make the round less of a learning experience and more of a public beat down. It just is not necessary. I will give you higher speaks if you make the round somewhat more accessible (ie going slower, reading positions that they can attempt to engage in, etc).

Things that will get your speaks tanked and that I will not vote on:

1. Shoe theory, or anything of the like. I won't vote on it, instant 25.

2. Being rude to novices, trying to outspread them and making it a public beatdown. Probs a 27 or under depending on the strength of the violation. What this means is that you should make the round accessible to novices; do not read some really really dense K (unless you are good at explaining it to a novice so that they can at least make some responses), nor should you read several theory shells and sketchy/abusive arguments to win the ballot. Not making the round accessible is a rip, and I think it is important for tournaments to be used as a learning experience, especially if it is one of their first tournaments in VLD.

3. If you are making people physically uncomfortable in the space, and depending on the strength of the violation, you can expect your speaks to be 26 or lower. If you are saying explicitly racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc things then probs an auto-loss 25.

4. Consistently misgendering people. L 25

5. I will not vote on the generic Nietzsche "suffering good" K anymore, I just think that it is a terrible argument and people need to stop going to bad policy back files, listen to some Kelly Clarkson if you want that type of education. L 25

WSD Paradigm

Style: To score high in this category, I not only consider how one speaks but the way arguments are presented and characterized. To some extent, I do think WS is a bit more 'performative' than other debate events and is much more conversational. As such, I think being a bit creative in the way you present arguments wins you some extra points here. This is not to say that your speech should be all flowery and substanceless; style is a supplement to content and not a replacement. Good organization of speeches also helps you score higher (e.g clash points, the speech has a certain flow to it, etc).

Content: The way I evaluate other forms of debate sort of applies here. The main thing I care about is 1. Have you provided an adequate explanation of causes/incentives/links etc? 2. Have you clearly linked this analysis to some kind of impact and explained why I care comparatively more about your impacts relative to your opponents? Most of the time, teams that lose lack one of these characteristics of arguments. The best second speeches add a new sub that puts a somewhat unique spin on the topic - get creative.

Models v. Counter-Models: The prop has the right to specify a reasonable interpretation of a motion to both narrow the debate and make more concrete what the prop defends on more practical/policy oriented motions. To some extent, I think it is almost necessary on these kinds of motions because while focusing on 'big ideas' is good, talking about them in a vacuum is not. Likewise, the opp can specify a reasonable counter-model in response/independent of the prop. I try my best not to view these debates in an LD/Policy way, but if it is unclear to me what the unique net benefit of your model is (and how the counter-model is mutually exclusive), then you are likely behind. On value based motions, I think models are relatively silly in the sense that these motions are not about practical actions, but principles. On regrets/narrative motions, I need a clear illustration of the world of the prop and opp (a counter-factual should be presented e.g. in a world without this narrative/idea, what would society have looked like instead?).

Strategy: Most important thing to me in terms of strategy is collapsing/crystallizing and argument coverage. Like other formats of debate, the side that gives me the most clear and concise ballot story is the one that will win. The less I have to think, the better. Obviously, line by lining every single argument is not practical nor necessary; however, if you are going to concede something, I need to know why it should not factor in my decision as soon as possible. Do not pretend an argument just doesn't exist. I also do not evaluate new arguments in the 3rd speeches and reply. For the 3rd speech, you can offer new examples to build on the analysis of the earlier speech, which I will not consider new.

Also, creative burden structures that help narrow the debate in your favor is something I would categorize as strategic. The best burdens lower your win conditions and subsequently increase the burden on the opposing side. Obviously, needs to be somewhat within reason or a common interp of the motion but I think this area of framing debates is under-utilized.

(sorry if the above is somewhat lengthy, I figured that I should write a more comprehensive paradigm given that I am judging WS more often now)

I'm a parent judge who's been judging for 3 years on the nat circuit

Please don't spread - add me to the email chain: yyan5221@yahoo.com

I try my best to make decisions off the flow, not based on rhetoric, although speaker points will obviously reflect a mix of both

That being said, please make my decision as easy as possible - I protect the 2NR from shifty 2AR's, and weighing + clear ballot stories are a beautiful thing

Feel free to run any relatively stock positions like CP + DA, etc. - substantive debate should be fine if adequately explained

I've voted on progressive arguments before, including one off K's, performance affs, etc - but these are always a tossup and I don't trust myself to evaluate them very well

I understand basic util/deont (Kant mostly) syllogisms but don't hit me with the a. action theory b. bindingness stuff - just explain it thoroughly and make interacts

Speaks average out to a 28.5 and I'll try to keep it reasonable

I was a Lincoln Douglas debater in high school, and now I coach debate at Chaminade High School. I am a traditional judge. I do not like speed or jargon. If you speak quickly, I cannot understand you, and your arguments will not be on my flow. If it isn’t on the flow, it doesn’t count.

I expect debaters to debate the topic at hand and not off topic arguments. These do not weigh in my judgment. I do not care if you think that the topic is unarguable, that the wording makes it impossible, or that giving you a win will satisfy some global injustice. I just want you to debate.

Logic, clear thinking, and clear delivery are what I am looking for. If you give me these, I will give you the win and high points.

Welcome to my Paradigm!

Too lazy to read my paradigm? Here's all you need to know:

The winning debate will be the one that is most logical, supported, and understood by both me and the other debater.

...

Flashing me docs? theaaronzhao@gmail.com

Sending me free money? Venmo @Zhaomaster

Subscribe to me on YouTube? Zhaomaster

Want to see my rad photography website? Website

...

About Me:

Hello, I'm Aaron Zhao from Bethesda, MD. I went to Walt Whitman High School. I'm a sophomore at Duke University, double majoring in Visual Arts and Biology with minors in Photography and Chemistry and a certificate in Documentary Studies (that's a mouthful). I'm hoping to matriculate to medical school following graduation.

Outside of academics, I am an avid photographer and videographer, dance with Duke Chinese Dance, sing in the Duke Chorale, am the Lead Feature Photography Editor for The Chronicle (Duke's independently run newspaper), and conduct research in the Duke Medical Center's Cardiothoracic Surgery Lab.

I love crocs. If you see anyone wearing white or yellow crocs, that's me. I love taking risks and new adventures. I am planning on hiking the entirety of the Appalachian Trail (Georgia to Maine) before I die. Cherries are my favorite fruit but watermelon comes in at a close second.

...

About Debating:

I'm relatively flexible for what you run, and don't have preferences for anything. The one exception to this is theory. Theory is fine, but confusion is not. If I can't follow your theory or your opponent can't follow, it's going to be hard for me judge adequately.

Jargon makes you sound smart, but makes me scratch my head. If you want to throw in words like supercalifragilisticexpialidocious be my guest, but try to limit them please.

During the debate, I am looking for Evidence, Clarity, and Logic.

I can flow decently well, but definitely not well enough to keep up with spreading. Please do not spread. Controlled speed is okay, but spreading is not. With that being, just because you don't hear the clamoring of my MacBook keys does not mean you are spreading.

I pay attention in CX but may not flow.

Typically not a fan, but Kritiks and Theory argument are fine and will be fairly judged as long as you have enough evidence to support.

The most important thing in debate is to have fun. If you're not having fun, I'm not having fun, and I typically like to have fun. Relax, you'll be great!

....

About Speaks:

I'm very giving with my speak points! Very giving.

...

The Do Nots:

I'm a pretty open guy. But there are some things you should never do in a debate room with me.

o RACISM, XENOPHONISM, HETEROSEXISM, SEXISM, ABLEISM will result in a loss. Don't do it.

o Be rude to your competitor. Debate is supposed to be fun. Let's have a fun time!

o Drop-kick your competitor in the face.

...

Closing Thoughts:

Thanks for reading my entire paradigm! Have fun, laugh, and relax. You all are the best and I wish you nothing but the best in the debate and your life!

Parent of a varsity LDer.

Speak slowly and make your value, value criterion, and contentions clear. I will vote under the winning framework, and try to average a 28. Have fun!