1. I believe the topic is a hypothesis that is to be tested by argument and analysis during the specific round in which I am assigned to critique. I focus, generally, on line-by-line analysis of the arguments and analysis generated by each team to determine which side did the proverbial "better job of debating." I typically render my decisions based on the positions taken in constructive arguments and advanced through rebuttals. I welcome and invite debaters to provide me with the frameworks and meta-analysis needed to render a decision, but, in the final analysis, I rely on the arguments on the flow and how they are developed in each round. I depend on evidence-based argument as a general rule, but am also open to analysis and strategic constructs which may arise in any particular round. The following may be helpful to in-round participants. I also welcome queries from the in-round participants so long as no attempt is being made to "pre-condition" my ballot.

2. T - When I debated in HS and College, T was "the last refuge of the damned." I have a very high bar for T because I think limiting the topic limits creativity in argument. Also, because I am a lawyer and not necessarily connected to the debate community I don't have the credibility to limit research outside of a debate coach's perogative. In the past, I have rarely balloted on T. I will, however, "pull the trigger" when T arguments are mishandled. With respect to extra-T, I tend to give a little more
"love" to such claims when linked to a specific violation.

3. Counterplans - I tend to be somewhat conservative with C-Plans. I tend to require that they be 1) non-topical, 2) competitive, and 3) provide some net benefit. I perfer that C-Plans are solvent with evidence independent of the affirmative. That being said, I have balloted for topical c-plans, and have balloted for net benefit c-plans. I have also balloted for partial c-plans (not completely solving the aff harm area).

4. K - Affs - I find critical affs interesting and will ballot when they carry the day. To defeat a critical aff, I tend to require specific evidence taking out the authors or positions advanced. As for Neg K, I am generally open to them but usually require some impact analysis - with evidence, please, that overcomes the affirmative.

5. DA - With respect to DA's, I need intrinsic and extrinsic links to some type of terminal impact to ballot. If the links are weak, you need to explain things to me in late rebuttals - althought it's never to early to start this process.

6. I do try to line up and compare analysis and argument at the end of the round to reach my decision, but the more help you give me, the more likely I will find in your favor.

7. The same holds true for LD and POFO debates that I witness.
8. I flow cross-ex and hold teams to the positions they take.

email= rbuscho59@gmail.com

Hi, I'm Natasha! I'm a current Parli and LD debater from Concordia University Irvine. (#TalonsUp) I have 3 years of experience in debate. I'm comfortable with speed, open to all arguments, just don't be rude to your opponent. (Seriously. I hate blatant hostility and disrespect. Don't test it. I'll drop you on sight.) Organization is key. Tell me where to vote and how to evaluate each argument. I may or may not be persuaded with iced matcha/chai tea lattes.

Please email me/ask me before round if you have any specific questions: natashacalilung@gmail.com

The Basics:

- I'll vote on anything. I do not have a preference for specific args/strategies.

- I defer to competing counter-interps for theory. Reasonability is arbitrary.

- Please collapse.

- Read advocacy/interp texts slowly/twice. A written copy would be nice.

- I'm down for Aff/Neg K's. I'm familiar with the more traditional literature (Foucault, Marx, etc) however, I would prefer a basic thesis of the literature anyways. I'm not persuaded by "they said state! that's a link".

- My ballot will weigh heavily with what's said in the rebuttals. I will try my best to protect against new args, but call a p.o.o anyways.

- I'm not very facially expressive. Don't try to read my face to see if I'm vibing with your arguments.

- I'm a speaker fairy, so yay for you if you care about speaker awards. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

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

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

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

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

Background: I am a retired American Political Science professor with three years experience judging as a parent judge.

Judging Preferences: While I will entertain most arguments, I prefer rounds focused on substance. I look for plan clarity and an organized, strategic argument with the stock issues to be made explicit. If you make a theory argument, please give a detailed explanation for me and provide the standards, impacts, and how you advance the educational value. In non-policy debates, most of the above applies but also make sure your value criterion supports your value.

In communicating, please avoid jargon and don’t spread. If I am unable to understand you, I can’t judge your argument. Signposting is greatly appreciated as is a summary of voter issues in the last speech. Be professional and respectful. Speaker points given are generally between 27 and 30; below 27 suggests you’ve engaged in disrespectful communication, such as, racist, sexist, or homophobic language, bullying novices, etc. Have fun.

I believe that debate should be used to strengthen ones ability to construct, and effectively relay, a point of view by using clearly explained and expressed evidence for support. What one learns from participating in debate can be used in our everyday social interactions. With that said, there is no use for spreading or speaking like an auctioneer in the real world, such as a debate with family and/or friends or Congress. Competitors should be aware that there is a person (most likely not a professional debator) judging their case. That judge has to listen to the points given, process the weight of the arguements, and write down those points in real time. I believe that a few well thought out arguements are more powerful than rhetorically vomiting arguements at a rapid pace.

As a judge I am looking for a well structured, thought out, and delivered case, especially when judging a finals round. During a final round both teams will most likely have equally strong cases. Sometimes how the case was presented, and which team gave me what I needed the way I needed can be what tilts decision.

A little bit about me, I've been doing college debate for 2 years now at El Camino College where I do Parliamentary debate and LD. As for my judging paradigm, the main thing I look for is a clear, concise argument with the analysis to back it up.

A good debate means both sides have strong, well researched cases with points that are easy to understand and supported with evidence. Debaters are respectful of each other and the spirit of the event.

I judge on framework and flow. The debater that wins will be the one who best defends their case with supported rebuttals and upholds their value through the end of the debate.

Experience

• I debated Parliamentary Debate for two years in highschool. Among many other tournament finishes during this time, I placed 6th overall in the 32nd Stanford Invitational for Parliamentary Debate, and competed in the 2018 Parliamentary TOC in Oregon. At the end of the 2017/2018 debate season, I ranked 24th in the nation for Parliamentary Debate.

• Additionally, I briefly served as coach for the Global Prep Academy Debate Team for several months.

  Preferences:

  • I am a flow judge. Of course, I will only determine the winner based on what was discussed during the round. This means you must articulate if a point has been dropped, and tell me when to extend arguments that should flow across the chart.

  • The most important aspect I look for in a debate is clash. Prove to me how 1) Your own case upholds the criterion, 2) how the opponent's case does not uphold the criterion, and 3) how your case acts as a sufficient rebuttal in relation to the opposing case in terms of upholding to the criterion.

  • I weigh based on impact calculus, you must give me quantity, quality, and probability when impacting your arguments, this gives me the exact weight each of your arguments possesses. Likewise, refute the impacts presented by the opposing team, either through downplaying the severeness of their claimed impacts, or by attacking the link from their argument to their impacts.

  • I look for a debater’s ability to address the stock issues. Assuming you’re debating under Stock Issue format, a good strategy to win me over is by either demonstrating how you (as the Aff) have upheld each stock issue, or how you (as the Neg) have proven the Aff incapable of upholding each stock issue. If you’re using another format such as Comparative Advantage or Tabula Rasa, this, of course, would change.

  • Feel free to use whatever strategies you would like during the round; advanced theory, meta, paradigms, advanced perms, kritiks, etc. I’ve read many debate books and have experienced a lot during rounds- so no worries! However, debates are ultimately won and lost on the logic and reason of argumentation presented by each side, do not forget this. It really doesn't matter how much strategy you use as long as you give a quality argument.

  • Spreading is allowed, however, as with the point above, you don't need to flood the debate with information in order to win, all you need to do is make a more convincing argument. If you go too fast for me to understand what you’re saying, I will warn you, if you continue, I will stop flowing what I can't understand.

  • Accept POI’s if you have time. If the debate is an especially close one, I’ll consider POI’s (among other things) as a “tie breaker” of sorts. Accepting a POI tells me you were willing to take more risks in order to allow for a better debate, I’ll reward you for that.

Open/Senior 

   I'm a Tabula Rasa judge. I will evalulate all arguments  presented within the round unless explicitly told within the context of an argument to prioritize and/or exclude specific arguments by one of the competitors; however, your opponents have equal acces to responses. These arguments include but are not limited to Theory, Topicality, Procedural, Kritique, Performance, Plan Debate, Spreading, Counter Plan, Prima Facia, et cetera.  I DO NOT drop debaters for use of strategic argumentation unless told to do so in the context of an argument; however, if  debaters do not accomodate their opposotion it will be reflected in their speaker points. I have several preferences as far as competitors presentation these include  Road Maps, Sing Posts,Impact Calculus, Turns, Voting issues, Frame Work.

Novice/Junior

    Ask if you have any questions.

I have judged before, however, my expierence judging many debate rounds and forms is very limited. That said:

1.) I am Lay, do not spread. I believe this is abusive and I will most likely not be able to understand you.

2.) Warrenting/Weighing Impacts is very important in picking up my vote. Tell me why there are problems in/out of status quo and terminalize your impacts.

3.) Do not use debate jargon

4.) I will not flow. Please tell me why to pick you up. I am predominantly form over function.

If you have any questions about my expierences/paradigm please feel free to ask me.

Lay Judge, speak slowly and concisely. Connect the dots and tell me why. Please put aff on my left and neg on my right. You'll lose me.

Two years competing for El Camino Debate Team. Participated in Parli, NFALD, and IE's.

Hey there! I am well-versed in parli, LD, extemp, and impromptu. For parli and LD: maintain a respectful, academic environment, use speed only if necessary (speak clearly), tag your arguments, and don't scream. I really like theory, if ran well and under the right circumstances. Only run K's if it actually makes sense, don't run it if you don't your arguments.

he/him/they/them

wvontrez@gmail.com

For college debate, use this email: debatecsuf@gmail.com

CSUF 22

Coach @ Harvard Westlake

--------------------------------------

S Tier - LARP, Plan v K
A tier - Clash of Civs
B tier - K v K, Phil
C tier - Theory debates, Trix

D/F tier - memes

I did policy debate for 4 years at Downtown Magnets (shout out LAMDL) and 4 years at Cal State Fullerton. I debated mostly truthy performance debates and one-off K strats in high school and debated the K in a very technical way in college. Currently coach flex teams in LD.

I would say my debate influences are Jared Burke, Shanara Reid-Brinkley, Jonathan Meza, Anthony Joseph, Travis Cochran, Toya Green, and Scotty P.

TLDR: I will vote for anything, as long as it's impacted out. The list of preferences is based on my comfort with the argument. Fine with speech drop or email chain.

--------------------------------------

General

I think debate is a game that can have heavy implications on life and influence a lot of things

Tech > Truth, unless the Tech is violent (racism good, sexism good, etc.)

Good for all speeds, but clarity is a must

I default my prioritization to theory, T, and then substance. This can be changed if argued

--------------------------------------

Theory

Disclosure is probably good, can vote on the impact turn though

Yes competing interps, lean no RVIs, DTD

Shells need an interp, violation, standards, voter

Reasonability OK but explain why you are reasonable

Need a good abuse story/how does my ballot set norms? Why does my ballot matter? How does this implicate future debates?

I think condo is good

--------------------------------------

LARP

Absurd internal link chains should be questioned

Default util

No zero-risk

Uniqueness controls the link

Impact turns are good

Perms are tests of competition, not new advocacies

Yes judge kick

New evidence in NR as long as it's a logical extension of the NC. I'm okay with the 2AR doing this as well to check back, but it may not be strategic.

Will read evidence if told to do so

Quality ev > Card dump of bad ev

CPs need to compete on a functional and textual level

--------------------------------------

K

I have a reading background in several critical literature bases. I am most read in anti-capitalist theory, afro pessimism, fugitive black studies, settler colonialism, and Baudrillard. For the sake of the debate, assume I know nothing and explain your K.

Winning theory of power important

Perm solves the link of omission

Specific link > state bad link

Contextualized link > state bad link

Affs should weigh the aff vs. the K, negs should tell me why this isn't possible OR deal with affs impacts.

Extinction outweighs debate probably good here

--------------------------------------

K Affs

I appreciate affirmatives that are in the direction of the topic. Affs that don't defend any portion of the resolution need a heavy defense of doing so

I try not to have a leaning into T-FW debates, but I find myself often voting negative. Similar to Theory/T, I would love to hear about the affirmative's model of debate compared to the negative's. Impact turns to their model are awesome but there is a higher bar if I don't know what your model is.

Read a TVA -- Answer the TVA

Fairness is an impact. Clash is important. Education matters

KvK debates are super interesting, but I hate when they become the Oppression Olympics. Perms are encouraged. Links of omission are not. Contextualize links to the affirmative and clearly tell me how to evaluate the round.

Presumption isn't gone for enough in these debates

Lean yes on perms in KvK/method debates

Performances should be used offensively. I will flow your poems/videos/whatever, just have a defense of it and utilize it to win

--------------------------------------

Phil

I think phil AC/NCs are interesting

Explain it well and you will be fine

Default epistemic confidence if the AC is phil

--------------------------------------

Tricks

Do not hide tricks

Answer them

Preferably not extempted

--------------------------------------

Speaker Points

Pretty much summed up here

If you make a joke about Jared Burke, +.1 speaker point