The Princeton Classic
2018 — Princeton, NJ/US
Varsity LD Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideTraditional judge that likes to see contentions well developed or negated through strong, sound, and logical arguments.
Please enunciate clearly. While spreading can be advantageous in your rebuttals, please do not forsake the quality of your arguments for speed, especially during your construct.
I value respect so please be mannerly in your conduct toward judge and fellow opponent.
I have judged at local and national tournaments.
I've been judging for 3 years now and enjoy it a lot. One of my biggest pet peeves is spreading. I am arguably the most anti-spreader judge on the circuit :') I want to learn the topics that are being debated and be able to discern who does a better job of articulating their case. If I can't understand what is being said, it's difficult for me to be able to do that.
I am a parent judge, so please speak at a conversational pace. Make it clear why I should vote for you by the end of your final speech; explicit voters are helpful. Explain how your framework functions and what impacts matter.
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.
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!
Simple Paradigm, I am a traditionalist when it comes to LD and PF so I know, when judging on the circuit I will be blocked, but this is LD and PF not Policy.
Debate the resolution, not something you bought from a college student or topic you find enlightening - the resolutions are chosen , voted on , for a reason.
Repeat: Debate the resolution
One more time: Debate the resolution
Content Warning, I can be sarcastic, below was written with seriousness and some fun in mind =)
So with this in mind, speed and flow, I can flow very quickly, however if it sounds like you are hyperventilating, stop, breathe, take another breath, and slow down, you will need to since you just dropped those points or contentions - you may even see me put my pen or pencil down as an indicator. Have you ever wondered what those breathing exercises got you? Do they help with a college or job interview? If you ever do speak that quickly during an interview can you please record and put on youtube so we can watch the other person's reaction. =)
If using a K in LD or PF - well at this point you can assume I am not the biggest fan unless I am judging a policy round. The biggest concern, besides taking you off the resolution, is that most debaters do not fully understand what they arguing or at least the premise of their K and or using a generic K that side steps the resolution, please see above. I may be amiss on this aspect, but are there any positive K's, like one that shows why picnics and puppies are amazing!
So with that in mind, life is simple, right? Impact, road maps, in LD your Value should simply win out and and your VC better convince me that all those contentions and sub-points make sense, especially since you slow downed so I can actually hear them. =) Yes I like smiley faces, life is fun, take a step back and enjoy it!
Oh wait, almost forgot, remember this is LD or PF, not policy !
In all types of debate, keep in mind: QUANTITY IS NOT QUALITY. Don't try to win by simply overwhelming your opponent(s) with arguments. Gish gallops will not work with me, so don't try them.
I am an old-school LD judge. I want to see a clear values clash and hear some philosophy, not just a long list of cards. Cases that are not grounded in ethical theory will have a harder time winning me over. Kritik cases are fine so long as they are not abusive -- that is, so long as they leave the opposition some ground from which to argue. A kritik of the resolution is fine, but generic kritiks that could be run against any case / resolution are not.Also, any out-of-round kritiks just aren't going to work with me. These almost always revolve around claims that I have no way to verify, or debaters essentially making up rules that they they then accuse their opponents of breaking.
I am STRONGLY opposed to spreading in LD. I believe that it is the bane of the event. Certainly it is an excuse to toss out a lot of abusive one-way hash arguments. Anything much faster than a typical conversational pace is likely to cause me to stop flowing your case. Make your point with QUALITY, not quantity.
Please do NOT offer to send me your case. If I cannot follow your case AS YOU PRESENT IT IN THE ROUND, you are NOT communicating it clearly enough.
Tech cases are unlikely to impress me. Win with strong arguments, not technicalities.
Semantic arguments are fine, but keep them on point; don't descend into trivialities.
In Public Forum, I am similarly NOT a fan of "progressive" debate. This is PUBLIC forum, so make arguments that could impress any reasonably well-informed and attentive audience, not just judges who know all of technical debate language. Make reasonable claims which clearly support your side of the resolution, support them with significant and relevant evidence, and weigh impacts. Tell me why your impacts outweigh your opponents', tell me why your evidence is superior to theirs, tell me why your claims lead to me voting for your side of the resolution.
Hi! Here are my LD, PF, and Congress paradigms.
Email: carteree23@gmail.com
Debate experience/about me: I'm currently an English teacher in Philly but I'm heading to law school this fall. I spent seven years as an assistant coach for Phillipsburg HS in NJ where I coached the Congress program. I am on hiatus from coaching this year but I'm still judging a little bit-- not nearly as much as in previous years though. When I competed back in the day, I did mostly LD + sometimes Congress in Maine from 2010-2014, and did NFA-LD + a tiny tiny bit of speech at Lafayette College until 2016.
Drexel Law '27, Penn GSE '21 (MS.Ed), Lafayette '18 (BA)
----
LD
The short version: My background is pretty varied so I'm good with just about any arguments in round. I'm pretty tab; tech > truth; I want you to run whatever you think your best strategy is. A couple of specific preferences are outlined below.
Speed: I'm good with anything! If you're spreading just put me on the email chain.
DAs: I like DAs and enjoy policymaking debates in general but I am a little old school in that I don't really like when they have wild link chains and impacts just for the sake of outweighing on magnitude. I'm not gonna drop you for it but I think there are always better arguments out there.
T/Theory: Please save it for instances of legit abuse. I can keep up but there are definitely way better theory judges than me out there so keep that in mind.
Traditional: I competed on a small local circuit in high school and am always good for this type of round. Please weigh & give me voters!
Other stuff (CPs, Ks, aff ground): This is where the overarching "run whatever" ethos truly kicks in, though you should be mindful that I am getting very old and need you to err on the side of over-explaining anything new and hip. I love a good CP; PICs are fine, and I don't really buy condo bad. I was not a K debater when I competed but I've come to enjoy them a lot-- I am familiar with the basics in terms of lit and just make sure to explain it well. Plan affs? Absolutely yes. Performance affs? I think they're super cool. Just tell me where to vote.
And finally: have fun! Bring a sense of humor and the collegiality that makes debate such a special activity. I'll never, ever, ever drop you or even change your speaker points just for being an "aggressive" speaker, but please use your best judgment re: strat and speaking style-- i.e. if you're a varsity circuit debater hitting a novice, it's not the time for your wildest K at top speed, and that is something I'm willing to drop your speaks for.
You can ask me any further questions about my paradigm before the round.
---
PF
A lot of my PF thoughts are the same as LD so this will be very short (tl;dr -- run your best strategy, extend/weigh/give me voters, and I'll vote on the flow)! I do think it should be a different event with different conventions and too much progressive argumentation is probably not great for the overall direction of PF, but I won't drop you for it.
Also, I judge a fair amount but I've never coached PF and I am also getting old so I definitely don't have as much topic knowledge as you. Please err on the side of explaining acronyms/stock arguments/etc.
---
Congress
I did Congress as my second event in high school and it's what I primarily coached. I am a pretty frequent parli at NJ, PA, and national circuit tournaments.
I'm a flow judge and my #1 priority is the content of your speeches. While your speaking style and delivery is an important part of the overall package and I’ll mention it on ballots, it's called congressional debate for a reason, and I'll always rank a less polished speaker with better content higher than somebody who's a great orator but isn't advancing the debate. This may make me different than judges from a speech background, and that might reflect in my ranks-- but it's why we have multiple judges with different perspectives, and why it's so important to be well-rounded as a competitor.
I love a good first aff but they should follow a problem/solution structure. If you are speaking past the first aff I need to see great refutation and your arguments need to explicitly provide something new to the debate; don't rehash. Humanizing your impacts and explicitly weighing them is the quickest way to my ranks.
I don't have terribly strong opinions re: the PO-- just be fair, knowledgeable, and efficient and you'll rank.
Hello,
Please be clear when you make arguments and be sure to have a claim, warrant, impact or else I will not be able to vote for them. I am open to spreading and more progressive arguments. Other than that, feel free to ask me for more specifics at the beginning of a round!
Some Info about Me:
I was a policy debater throughout high school at Ransom Everglades and went to the TOC my senior year. I'm currently a junior at Princeton University. I'm a member of the Princeton Debate Panel, and am studying public & international affairs.
Very Important:
Debate becomes unpleasant to participate in and judge when the debaters are excessively mean to one another.
In the words of Maggie Berthiaume: "Please be nice. If you can’t be nice to others (the other team, your partner, me, the novice flowing the debate in the back of the room), please don’t prefer me. Ignore this and you will almost certainly not be pleased with your points. There is a fine line between competitive spirit and needless cruelty — know it. Repeatedly and annoyingly interrupting people while they are trying to answer your CX questions will lower your points."
Policy Paradigm:
General:
1) I haven’t judged any rounds on this topic, so it’d be helpful to explain all acronyms and programs that you think are relevant.
2) I will judge by the flow. As a result, doing clear line by line will make it far easier for you to win. That also means that I’m not at all a fan of long overviews. It’s much easier to judge if we all have the same understanding of how arguments fit together, rather than 8-minute-long overviews that I have to put together at the end of the round.
3) I was a 1A/2N so I try to protect the 2NR from unpredictable 2AR maneuvers.
4) Evidence quality is important. The more you explain your evidence in the context of your opponents, the farther ahead you will be. I’ll read cards when they are contested by both sides and if they’re relevant to the large issues of the debate.
No Plan Affs: Debate is a game and the role of the ballot is to vote for the team that did the best debating. Policy-making can be productive. There’s a difference between framework and topicality. Procedural fairness is an extremely important impact and a well-prepared opponent is crucial to fair debates. Specific topical versions of the aff are fantastic and that part of the debate is often the most decisive.
T: Topicality is a debate about what the topic looks like in the world of either team’s interpretations, and that’s how it should be explained. I generally believe that reasonability comes before competing interpretations.
Theory: I don’t think I have any strong pre-dispositions for theory debates, only because I didn’t have many of those debates. I would greatly prefer to watch debates about content rather than just debaters reading pre-prepared theory shells without any real clash.
Disads: They’re good, especially topic disads. Also, politics DAs are cool. They let debaters learn about current events and provide predictable ground.
CP: Huge fan. Generic counterplans are fine, as long as you have specific solvency advocates and clearly articulated net benefits.
Ks: I probably know very little about the literature that your kritiks are based in. That means the burden of explanation is higher and link work is extremely important. I do think that turns case arguments can be effective but I will be sympathetic to the aff’s arguments on the perm and their explanations of why pragmatism and policy-making is important. I am not the correct audience for death good arguments.
LD Paradigm (for the Princeton Classic):
I know very little about LD, but here are some miscellaneous thoughts I have:
1. Theory: I'll start by saying that I sometimes find myself struggling in theory debates, mostly because I don't have lots of experience for what the norms for theory are in LD. I would suggest that if you go for theory, either do so slowly and clearly, or go for substance.
Some theoretical dispositions: explain why fairness and education matter and why it's a reason to reject the team, not the argument. Disclosure is a good thing because it allows for better, more fair debates with more prepared debaters. I will probably default to reasonability. Proving actual abuse is better than potential abuse. Also, RVIs just don't make sense to me.
2. Topicality/Framework: I think affs should be topical and policy-making is good. I will probably understand the basic concepts behind most kritiks, and they should be extremely well explained and impacted out.
3. Policy Style Arguments: These are great.
If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me before the round!
I would like the debaters to do the following while in round:
1. Be courteous - no profanity
2. Please sign post in your round
3. Make clear arguments that are well warranted and have clear impacts
4. No spreading. I am a parent judge. If I do not understand, I will not follow you. So please go slow and make yourself clear.
5. Please give me clear reasons of why I should vote for you.
6. I am not familiar with any debate philosophy (e.g. Kant) hence I would prefer util.
7. Finally, have fun. I believe debate is an educational activity - you learn when you lose or win!
Hello,
I am a parent judge new to LD. Please speak at normal pace.
Have fun!
--This is my first major edit to my paradigm in, like, two years, so ask me questions before the round if there's anything here that doesn't make sense or I forgot.--
I debated four years of policy and one year of LD in high school from 2003 to 2008. I've been coaching LD since I graduated and I've been with Lexington for the past 5ish years. I'm also working on a PhD in philosophy (this doesn't mean what you think it means, see below).
General info/Speaker points stuff
--Email chains are cool, include me on them: hcurtis@albany.edu
--Run whatever you want to run as long as it isn't actively offensive. If you want a K debate, have a K debate. If you're looking for a values or stock debate, that's cool too. The space is yours, do what you want with it. There's stuff that I'm probably less good at judging than other people, but I won't drop you for running a specific type of argument unless, again, it's actively offensive.
--I'm 100% team tech over truth. A dropped argument is a true argument. That being said (and this applies generally as well), the dumber an argument is, the lower my threshold for a response is. So, while most arguments require actual, thought out responses, if you respond to "must concede after the AC" by just saying "no I don't", that'll count. So, don't drop stuff, but don't waste time on really bad arguments. If an argument is given without a warrant, it doesn't need as developed of a response.
--On that subject, warrants are cool too. I hate vague extensions, they bother me and that'll reflect in your speaker points. If you're extending a card, a theory shell, anything really, give me the warrant behind the card. What does the [evidence/shell/value/whatever] say, why is it right, and what does that have to do with my ballot? Better extensions and better storytelling mean better speaker points. Blippy extensions with no explanation require less to respond to because, as above, blippy extensions are bad arguments.
--I'm not the best at flowing. This matters less in a world of speech docs, but for stuff like detailed underviews (like cramming drop the debater, RVI, reasonability, and random evaluate theory after the 1AR spike into the same subpoint) or longer theory shells, slow down. No, seriously, slow down. I won't get all of the details, and then when you're posting me after the round about how I could have missed underview A, subpoint 3, as extended with random other thing on a totally different flow as defense somewhere else, I'll just say I didn't get it on the flow and we'll both be mad.
--I don't like doing work for debaters. Embedded clash is a nicer way of saying judge intervention. Don't make me do it. Offense weighing and comparison is probably the most important thing for me (and key to good speaker points). Don't just say why your stuff is good, say why your stuff is better/more important to my ballot than their stuff.
--Last thing for speaker points, the most important factor for me is strategy. If you make strategic arguments and there isn't anywhere where I think you should have done something different, then you'll get very high speaker points. Strategy is number one for me, but that gets weighed against not being a jerk in round, being funny, and being a good speaker. If you do everything perfectly but you're not a clear speaker, then you won't get a 30, but you'll still get above a 29.5. I'll say clear or slow if I need to, but if I say it a couple of times, then you should know what'll happen to your speaks. If I say clear, don't do that thing where you're clear for a couple of seconds and then just go back to how you were speaking before. Also, general rule of thumb, be loud. I don't hear stuff very well, so the louder you are the better. Don't scream at me, but you get the point.
T/Theory
--At least 80% of my neg ballots when I debated policy were on T. Love me a good T debate.
--General stuff: I default to competing interpretations, no RVI, drop the debater unless told otherwise. Also, general pet peeve, if you're going to tell me drop the argument and it isn't blatantly clear what argument I'm dropping, then tell me what argument I'd be dropping.
--RVIs need a little bit of work for me. You need to convince me why you get RVIs in the first place (RVIs are much more convincing against multiple shells or 7 off strats) and then actively identify what constitutes an RVI and why.
--1AR theory is fine-ish, but when a round turns into shell versus shell, it usually breaks down into incomprehensible nonsense and then I get sad and then I trash your speaker points. If it gets to this point, what makes me happy is offense comparison. This is usually easier if we're weighing between fairness and education voters, but if it's fairness v. fairness, then be super specific about why your opponent is being worse for fairness than you are. Compare offense, don't just extend yours. Alternatively, go meta and tell me why aff or neg theory comes first. Either way, don't ignore the other side of the flow, because then I have to do weighing for you and nobody likes that.
--I'll vote for disclosure shells, but the dumb argument vs. strength of response weighing from before applies here. If there's straight up nothing on the wiki and they're from a school where you'd expect something to be there, then fine. But if it's a small school non-circuit debater and/or your interp is "must disclose all speech docs, past 2NR strategies, and what they've had for lunch the past five days", then a lesser response is required.
--Generally speaking, if there's an obvious win on substance and a more difficult win on T or theory and you go for T or theory, I consider that a less than strategic move and it'll reflect in your speaker points.
DA/Counterplan/LARPy Stuff
--I was a policy debater after all, so I'm pretty comfortable with this kind of debate.
--Impact calc is your best friend. Good impact calc means good speaker points and typically is a tiebreaker if I want to avoid intervening. If I have a better understanding of why your impacts matter more than your opponent's, then you're probably going to win.
--This is a general thing, but I'll highlight it here and elsewhere, but extensions should include storytelling for me. Don't just extend the cards from the disad, explain the warrants and tell me how they link together into the story of the disad. Better extensions, better speaker points.
K/Framework
--So remember how I said that me being a philosophy PhD doesn't mean what you think it means? I study bioethics and general normative theory and have had any knowledge/appreciation of continental philosophy beaten out of me over the last 5 years. So, I'm actually not the best at evaluating super dense Ks, high theory, that sort of stuff. That being said, you can totally run it if that's your thing. However, you're going to ahve to take extra time for storytelling. What's going on in the K, what does the aff/res do that is bad, why should I care, and what do you do to make it better/different? So, don't avoid running Ks if that's your A-strat. Do what you do best. Just be good at it and we're fine. If you've grabbed a K from a teammate that you haven't seen before and don't know how to properly extend and explain, it probably won't go well and you should consider doing something else (this applies generally).
--Framework v. framework debates are almost as bad as theory v. theory debates in terms of incomprehensibility. So, do active weighing work. Why does your framework matter more? If your framework precludes, why? If they say their framework precludes, why doesn't it. If both frameworks preclude each other and I have no in-round way to determine whose actually does, we're all going to be upset.
--Role of the ballot/role of the judge is probably the single most important layer of the flow. I mean, you have the power to tell me what my ballot does. Use it to your advantage. If you win that the only thing I should care about is whatever the role of the ballot says I should care about, that's kind of a big deal. Use it to your advantage. On the other side of the flow, you really should spend time here if you're responding to a K.
--Totally fine with performances, but, and this also applies generally, weighing pre versus post fiat offense and why the performance itself matters is pretty important. This is another area where the role of the ballot is your best friend.
--Like I said, I'm usually pretty good about ethics frameworks since that's kind of what I do for a living. That being said, debate phil is 99% of the time waaaaaaayyyyyyyy different from academic phil. This is especially the case for K authors like Foucault, but also for Kant, Mill, Rawls, etc. So, you'll have a little more leeway with explaining evidence for something like a Kant framework, but you still need to do actual extensions and explanations.
Other miscellaneous stuff
--Again, if this is your thing, this is your thing so do it, but I'm generally not a fan of tricks. Most tricks arguments fall into the camp of bad arguments I describe above where a response of "nuh-uh" is sufficient. Again, if this is what you do, then do it, just be super clear about where stuff is located, both when you're reading it and when you're responding to stuff in c/x. Nothing is more infuriating than shifty c/x responses. Saying stuff like "lol I don't know what an a priori is" when it's pretty clear you do is an easy way to get your speaks docked. Don't be that person.
--In that regard, unless you legitimately don't know what the person is asking about, don't say "I don't know what that means". If you've been to camp or the TOC or on the circuit at all, I assume you at least have some understanding of what terms like pre-fiat or spike mean. That's being shifty and wasting c/x time and it's annoying.
--Flex prep is fine. To a lesser extent, so it using c/x time as prep if you want. It isn't a good look, but c/x time is your time to ask questions and use it strategically. Asking questions is generally better than not. Also, both c/x and flex prep are binding.
That's all I can think of for now, I'll try to be better about updating this more regularly. Again, if something here isn't clear or if you want to know more, find me at the tournament and ask or ask me before the round starts.
[updated 11/25/18]
hi there! my name is farhan damani, and i am a phd candidate in machine learning and artificial intelligence at princeton. i debated for greenhill school from 2008-2012. in my senior year i advanced to the quarterfinals of the TOC, and in the following year i helped coach and judge at the TOC. i have not been involved with debate since then.
here are a few things i like:
- topic-specific arguments over generic arguments.
- framework debates that explain in detail why your arguments matter.
- theory arguments with a compelling impact story (why should we care? is it a voting issue or should we just reject the argument? will default to the latter absent a compelling reason to vote against the other debater).
- i prefer well justified arguments with no preference between philosophy and policy debates.
here are a few things i don't like:
- short, incomplete arguments (aka "spikes").
- being disrespectful to your opponent.
feel free to add me to the email chain: farhand7@gmail.com
· Speed: "Whatever you think you can do, I can handle". That being said, there is some element of communication that gets lost with speed, especially if your opponent can't handle the same pace. If you go too fast and I cannot flow then you DROP those contentions and evidence, plain and simple. So if you going fast detracts from the quality of clash, then that's your fault, not your opponent's. Also, if you're spreading for the sake of speed, and I can't understand the words that are coming out of your mouth, then there's nothing I can flow. You'll know you're being unclear if my pen hits the desk, I take up knitting, and I give you the death stare.
· Jargon: I'm not a fan of it, as it detracts from the ability for people not well versed in the activity to follow it, but I've gotten used to it.
· Argumentation: LD is a theoretical debate, and if you expect to pick up my ballot, you'll keep it that way. For example, you can talk about Gardasil, but if you don't impact it back to why it justifies compulsory immunizations, you just wasted my time. Also, you're not solving for anything (that's policy). Because it's a theoretical debate, you can't even assume that the problems you want to solve for exist in the first place.
· Kritiks: Cute? Yep. Amusing? You bet. Don't try to skirt the resolution. The debate is supposed to be a battle of competing values on a nationwide topic. When your value is something based around the expanding the education of debate, then you're avoiding the fundamentals of the event.
· Make sure you are somewhat comprehensible when reading cards. I don't need to hear every single word in a piece of evidence but I need to know that you are actually saying something coherent.
· Speaker Points will reflect how well you debated and how well you conducted yourself during speeches and throughout the entirety of our interaction and that with your opponent. My mother used to tell me "if you are really good at something, you will never have to tell people that you are, they will know." In other words, no need to bring your opponent to their knees. You can win with grace and kindness.
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.
I am a parent judge with considerable experience judging on the circuit. Please do not spread.
TL;DR: Very Traditional Lay Judge.
I am a scientist with very little experience in the world of debate. Do not attempt to run theory or any complicated philosophies. I do not understand the details of how plans and counterplans work, but, as long as you run them in a way that makes intuitive sense, I am fine with them. I love to hear creative policy-oriented real world arguments. In terms of speed, I am ok with slightly faster than conversational pace but not much more. If you talk too fast, I will not understand what you're saying and won't be able to vote for you. Basically treat the debate as though you are debating on the floor of the senate.
Hi! I did LD for 4 years and graduated in 2017, going to TOC twice and clearing there as a senior. I coached Byram Hills for two years. I've also worked at camps every summer since graduating, as Co-Assistant Director of NSD Philly 2019 and as a lab leader at NSD Flagship 2017-2019, TDC 2018, and VBI LA I 2017.
Email: zoeewing99@gmail.com Please put me on email chains!
General
I have no preference as to what you do with your speech time as long as your arguments have warrants and some framing as to why they're relevant. Don't assume I’m familiar with any dense literature and clearly explain the ballot implications of every argument.
I will aim to be as non-interventionist as possible and will vote on almost* any argument as long as it a) is not abhorrent and b) contains a logical warrant. Examples of arguments I would not vote on include "racism/sexism/homophobia good" (because those are abhorrent) or "the sky is blue so affirm" (because that lacks a logical warrant).
*I've added a couple of exceptions, scroll down to the "other notes" section to see them.
Please slow down on interpretations, advocacy/framing mechanism texts, and author names. I don't check speech docs in round, so don't bank on me reading along with your speech. I only check speech docs if some detail is contested or if it's my fault that I miss something.
I also believe strongly in trigger warnings for graphic narratives or discussions of particularly sensitive issues. I am fine stopping rounds in instances where a debater is unable to debate due to triggering material--please let me know if this happens. I expect the debater who failed to give a trigger warning to concede the round in such instances.
Defaults
These should never be relevant because I will never use a default if an argument is made on either side of the issue—the defaults are only here for the (hopefully rare) case when no debater makes a single argument on some important framing issue.
- Truth testing over comparing worlds
- Competing interps over reasonability—I also have no idea how I’d evaluate a “gut check” reasonability brightline so please don’t ask me to gut check. It would probably not work out in your favor.
- Drop the arg on theory, drop the debater on topicality
- No RVIs (and if the RVI is won, I meets do not trigger RVIs)
- Metatheory before theory; T and theory on the same layer
- I don't have a default side for presumption. In the absence of any offense left in the round and no presumption arguments made, I would vote for the person who had better strategy/technical skill/argument quality (in other words, the person I would give higher speaks to).
- I don't think a default for whether Ks or theory should come first in the abstract is possible since they're both just pre-fiat arguments about what debate should look like. I'd default to whichever position indicts the other probably, but these positions frequently indict each other, so weighing really matters here. Just make those meta-level framing arguments and avoid chicken-and-egg debates.
Important note on defaults: If both debaters carry out the debate under some shared framing assumption that was not argued for, I will use that shared assumption as my default rather than these (i.e. if both debaters collapse to theory shells in their 2NR and 2AR but forget to read a voter, I would act as if a voter had been read rather than intervene, cross all theory off the flow, and vote for some random 1AR substance extension).
Other Notes
- Please be ready to debate when you walk into the room – this means pre-flowing during your opponent's prep if you need to and having the AC speech doc ready to send.
- I end up judging a lot of rounds that result in determining the validity of very short arguments made early in rounds that end up mattering much more later in the round (e.g. spikes). These often rely on making judgments on the weight of each argument on a somewhat arbitrary basis. I do everything I can to evaluate the round in a non-interventionist manner, but the burden is on debaters to prevent situations in which intervention could occur. If you plan to muddle rounds to sufficiently confuse your opponent to win, please ensure that you are not also confusing your judge to the point where I cannot easily trace your path to the ballot.
- To be more specific about the previous point, if a round has two contradictory spikes that indict each other and one debater wins one spike and the other debater wins the other, I will default to argument quality/strength of link weighing. There is no way to be absolutely objective about this, so please interact your arguments!
- NEW: I will not vote on "evaluate the theory debate after the [insert speech]" if the argument is made in the speech mentioned in the spike. For example, I won't vote on "evaluate the theory debate after the 2nr" if it's made in the 2nr. This is because any answer to the spike is technically a theory argument, making it unclear if even evaluating answers to the argument is legitimate. I will also not vote on this argument in any speech absent a clear articulation of what constitutes the theory debate and just generally have a low threshold for responses.
- I require theory violations to be verifiable. I’ve seen rounds where people lied about whether a position is broken or whether something was on the wiki. Just provide screenshots please! If someone makes an I meet to an unverifiable shell with no verification (i.e. a disclosure shell without screenshots or a coin flip shell that's just word of mouth), I default to the I meet being true (innocent until proven guilty).
- I won’t go to someone’s wiki to check a disclosure violation myself—that’d be like looking up a definition on T.
- Flash/email everything you read off your computer to your opponent and judges! People often exclude analytics when they flash stuff and those are sometimes hardest to flow.
- If I have met you at previous tournaments or camps, please don't make conversation with me that could make your opponent feel excluded. I promise that reminding me that I have judged you before or that you know students I coach will not have any bearing over whether I will vote for you--I would have marked you as a conflict if that were true, and it just leaves your opponent feeling rattled and unsure of whether I will be impartial. I have been on the opposite end of this enough times to know how much it sucks when it looks like your opponent and judge are friends.
Speaks
I will try to assign speaks based solely on strategic vision, argument quality, and in-round behavior. I will say clear/slow/loud as many times as needed. I do not disclose speaks during the RFD but will if you come to find me individually or email me after the round.
I dock speaks for:
- Being unnecessarily rude/patronizing/condescending (especially when you’re much better than your opponent)
- Lack of framing issues
- Being racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/etc—this is a given
- Stealing prep time/not being ready/delaying the round in any way
- Having gendered language in your pre-written spikes/shells/etc
- Talking about what I did as a debater or making personal appeals to me, talking about my former teammates, the debaters I coach, or well-known people in the activity--this excludes people with less "rep" or fewer connections in debate and makes everyone uncomfortable
Have fun—this is your activity! Make it a good experience for everyone. I am happy to answer questions about my paradigm before the round or about my decision after the round.
I'm a former debater from Florida and competed locally and nationally on my team for three years. I was in PF the entire time but I also have experience judging LD.
PF
Collapse and weigh towards the end of the round. If you want me to vote on an argument and you honestly feel like you've built a decent narrative for it, reiterate it!
Offense that you want me to consider should be put in both summary and final focus. All I ask is that you properly warrant it and do not extend through ink.
Defense does not need to be extended in summary unless you really feel like an argument is in critical danger. It would probably be beneficial as a second speaking team more often than not.
I may call for evidence if I feel it's justified. If you tell me to call for evidence, I absolutely will at the end of the round. If evidence is miscut, let me know!
Roadmaps are nice and signposting is lovely. Go take your spreading to other events and leave it out of PF!
Have fun throughout the round please. I love movie/tv references and jokes throughout the round if they're tasteful, I'll definitely give you higher speaks for them.
LD
I'm comfortable with spreading as long as competitors can send me their case. I'm familiar with traditional and progressive styles/arguments. I'm not too picky about what I want to see in the round.
Theory is fine as long as it's developed and warranted very well so be careful with it. If I see that the theory is not genuine, it could have the opposite effect you'd like it to.
Just like in my PF paradigm, tasteful jokes, memes, and references could get you more speaks but won't affect my voting decision.
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.
TLDR: I did debate in high school, coached debate and taught at debate camps for 6 years. I rarely judge now, so go only 60-75% of your speed if spreading and make sure you are clear. Read good arguments, keep it original.
—————
I debated for Fort Lauderdale HS (FL) for 4 years in LD and Policy. I am a 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
PF
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.
This is my first tournament that I will be judging. I am a parent judge, so I would like to hear logical and clear contentions.
No spreading please.
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).
Do not use profanity in round. I will lower speaker points if you do.
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.
Hi! I debated LD for 4 years at Bronx Science and just graduated; however, I debated consistently less my junior and senior years and am very out of the loop with debate. If you have me as your judge, you should honestly give me a lower ranking as I’m not as adept with the activity as I once was. I’ll be more specific below:
Kritiks: I ran a fair amount of these during my career, but probably won’t be familiar with high theory or heavy lit; I would prefer you over-explain your case rather than me misunderstand a part of it. Non-topical ACs are also fine, just make sure you disclose in advance and have some engagement with the other debater. Make sure you’re especially clear on your Link and Alt.
LARP: Fine with me, I would prefer to see impact scenarios more likely to happen than extinction, but if the other debater doesn’t respond, I’ll still evaluate impacts with the same weight.
Phil/Frameworks: I think these can be pretty interesting but wasn’t ever really my thing so be sure to err on the side of over-explaining everything.
Theory/T: I think theory shouldn’t really be run unless there’s real abuse and in those cases, make sure you’re clearer/slower while reading and weigh well. You probably shouldn’t pref me if you’re a theory debater.
Tricks: No.
Miscellaneous:
-
I’ve been off the circuit for a while and haven’t heard spreading in almost a year. Start slowly and increase your speed gradually.
-
Be loud and clear and be explicit when making extensions
-
Don’t be shady during CX
If you have any questions you can email me at or just ask me before the round begins.
Sheryl Kaczmarek Lexington High School -- SherylKaz@gmail.com
General Thoughts
I expect debaters to treat one another, their judges and any observers, with respect. If you plan to accuse your opponent(s) of being intellectually dishonest or of cheating, please be prepared to stake the round on that claim. Accusations of that sort are round ending claims for me, one way or the other. I believe debate is an oral and aural experience, which means that while I want to be included on the email chain, I will NOT be reading along with you, and I will not give you credit for arguments I cannot hear/understand, especially if you do not change your speaking after I shout clearer or louder, even in the virtual world. I take the flow very seriously and prior to the pandemic judged a lot, across the disciplines, but I still need ALL debaters to explain their arguments because I don't "know" the tiniest details for every topic in every event. I am pretty open-minded about arguments, but I will NOT vote for arguments that are racist, sexist or in any other way biased against a group based on gender identity, religion or any other characteristic. Additionally, I will NOT vote for suicide/self harm alternatives. None of those are things I can endorse as a long time high school teacher and decent human.
Policy Paradigm
The Resolution -- I would prefer that debaters actually address the resolution, but I do vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often. That is because it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question, in the context of the rest of the round.
Framework -- I often find that these debates get messy fast. Debaters make too many arguments and fail to answer the arguments of the opposition directly. I would prefer more clash, and fewer arguments overall. While I don't think framework arguments are as interesting as some other arguments in debate, I will vote for the team that best promotes their vision of debate, or look at the rest of the arguments in the round through that lens.
Links -- I would really like to know what the affirmative has done to cause the impacts referenced in a Disad, and I think there has to be something the affirmative does (or thinks) which triggers a Kritik. I don't care how big the impact/implication is if the affirmative does not cause it in the first place.
Solvency -- I expect actual solvency advocates for both plans and counterplans. If you are going to have multi-plank plans or counterplans, make sure you have solvency advocates for those combinations of actions, and even if you are advocating a single action, I still expect some source that suggests this action as a solution for the problems you have identified with the Status Quo, or with the Affirmative.
Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part of the card you read needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards after a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.
New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot make enough sense of it to write it down, I will not be able to vote for it. If you don't have the time to explain a complicated argument to me, and to link it to the opposition, you might want to try a different strategy.
Old/Traditional Arguments -- I have been judging long enough that I have a full range of experiences with inherency, case specific disads, theoretical arguments against politics disads and many other arguments from policy debate's past, and I also understand the stock issues and traditional policy-making. If you really want to confuse your opponents, and amuse me, you'll kick it old school as opposed to going post-modern.
LD Paradigm
The Resolution -- The thing that originally attracted me to LD was that debaters actually addressed the whole resolution. These days, that happens far less often in LD than it used to. I like hearing the resolution debated, but I also vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often in LD. That is because I believe it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question.
Framework -- I think LDers are better at framework debates than policy debaters, as a general rule, but I have noticed a trend to lazy framework debates in LD in recent years. How often should debaters recycle Winter and Leighton, for example, before looking for something new? If you want to stake the round on the framework you can, or you can allow it to be the lens through which I will look at the rest of the arguments.
Policy Arguments in LD -- I understand all of the policy arguments that have migrated to LD quite well, and I remember when many of them were first developed in Policy. The biggest mistake LDers make with policy arguments -- Counterplans, Perm Theory, Topicality, Disads, Solvency, etc. -- is making the assumption that your particular interpretation of any of those arguments is the same as mine. Don't do that! If you don't explain something, I have no choice but to default to my understanding of that thing. For example, if you say, "Perm do Both," with no other words, I will interpret that to mean, "let's see if it is possible to do the Aff Plan and the Neg Counterplan at the same time, and if it is, the Counterplan goes away." If you mean something different, you need to tell me. That is true for all judges, but especially true for someone with over 40 years of policy experience. I try to keep what I think out of the round, but absent your thoughts, I have no choice but to use my own.
Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part if the card you read really needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.
New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot understand enough to write it down, I won't vote for it. If you don't think you have the time to explain some complicated philosophical position to me, and to link it to the opposition, you should try a different strategy.
Traditional Arguments -- I would still be pleased to listen to cases with a Value Premise and a Criterion. I probably prefer traditional arguments to new arguments that are not explained.
Theory -- Theory arguments are not magical, and theory arguments which are not fully explained, as they are being presented, are unlikely to be persuasive, particularly if presented in a paragraph, or three word blips, since there is no way of knowing which ones I won't hear or write down, and no one can write down all of the arguments when each only merits a tiny handful of words. I also don't like theory arguments that are crafted for one particular debate, or theory arguments that lack even a tangential link to debate or the current topic. If it is not an argument that can be used in multiple debates (like topicality, conditionality, etc) then it probably ought not be run in front of me. New 1AR theory is risky, because the NR typically has more than enough time to answer it. I dislike disclosure theory arguments because I can't know what was done or said before a round, and because I don't think I ought to be voting on things that happened before the AC begins. All of that being said, I will vote on theory, even new 1AR theory, or disclosure theory, if a debater WINS that argument, but it does not make me smile.
PF Paradigm
The Resolution -- PFers should debate the resolution. It would be best if the Final Focus on each side attempted to guide me to either endorse or reject the resolution.
Framework -- Frameworks are OK in PF, although not required, but given the time limits, please keep your framework simple and focused, should you use one.
Policy or LD Behaviors/Arguments in PF -- I personally believe each form of debate ought to be its own thing. I DO NOT want you to talk quickly in PF, just because I also judge LD and Policy, and I really don't want to see theory arguments, plans, counterplans or kritiks in PF. I will definitely flow, and will judge the debate based on the flow, but I want PF to be PF. That being said, I will not automatically vote against a team that brings Policy/LD arguments/stylistic approaches into PF. It is still a debate and the opposition needs to answer the arguments that are presented in order to win my ballot, even if they are arguments I don't want to see in PF.
Paraphrasing -- I have a HUGE problem with inaccurate paraphrasing. I expect debaters to be able to IMMEDIATELY access the text of the cards they have paraphrased -- there should be NO NEED for an off time search for the article, or for the exact place in the article where an argument was made. Making a claim based on a 150 page article is NOT paraphrasing -- that is summarizing (and is not allowed). If you can't instantly point to the place your evidence came from, I am virtually certain NOT to consider that evidence in my decision.
Evidence -- If you are using evidence, I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Pretending your cards include warrants (when they do not) is unacceptable. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part you card you read MUST say extinction will happen. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.
Theory -- This has begun to be a thing in PF in some places, especially with respect to disclosure theory, and I am not a fan. As previously noted, I want PF to be PF. While I do think that PFers can be too secretive (Policy and LD both started that way), I don't think PFers ought to be expending their very limited time in rounds talking about whether they ought to have disclosed their case to their opponents before the round. Like everything else I would prefer were not true, I can see myself voting on theory in PF because I do vote based on the flow, but I'd prefer you debate the case in front of you, instead of inventing new arguments you don't really have time to discuss.
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.
Some quick and important stuff for the 2020 virtual season (full paradigm and bio is below and unbolded):
1. I'm happy to listen to and vote on Ks, theory, phil, LARP, tricks, etc. (pretty much all the standard LD stuff). I also tend to have a pretty good ear for speed so that shouldn't be an issue.
2. I've noticed that I tend to evaluate debates pretty technically. The debaters that tend to perform best in front of me (no matter which types of arguments they are reading) are very good on the line-by-line but are also able to do bigger picture weighing and argument interaction. This basically means I'm very skeptical of embedded clash so I'm willing to vote on shorter arguments if they're dropped or mishandled but those arguments needed to be weighed and interacted with the other important arguments in the round.
I debated for Scarsdale High School for 4 years and qualified for the TOC my senior year. I currently attend the University of Pennsylvania. I also coached Scarsdale for 2 years and taught at NSD for two summers.
I will vote on any argument that has a warrant that at least somewhat follows from the claim and is impacted back to an evaluative mechanism deemed important in the round. I have no preference for any one type of argumentation: this means that you can feel comfortable reading framework, LARP, Ks, theory, tricks, etc. in front of me. You should do what you do best and feel is most strategic in the given round.
Framework: These debates are enjoyable, but they can get very messy if both sides are just extending preclusive arguments and not doing much interaction. Weighing between framework warrants will be extremely helpful if you want to win a framework debate in front of me. Also, you should make clear what impacts matter under your framework (i.e. whether it is ends-based or means-based).
LARP: Good evidence comparison and impact weighing are the keys here and will be rewarded.
Ks: I view role of the ballot debate in a similar fashion to framework debate. That means that you should be doing interaction between your role of the ballot and your opponent’s role of the ballot or framework. If you lose the role of the ballot debate, the impacts of the K only matter if you explicitly link them to your opponent’s role of the ballot or framework.
Theory: Please slow down while reading interp texts so that I actually understand what shell you are reading. Absent any arguments to the contrary by the debaters in-round, I default to competing interps and no RVIs. All voters (even fairness and education) need to be justified. I will not vote on new 2AR theory or a 2AR RVI to a new 2NR shell (I will vote on new 2NR shells however if they are won).
Tricks: They need to be impacted to something, even if it is not a standard. Likely tricks will link to a role of the ballot (i.e. truth testing) which means that if your opponent wins an opposing role of the ballot they may have no impact.
i did LD at edgemont from 2016-2018. i mostly read Ks and some policy arguments. but i'm happy to judge whatever you have prepared.
i have not listened to spreading in like five years, so please start slow and articulate.
i like high quality, thoughtful arguments. cheap shots at winning are boring. i also have not been keeping up with the latest trends in debate. if you explain your argument well, we'll be fine. if i don't understand something by the end of the round, i won't vote on it.
i generally feel disclosure is a good practice. i also feel debaters should be kind to one another. we are here to learn!
yes to email chain: minaslee00@gmail.com
i was coached by rodrigo paramo and brian manuel; please refer to their paradigms for any lingering questions
Background:
I did PF debate in high school, and I am now a freshman at Princeton University.
Before each section, please provide a brief overview of your argument organization. Argue your contentions clearly and cohesively; I pay close attention to the overall organization of an argument.
Also, enunciate when you are speaking.
If you would like to email me your speech documents prior to the round, please send them to ethanl@princeton.edu.
*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.
Changelog
2024-11-23: Cut down paradigm because I don't judge much anymore.
Summary (Policy/LD)
I will flow and listen to any arguments.
I evaluate all debates from the "top-down", i.e., first I consider procedurals/pre-fiat offense (T, FW, theory, pre-fiat Ks) then I consider post-fiat offense (case, DA, CP, post-fiat Ks).
Spreading is fine but I would prefer if plan/CP/alternative texts and theory/FW/T interps were not spread. I do not catch everything in the constructives and do not read speech docs: I am relying on the essential points to be summarized in the rebuttal speeches.
I don't want to be on the email chain. Minimizing the use of speech docs helps keep policy an oratory activity which is probably good.
Policy
General Notes
Clash and warrant/internal link comparison is what makes policy great. I see value in policy as both a game and an educational activity, but I think the latter is more important. Depth over breadth. Policy rounds are long enough that I should not have to intervene and do any work for you—2ARs/2NRs are the best speeches in debate for this reason.
I don't take prep for flashing/emailing.
Tag-team CX is fine.
Speed is awesome—PLEASE delineate between cards as well as tag/author name/card body either explicitly (I liked saying an over-inflected "and" between cards as well as "This is AUTHOR in YEAR") or with very obvious vocal pauses.
I personally was a critical debater in high school.
You should I assume I have no topic knowledge, especially in regards with abbreviations that may be common in this year's literature. Explain them to me at least once, then go wild.
Case
I'm much more persuaded by case defense and case argumentation in general than most. Terminal defense is legit and is a reason why affirmatives must extend and explain their impact scenarios and how the plan uniquely resolves them.
T
I default competing interpretations, but in-round abuse stories are much more persuasive.
Slow down when you read procedurals.
Theory
I generally like theory and find it fairly compelling against certain PICs, agent CPs, and the like.
I default to drop the arg and that the neg gets "one conditional advocacy or the squo".
DA/CPs
In high school I rarely ran DA/CP strategies but I have liked them as a judge.
I'm fairly ignorant and so don't have particular opinions on this style of debate.
Ks
Great! In high school I ran Cap, Psychoanalysis, Wilderson, Postcolonialism, and some Baudrillard.
I generally evaluate these technically as a variant of DA + CP, which means I'm open to kicking the alt on a K if you have convincing ethical framing that overcomes the link uniqueness question (which is required because K links are non-unique).
You should explain how the K interacts with the other layers of the debate, such as if the links are pre-fiat and if the alternative/framing operates similarly.
Roles of the ballot aren't auto-wins and they should actually mean something: they clash on the same "level" with other procedurals and need appropriate offense/defense with respect to theory/framework/T/etc.
I am receptive to performative contradiction arguments but it depends on whether
the K is pre-fiat or post-fiat.
Note that it is not the sole privilege of the neg to decide whether the K is pre-fiat or post-fiat, the aff can reasonably win pre-fiat link turns on a K even if the neg claims it is only post-fiat.
K affs
They're cool and were what I mostly ran in high school. However, near the end of my debating career I've found that K affs are often extremely poorly constructed and vague. Advocacy texts are important for this reason, but if your literature excludes that possibility than so be it. At the very least, it's important that the affirmative ought to do something (or otherwise justify why doing nothing is aff ground...).
Framing is the most important part of a K aff. Remember that every assumption I have about how to evaluate policy rounds more or less goes out the window in light of a K aff—please tell me the new calculus I should adopt, and please make sure that role of the ballot/equivalent framing is not egregiously circular.
I like performance affs, but please have a more offensive reason to affirm than simply having an unorthodox strategy.
K affs need to do MUCH MUCH more work explaining how permutations function and what the "world of the perm" looks like than a traditional policy aff would. Absent detailed analysis, "perm do both" means nothing to me because K affs have likely eschewed plan texts and thus the normal rules of plan-CP competition theory. Perms often just become assertions that both aff and neg strategies could exist concurrently as abstract ideas, which might be true but is not an offensive reason to vote aff. Competing methodologies is one way to resolve this problem. This is really nebulous but it's better than simply misapplying perm theory.
In K vs K debates, neg can get perm if they justify it, but generally I will presume that perms flow aff.
Framework/Clash of Civilizations
I have lots of experience with this type of debate, and although I was mostly on the K side of the clash of civs, in hindsight I am moved by either.
Like procedurals in general, K aff vs Framework is about which model of debate is better: it's nice to have clashing interps and impact stories relating to either fairness (in-round/potential abuse) or education (RP good/bad).
I think framework: weigh the aff is pretty much true, but is not an acceptable substitute for actually weighing the aff. In short, theory doesn't replace impact calculus.
LD
General Notes
Do whatever you want! Debating on the Nebraska circuit and nat circuit has acquainted me with the gamut of debating styles: lay, trad, progressive, etc. For your information, though, I primarily ran Ks in high school. Tech > truth, but I think the burden of rejoinder is very low against blatant untruths. I will generally evaluate rounds through epistemic modesty absent any framing argument that explicitly contradicts that (a prioris, certain role of the ballots, etc.).
Also, I don't want to be on the email chain. I still have some naive ideals about how debate is a communication event and that I should presumably be able to hear and understand your arguments without having to read them off my laptop.
Speed
Spreading is fine. Please be clear. I will say "clear" or "slow" if necessary. Do not spread analytics the same speed as cards, and especially do not spread interps or advocacy texts. Also, please pause when you transition between flows.
Please verbally distinguish in an obvious way the boundaries between two different cards, cards and analytics, tags/authors/card bodies—not doing so is my biggest pet peeve with spreading in debate, otherwise I think speed is cool. Because it seems like no LDer does this, I will reward +0.1 speaks if you do, and moreover you stand a higher chance to win the round b/c then I will be able to flow everything.
Theory/T
If your style of debating involves strategic use of theory/T, I will probably not be the best judge to evaluate it. I no longer know what the norms are for theory/T are in LD debate—please debate with that in mind.
Please slow down on theory/T. There is a 0% chance I will catch all your spikes if you spread them at the same speed as the case proper.
Also, I do not particularly like disclosure theory, and in general I don't think 1AR theory is strategic unless the 1NC is egregiously abusive.
In-round abuse is key.
I have no predisposition on RVIs good/bad, but I default drop the argument (i.e., no RVI) and competing interpretations.
I think which side gets presumption depends on the wording of the resolution, but most of the time I presume neg.
I default to comparative worlds.
Policy arguments
LARP is fine, but please make sure to clarify how your impact calculus works if there is framework contestation over issues like util or comparative worlds. I am more persuaded by policy strategies on the negative (CPs/DAs) than aff plans because I personally am not entirely convinced that plans are acceptable aff ground in LD.
Phil/Ethics
I love these arguments, but please slow down if you have a complex chain of premises and justifications to go through. I do not have the fancy practical reason justifications memorized, so please explain them briefly and relatively slowly. Most of my affirmatives in high school were Levinasian ethics args.
Ks
The argument I went for most in high school. Please try and avoid impact-justified frameworks if possible.
Links are best if specific to the affirmative, but links to the resolution in general are ok.
Make sure to explain the world of the alternative. It does not need to be particularly concrete, but I should have some sort of idea.
Hi, I was a PF debater for the Montville, NJ team back in high school. Since I graduated, I’ve been judging LD a lot. However, I have no experience actually debating LD. Keep that in mind if I’m judging you in LD. Some of the more advanced topics and lingo such as theory shells, RVIs, and spikes still escape my understanding because nobody has properly explained them to me and I haven’t gone out of my way to figure them out myself. If you’re going to use advanced LD techniques, make sure you explain them to me well enough so I can understand them. If I don’t, I just won’t consider them in my decision. However, I’ve done a large amount of amateur philosophy reading, so I can definitely understand most philosophical arguments and schools of thought well. Most of all, please actually attack your opponent’s arguments while explaining to me why your argument is better. There’s nothing I dislike judging more than a debate where both debaters are just repeating their own arguments with no actual conflict.
In summary, if a 0 is a parent judge who has never even sat in a debate round before (PF or LD), and a 10 is a TOC LD Champion judge, think of me as a 7.
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
I am a traditional LD judge who believes in topicality and strong argumentation with contention, clash, and strong crystallization. Translation: This isn't Congress or Policy.
I don't mind speed, unless it is simply a means of spreading-spread at your own risk.
I keep a vigorous flow, but if I cannot understand your arguments I cannot flow them-are we clear?
Do not heavily rely on esoteric counter-plans or kritques, but that does not mean I will not entertain them when used appropriately and well. I don't mind "out there" arguments-make them mean something and be sure to weigh them.
Beware jargon-I do not have a degree in that.
Please sign-post, but avoid off-time road maps.
DO NOT OFFER TO FLASH your cases-I should not have to read them to decide a winner-this is supposed to about verbal debate that "lay" people can understand-Check out who Lincoln and Douglas actually were.
Beyond this, I am pretty simple. Argue well, follow basic decorum of debate, and make sure I can follow you.
I am a very traditional judge. I do not like speed. Speak at a normal pace.
No K's. Debate the topic.
Crystalize. Tell me why you won the debate. If you write out my RFD, you stand a better chance of winning.
Make sure that you bring up any cross-ex points in your next speech. Connect them to what you have said.
Overall, I want to know why you should win the round. Spell it out. If you leave it up to me, don't be surprised if I had a different takeaway than you wanted.
Hi, I'm Casey! I did both speech + debate events as a youngin'. I work in developmental / physical disability care and education.
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.
♥ 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 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.
ღ IF I'M JUDING YOU IN PUBLIC FORUM ღ (kinda rare), I vastly prefer on-case, topical arguments that have thorough link chains. The chance I will vote for your K or outright 'progressive' way of argumentation in PF is drastically lower than if I'm judging Policy, Parli, or LD. There are 100% ways to run these kinds of arguments without making the round tech heavy, and without even obfuscating the round by bringing in jargon that the general public doesn't understand. If you can't do this, then simply don't run these arguments. If you can, and don't purposely muddle the round, all the more to you (and honestly, probably better speaker points). If you bait a 'heavy-tech' round with a K Aff in PF I will almost definitely tank your speaks unless the other team is entirely fine with this before the round. Arguments in PF need to be easy-ish to digest or it totally kills the 'Public' aspect of it. If you spread in PF, your speaker points will suffer. Sorry not sorry.
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. 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'.
Nihilistic/depressing (read; 'pess' arguments) 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 (and have in the past) overcome this bias but, seriously, probably not good to run these with me.
For LD, I don't care how you access your criterion, I just care that you actually access your criterion and that you've linked to the resolution and your framework (dead serious- that's it!). It is not my burden as a judge to flow a point in that doesn't link back to your criterion/value/philosophy if I'm judging you in LD. I value framework debate in LD.
Disclosure theory by itself is boring and I almost will never vote solely for it... unless you're up against a very over the top K Aff or super progressive argument. I genuinely don't care if you do or don't disclose pre-round unless it's required for the tournament. Linking to T/standards violations/ something else otherwise than just disclosure is necessary for me to flow any kind of Theory like this.
If you can't explain your K, theory, or other tech-y argument without obscure jargon and obscure links to weird one-off heavily tech arguments, you probably shouldn't run it with me.
I usually see right through trick debate and hate it with a passion. Same thing with frivolous theory. Funny friv theory as a one-off is appreciated to lighten the mood, tho- I probably won't vote for it but I might increase speaks if it's unique and makes me giggle.
Weigh and extend your points (signpost your voters) especially in your final speech.
♥ In Closing ♥
Have fun. Learn. Win, lose, grow. Bring some water. Water is good. Always.
Have a fantastic day, and keep blossoming and thriving in your Speech and Debate adventure!
I am a novice in the world of judging, but I have partaken in debate before. While I judge, these are some of the key points I keep in mind:
1. Speed: I expect the speed of your speaking to be moderated throughout the debate so that it fits the matter of the items being presented. Therefore, please articulate and slow down whilst presenting evidence and feel free to go at your own pace during the fiery parts of the debate. Just keep in mind that fast speech may not allow me to record all the points you wish me to.
Furthermore, I expect filler terms to be nonexistent or kept to the absolute minimum; and slurred speech (especially from fast speaking) will be looked at in a negative light.
2. Evidence: I will not infer anything for you nor will I tolerate the presentation of evidence for the sake of having evidence. Each piece of evidence must tie in to the topic at hand and a proper analysis or explanation of each evidence must be presented. Any and all pieces of evidence that is not explained or that seems extraneous will count against you.
3. Art: I treat speaking as an art form, and, therefore, pauses, inflections, tonal changes, volume changes, and body language will all be evaluated. Remember: you convince with more than just words. All that you do while you are speaking will be considered so please refrain from fidgeting or any unnecessary distractions. Finally, if you aren't exhibiting signs of confidence, it will be difficult for me to be confident in your argument.
4. Violations: I am not omniscient nor omnipresent, and, thus, do not rely on me to catch all violations of debate rules. If your opposition has violated a major rule, please mention it in a respectful manner within the next minute if I haven't mentioned it already. Furthermore, any more than three violations of a major rule will result in automatic disqualification (unless it conflicts with tournament rules). Ad hominem will never be tolerated, and it will result in an automatic loss.
There are many other points which I could state, but they will merely complicate the matters further. The aforementioned are those that are most important to me, and these points should be kept in mind by all competitors that I may judge.
I debated for four years at Eaglecrest High School in Colorado on the traditional circuit, qualifying for NSDA Nationals in 2014. I am currently a student at Princeton University and a member of the Princeton Debate Panel.
Feel free to speak as fast as you would like and I will most likely be able to keep up because I am used to spreading myself. CPs, K's, and progressive arguments are all fine if done well. I'll be unhappy if you run theory, but I won't on-face drop you for it.
For LD, I like a good value clash (role of the ballot is fine too), and put more weight on this, rather than pragmatics or explicit evidence. I prefer comparable worlds, so if you're going for phil, make it good. I also love a good phil debate and would be willing to give better speaks for a good round of it.
A huge piece of my decision always come down to the final speech, so please give voters, preferably ranked/weighed.
Speaks generally awarded for strategy rather than speaking ability, but if you're a really messy spreader I'll dock you 2 or 3.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round.
Danielle Newton
I am a first-time parent judge who does not have too much knowledge on the topic. I do not want a progressive debate (theory, complex phil and Ks), if you would like a progressive debate, do not pref me. I would prefer to have contention-level, traditional debates (simple Ks are fine as long as they are easy to follow). When speaking, speak slowly and annunciate clearly; I will flow the debate and will look at speech docs to understand. Make the round easy for me to follow: Explain your framework, show and weigh the impacts that matter.
Note: You should be having fun while debating, so be respectful to your opponent and do not make any foul comments when debating! :)
*** CX ***
I need to be able to understand you—don’t talk so fast that no one follows.
I value good delivery—good eye contact, clear speech, calm demeanor—in your speeches and that will go a long way to convince me your augments should be believed.
You should show clear organization of arguments and manage refutation well.
I value the demonstration of your skills in analysis of the debate as it is evolving.
I take the use of jargon to mean you don’t really want me to understand what you are explaining.
I need to see evidence, but use it to make an argument.
*** LD ***
I need to be able to understand you—don’t talk so fast that no one follows.
Speak clearly.
Be confident, but don’t be rude or interruptive. Don’t shout.
Citing evidence is nice (and necessary), but it’s your argument that will convince me; the fact is you can find a reference that says anything you want, so it’s more what you do with the evidence that counts. Also, make sure the source is well-qualified and be ready to defend his/her/its authority on the subject, if challenged.
Address each of your opponents arguments—no drops!
Show me that you took some advantage from your cross-examination.
Careful not to introduce new arguments in your rebuttals.
I need a framework, but you will probably get my vote from the quality and logic of your contention level arguments, assuming they do indeed support the framework.
*** PFD ***
I need to be able to understand you—don’t talk so fast that no one follows.
I value good delivery—good eye contact, clear speech, calm demeanor—in your speeches and that will go a long way to convince me your augments should be believed.
Be confident, but don’t be rude or interruptive. Don’t yell.
I take the use of jargon to mean you don’t really want me to understand what you are explaining.
Convince me through the clarity of your ideas, simple logic, and analysis.
I’m persuaded when you’re arguments are supported by credible evidence and impactful warrants.
Show me that you took some advantage from crossfire, but do it without having to dominate or being disrespectful.
Respect the intended purpose of the summary (support/attack existing arguments and summarize) and final focus (why you won) speeches.
Careful not introduce new information summary and final focus speeches.
No plans or kritiks—stick to practical solutions.
He/Him/His
I'm a lay judge, so I prefer lay cases, no spreading, and a clear articulation of all arguments. Don't assume I have background knowledge on what you're running, I'd rather you explain arguments in-round. If I can't understand you I'll say “clear” and expect you to slow down. Please read topical cases.
I will not disclose in-round. Please see results in Tabroom.
Put me on the email chain: stuylincolndouglas@gmail.com. Thank you.
Be clear give voters
Hey, I'm Chris, and I debated for Newark Science for four years in LD and Policy. To start, I'd like to say that although I was known as a particular kind of debater, I encourage you to do what you can do the best, whether that be Kant, theory, performance, etc.
As a common rule, please don't go your top speed at the beginning of your speeches. Go slower and build up speed so I can get accustomed to your voice. I've had times where debaters started at their top speed, which wasn't really that fast, but I wasn't accustomed to their voice at all, so I missed a few of their arguments. To prevent this, please don't start blazing fast. Build up to your top speed.
I've come to realize I am probably one of the worst flowers in the activity. This doesn't mean I won't hold you to answering arguments but it does mean that I am far less likely to get a 5 point response than the next person. Take that as you will.
I'm far from a tabula rasa judge; if you say or do anything that reinforces racist, heterosexist, ableist norms then I will vote against you. This is not to say that you'll always lose Kant against Wilderson; rather, it's about the way in which you frame/phrase your arguments. If you say "Kantianism does x, y, and z, which solves the K" then I'm more willing to vote for you than if you say "Kant says empirical realities don't matter therefore racism doesn't exist or doesn't matter"
On that note, I'm an advocate of argument engagement rather than evasion. I understand the importance of "preclusion" arguments, but at the point where there are assertions that try to disregard entire positions I must draw a line. I will be HIGHLY skeptical of your argument that "Util only means post-fiat impacts matters therefore disregard the K because it's pre-fiat." I'm also less likely to listen to your "K>Theory" dump or vice versa. Just explain how your position interacts with theirs. I'm cool with layering, in fact I encourage layering, but that doesn't mean you need to make blanket assertions like "fairness is an inextricable aspect of debate therefore it comes before everything else" I'd rather you argue "fairness comes before their arguments about x because y."
I think that theory debates should be approached holistically, the reason being that often times there are one sentence "x is key to y" arguments and sometimes there are long link chains "x is key to y which is key to z which is key to a which is key to fairness because" and I guarantee I will miss one of those links. So, please please please, either slow down, or have a nice overview so that I don't have to call for a theory shell after the round and have to feel like I have to intervene.
These are just some of my thoughts. If I'm judging you at camp, do whatever, don't worry about the ballot. As I judge more I'll probably add to this paradigm. If you have any specific questions email me at cfquiroz@gmail.com
UPDATE: I will not call for cards unless
a) I feel like I misflowed because of something outside of the debater's control
b) There is a dispute over what the evidence says
c) The rhetoric/non underlined parts of the card become relevant
Otherwise, I expect debaters to clearly articulate what a piece of evidence says/why I should vote for you on it. This goes in line with my larger issue of extensions. "Extend x which says y" is not an extension. I want the warrants/analysis/nuance that proves the argument true, not just an assertion that x person said y is true.
Email for speech docs: alyssastokes19@gmail.com
I am a 6th-year lay judge, former parent from a very traditional circuit. I do have some experience on the national circuit, almost exclusively in lay rounds. I prefer a topical debate on the substance of the resolution. I like a value and criterion, but I don’t make my decision based solely on framework. I expect empirical evidence but don’t want a policy debate. If you are a progressive debater and aren’t willing/able to adapt, you’ll want to use a strike. While I wouldn’t drop you just for being progressive, I probably wouldn’t comprehend enough of your case to make a good decision.
I am comfortable with a lively conversational speed; do not spread. I am a flow judge, and if I can’t understand you due to excessive speed, I will put down my pen. (And you definitely don’t want me to rely on memory.)
Give me voters. If you can integrate them into your final speech, even better.
I suffer from social anxiety and therefore generally do not not disclose in-round unless the tournament requires it, but I will publish the results after I make my decision; my RFD and feedback will be on your ballot. I appreciate your understanding.
Be nice and have fun!
I’m Tibor Rohacs I’m a lay judge; this is my third season judging. Please try not to talk too fast (no spreading). I like well organized and clear cases. I will reward clear and straightforward framework/contentions; try to spend less time on abstract statement and more on specific arguments for your case; use real life / realistic examples and scenarios. Make sure to summarize and emphasize in your last speeches the key arguments why I should vote for you and not your opponent. Other than that your goal is to convince me through evidence, logic and reason.
Traditional judge, don't spread, don't be rude
Hey guys! I debated national circuit LD for 4 years at Hunter College High School. I'm currently a first-year at Princeton.
General: I'll evaluate anything you give me, as I think any judge should. Please, please, PLEASE finish the 2nr or 2ar with 20 seconds of really slowly telling me in plain English why I should vote for you. In an ideal world, your words are the exact ones I'll write in the RFD. Weighing is important. Framing is important. Don't assume I know what my "role as the judge" is. Also please keep in mind I'm a first year out who isn't coaching, so I'll be adjusting to judging. 75% of your fastest speed. Please.
3 key things:
1) If you're a nat circuit beastly senior hitting a scared lay sophomore, please calm down and read your lay case. Otherwise your speaks will be bombed and you'll be sad.
2) Don't be rude. During the 2ar, don't be on your phone or aggressively doodling. Well, maybe a little doodling is fine.
3) If you concede a dumb trick and they extend it successfully I will probably vote on it but I'll be really pained doing it. Pretty lenient with "new responses to a one-line, repurposed argument in next speech" type of stuff.
Specifics:
Theory: If it's a good theory debate, paradigmatic issues will be articulated by the debaters, but absent that I default competing interps, drop the debater, no RVIs. Be creative! I don't want to hear a shell from a decade old backfile.
Ks: High theory will cause me to roll my eyes a lot -- if you can explain it to me like I'm a third grader, I'll be very pleased. Odds are you can't though. Make nuanced responses to T, don't just read the dump. In my experience Ks can be both the best and worst parts of debate so...
LARP: Cool. Extinction is unlikely -- make low probability arguments. Perms are a test of competition, sorry, they just are.
Framework: Slooooow on analytics. Comparative arguments with warrants in opponent's framework, not just the front-line dump against the overall variety of their framework. C'mon. Also, epistemic modesty args are pretty smart.
Speaks: 28.5 means I think you should break, 29 and above means you are very impressive and will go really far this season, 30 means the Earth turned on its axis and my worldview will never be the same. Make a Friends joke for .5 higher speaks! Talk to me before or after the round! I’m actually a pretty nice person, even if I do say so myself.
A final thought: If you don't signpost --> I can't flow your arguments --> I judge based on the flow --> I don't have your arguments --> You lose --> You're sad.
I debated for four years for Stuyvesant High School (graduated in 2017) in Lincoln Douglas and I have recently decided to step back into the debate community as a judge. My senior year I bid to the TOCs at Scarsdale Invitational and made it to bid round at Yale, along with out rounds at a few other tournaments.
Short Summary:
Tabula Rasa
I don't want my judging philosophy to interfere at all with the round, please do whatever you are comfortable with, at whatever speed you would like. I did debate recently (relatively) so I can understand spreading. I have a good understanding of most types of argumentation and most of the common arguments in the circuit, but no knowledge of this topic whatsoever. The line is drawn at being offensive or being rude to your opponent. Being offensive will result in my signing the ballot, being rude will dramatically affect your speaker points.
Logistics:
Please email me both cases and anything you will be reading off of your laptop, my email is aleksandar.shipetich18@my.stjohns.edu. Feel free to go full speed on this I will flow off your speech doc if I miss anything, but you really should put verbal emphasis on important arguments and warrants in cards.
All the technicalities and stuff like T = Theory and etc.. don't really matter to me if you explain your arguments and understand how they function, since labeling stuff really shouldn't affect how it interacts in the round
Show up on time for your rounds, I know everyone is prepping and desperately bugging their coaches, however this is not an excuse to delay the tournament. I will penalize your speaker points for showing up late. Lets say one point for every five minutes to be extremely clear (unless there is some ridiculous circumstance which you may explain to me) It really screws everyone over to still be debating really late at night so I do feel this is justified.
All dropped arguments still need to be extended and impacted to be evaluated, and every single argument in the round must be impacted for me to evaluate it. Failing to do this will just make it difficult to resolve the round. This is obvious but whatever. Weigh stuff too or the slightest bit of weighing from the other side will win the round no matter how bad
Also please label your cases clearly, having things like Part One is the Link is super helpful to everyone in the round including me. Even if you are reading something super performative and kritiky, the only way this is going to work out for me is if you do a ridiculously good job explaining and impacting in the later speeches but having structure is really helpful for me in general
If you have any questions before the round you need urgently, please email me. I will be on my phone so a fast response can be expected.
Also, just saying, there's a line between being aggressive and asserting yourself and being rude. If you aren't sure where that line is, maybe err on the side of caution and don't be aggressive. I really have no tolerance for people being asshats during debate rounds and it just gets in the way of what could otherwise have been a good debate
Some advice on appealing to me as a judge:
I did debate recently but speed is not my forte. This doesn't mean don't spread, this means don't shoot through the 1AR/2NR and assume I caught everything. I can remember and understand the last few sentences you said if you clearly signpost and leave a little pause before moving to the next argument, so speed should not be a limiting factor. I would prefer that you go down the flow and don't jump around a lot, but it is your decision as a debater as to how you organize your speeches. In general, speaking clearly and making sure all your points are heard, in addition to not being messy will result in a better speech and ultimately a greater chance at winning, no matter the judge.
Finally, my personal bias: as a debater in high school I read all types of arguments, Theory, Topicality, Kritiks, Policy and thats pretty much all of the categories. Towards the end of my career I was kritik heavy; specifically anthropocentrism.
I AM NOT AN ANTHRO HACK I SWEAR. I will evaluate it like any other argument on the flow. plus if you a crappy job reading it I will tank your speaks 4 being fake. That being said, if you do enjoy reading anthro though please pref me a 1, I will have a great time (no speaks boost tho) (ok this may be a lie).Speaker points scale:
Hi! I debated LD for 4 years at Seven Lakes in Houston, TX, and currently am a sophomore at Princeton. I attended UTNIF for camp, one summer for LD, and another summer for policy; I was the 2A/1N, if that's relevant. I am also on the parliamentary debate team here, and do mostly APDA.
I have almost completely phased out of high school debate, so I don't really know anything about the topic either; don't assume I know the "stock arguments," because they won't feel stock to me. It would also be great if you slow down when you speak in the mornings/first few rounds of the tournament.
The gist of my paradigm is that I think I am generally willing to vote on most arguments as long as they are not explicitly offensive, although my ability to follow different types of arguments may vary. The following are some specifics that may be of help:
LARP
I love these debates. I mostly larped throughout my career, especially my senior year. That also means I'm completely fine with slightly non-traditional larp-y strategies against K affs as well. For instance, reading a counterplan with a government actor against a performance, as long as some kind of framework justifies/weighs that offense.
Performances / Critical Affs / Ks and Framework
The fact that I loved larping doesn't mean I hate performances/k affs--I would actually love to learn about them. I just don't know much about most k lit because I'm unwoke (exceptions: areas I do know well are afropess, cap, biopower, anthro, and in that order), so assume I'm much dumber than average.
It is probably true though that when it comes to T vs. K debates, I do lean a little in favor of T. Also means I generally assume theory before K. I don't think this is because of inherent bias, it's mostly because when I listen to these kinds of debates, it's generally explained very poorly what the exact impacts/implications would be to voting on a K aff versus a more intuitive impact of engagement coming from T. So explain and weigh them clearly; it would be particularly persuasive if that is coupled with some defense on the link to engagement.
This would also mean that I generally prefer affs to have plan texts, or at least some kind of an advocacy text. I realized throughout my career that I have a difficult time weighing stuff / evaluating clash if there is no explicit advocacy text.
Neg Ks are completely fine. Even if I don't know the lit, just flesh out links/impacts in a way I could at least articulate in the RFD. Alternatives should be tangible or clear to me how they solve the aff/solve some bigger external impact.
Theory / Topicality / Tricks
I was never that good at theory, and have downed more rounds than I've won in these debates. That probably signals that I am also not the best theory judge, but I am personally fine with you reading theory, even if some of them may be "frivolous" theory, as long as there's some kind of clash and engagement from both sides. Just be reasonable about them against novices.
I assume reasonability, cx checks (as in I think it's a compelling argument, not that you always need to check in cx), drop the debater, fairness is a voter, and no rvis. It's easy to persuade me otherwise, however.
I don't like spec shells very much, unless it's clear to me where the abuse is. Generally, I feel like the less spec there is, the easier engagement is--feel free, though, to persuade me otherwise in the debate.
I have a slightly high bar for "T version of the aff." People spend 5 seconds saying the phrase in the 1NC and use it as a reason to nullify all offense in the NR. You should at least spend a solid time giving me a T version that I could visualize in my head in the initial speech, contextual to the exact arguments the aff is making.
I think SOME tricks are funny, especially if they are original and make logical sense in a really weird kind of way. But it's probably also true that there are more important discussions to be had when they are initiated, so please stride away from them when someone reads a k aff or something.
I have never seen or hit an a priori in my entire debate career. I think they are before my time, so I don't even know how these really work. So probably don't read them?
Phil / High Theory
I am not as fine with phil or high theory (Kant is okay, I think...). Especially high theory. As in I don't hate them or will down you for reading them, I'm just completely unequipped to judge these debates--I never debated them a lot. If you explain them well/make it possible for me to give an RFD without confusion though, I will definitely give you very high speaks.
Miscellaneous
I like email chains (email: j.sim@princeton.edu)
I'll be pretty standard with speaks. As in 27.5 is the starting point, and you'll usually go up from there depending on how good you are. If you can make funny jokes, that's a plus.
Disclosing is good. I don't like hearing disclosure theory debates, because it generally involves some assumptions about the debate community and I don't really know much about the community. I honestly don't even really know what the disclosure norms are like nowadays, so I just want y'all to be happy with what has been disclosed / what has not been disclosed prior to the round.
And mostly importantly, have fun!!! FB message me if you have any questions (Jaekyung Sim).
In general, I prefer the standard debate methodology, Other styles of arguments are fine, but if they aren't run well or detract from the overall debate experience, I am far less likely to pick them up.
Please do not sacrifice clarity for the sake of speed, if I can't figure out what you are saying I cannot flow, should this be the case I will verbally request for clarity, if it persists beyond that point my ability to flow will be impacted. That said, I am generally fine with a moderate amount of speed when clear.
I will maintain a timer, but I am perfectly fine should you wish to use a cellular device for a timer or a laptop or tablet as a document reader / note taker.
I appreciate brief roadmaps prior to giving a speech, which I will not time.
Over the course of the debate I expect interaction between debaters, without back and forth the overall quality of the debate is diminished and it becomes harder to judge.
Value and Criterion: Value and Criterion matters and I will hold the debater to the value that is expressed as the criterion need to relate to the value at all times.
Evidence matters a lot. I am open minded, and I do come prepared with a lot of evidence on the topic before I judge but I am not constrained by my views.
Cross-ex is important and the best ones focus on the other team's evidence. Truth = evidence quality + technical proficiency. Author qualifications matter with authenticity and not some random reference
The aff. should be topical. The aff. needs an offensive justification for their vision of the topic. Reasonability is meaningless and ultimately begs the question of the impact.
Conditionality is good. I am far more likely to be convinced by a qualitative interpretation than a quantitative one.
Clarity. Be clear. Keep the tempo reasonable at all times. Keep your enthusiasm at all times and work through the end of the debate. After several rounds of debate, it gets tiring and I get it but you cannot lose hope and give up. If your enthusiasm and involvement suffers, your points will suffer. If I can't understand the argument, it doesn't count. There is no difference between being incoherent and clipping.
Crystalization of Points: You can crystallize but I will judge independent of your crystallization
Speaker Points: As far as Speaker Points, professionalism is highly encouraged, try to stay organized and track your own time, I will be doing so as well but having good tempo and structure to arguments vastly improves a speeches cogency. Additionally, if you come across as disrespectful or rude you take away from the debate experience and I am inclined to take away speaker points.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round starts once both the debaters are in the room.
Updated for Princeton 2018
Email: paveldtemkin@gmail.com
Debated for:
PF: Princeton HS, NJ (2012-14)
APDA: Rutgers University, NJ (2015-2018)
Coached for:
PF: Stuyvesant HS, NY (2014-15)
PF: Bergen County Debate Club, NJ (2018-present)
APDA: Johns Hopkins University, MD (2018-present)
Lincoln Douglas Paradigm
I'll be as non-interventionist as I physically can be, sometimes to the point of mind-boggling obstinacy. If you explain every step in the link-chain I will be happy, if you don't you won't be happy.
Speed: Moderate. May ask you to CC me on the email chain.
Framework/Theory/Kritiks/T/DAs: Fine. Please be clear, especially in the very first links and the very last impacts.
Philosophy: I studied analytic philosophy, so I'll be very familiar with that literature, in particular metaethics and epistemology. I have read some continental/critical stuff, but have less familiarity.
Literally do not care what you do in a round.
Public Forum paradigm
A few remarks:
- If it's important to my RFD, it needs to be in both summary and final focus, especially if it's offense. A few exceptions to this rule:
- Rebuttal responses are "sticky". If there's a rebuttal response that was unaddressed, even if it wasn't in your opponents' summary or FF, I will still consider it against you.
- If a central idea is seemingly conceded by both teams, it is true in the round. For example, if most of the debate is on the warrant level, and the impacts are conceded, I will extend the impacts for you even if you don't explicitly, because this allows you time to more adequately analyze the clash of the debate.
- Especially on framework, you have to do the work for me. I won't evaluate arguments under a framework, even if you win the framework; you have to do the evaluation/weighing.
- Warrants are extremely important; you don't get access to your evidence unless you give me warrants.
- If you are non-responsive, I am fine with your opponents "extending through ink" -- in order to get defense, you need to be responsive.
- Feel free to make whatever arguments you want.
I can be interventionist when it comes to evidence; I will call for it in three scenarios:
- You read evidence that I have also read, and I think you misrepresented the evidence.
- Your evidence is called into question/indicted.
- You read evidence that sounds really sketchy.
In all cases, I will call for the evidence and decide for myself. I will sometimes call for evidence in round, after a team asks to see it during prep; do not be alarmed, I'm doing it to discourage abusive misquoting.
Speaker Points
I tend to be fairly low-speaking. What matters, in rough order of importance:
- Ethical treatment of evidence, both yours and your opponents'. (I have given 20s to teams misusing evidence in the past, and I'll gladly do so again--don't tempt me.)
- The presence of weighing/narrative.
- Nuanced, well-warranted analytical argumentation.
- Well-organized speeches. (Road maps optional; Signposting non-optional)
- Appealing rhetorical style.
- In-round courtesy and professionalism.
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.
Conflicts: Hunter,Lynbrook, Scarsdale, Princeton DS,Byram Hills LG
Email: vjv2108@columbia.edu
I debated for 4 years in LD at Lynbrook High School in California and graduated in 2017. I qualified to the TOC twice and broke my senior year. The majority of my debates during high school revolved around theory util and kritiks but that doesn’t mean I won’t be effective at evaluating other types of debates, I’ll just have less background knowledge and experience resolving them so you’ll have to do more explanation. Please weigh and impact arguments that'll make the round so much easier for me to make a decision. I don’t know what type of judge I am but I am open to voting on p much any argument as long as it has a warrant that I can articulate in the rfd and explain the function of the argument in the round. This mean go for all your nontopical k affs, frivoulous theory and tricks but you still have to win them like any other argument. I default drop the debater, competing interps and no rvi but that's only if no other argument is made on either side. I still am figuring out speaker points but I tend reward people for being entertaining and creative with their strategies as well as for good execution and clarity of strategic vision in the round. Most importantly just have fun. I enjoyed debate a lot when I did it and hopefully you do too :)
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
Carmel '17, Princeton '21
It's been a long time since I debated on the circuit, so please don't assume I'm familiar with the latest arguments/trends. I also don't flow as well as I used too -- I'll yell clear up to two times, but afterwards I'll just start to lower speaks.
I listen to any arguments as long as they are clear and well-reasoned (unless they are morally repugnant on a fundamental level). I prefer new and relatively inventive arguments. Ks need strong links, preferably case-specific; I am somewhat skeptical of K affs. I award speaks based on how persuasive you were overall, how well you engaged/clashed with your opponent, good weighing, and how creative I found your arguments. I will lower speaks for being rude, low-quality evidence, and any arguments which make me cringe.
Please put me on the email chain: mcw5@princeton.edu
****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
I debated LD for Harker. I mostly debated policy and critique arguments.
I know nothing about the topic rn, so please explain acronyms and start slow
Almost all of my debate views are in agreement with Srivatsav Pyda and Ryan Fink.
General Stuff:
-Comparing worlds
-Speaks based on strategy not speaking ability
-Tricks won't work
-Leeway on 1ar extensions
-Presume to the side with less change from squo
-Shorter rounds with little hiccups get higher speaker points
-I will default to my intuitions if forced to by a lack of clarity/comparison on the part of the competitors
-Include me in flashing or email chains: raymond.xu.888 @ gmail
+1.5 speaks for a quality plan vs. CP or case + disad debate
Theory:
-will not vote for frivolous theory
-Neutral on RVIs
-Default competing interps and drop debater
-Fairness & education are voters
Framework/Philosophy:
-Policy-making good, philosophy bad
-Will judge phil at your own risk
-Comparing worlds over truth testing; skep is defense
Critical Arguments:
-Role of the Ballots are just weighing args; don't exclusively go for preclusion arguments and engage
-please don't defend planless, non-resolutional action
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
This is my second year judging LD, and I really enjoy doing it. A huge pet peeve of mine and the biggest thing I take issue with is spreading. Speaking too quickly for me to understand what you're saying means that you drop those contentions and evidence. Be clear and organized. Jargon is not preferred but I've become used to it. Please remember that LD is a theoretical debate. I expect debaters to be prepared and respectful.