Please speak at exactly 345 wpm (Yes I count in my head and i know when you're lying)

I indulge in post-round combat if you think the result has been unjustified however I must inform you of my extensive collection of bakugon and beyblades, my favorites would probably be my collector's edition Pyrus Percival and my most powerful beyblade is Takara Spriggan Requiem.

https://youtu.be/9bZkp7q19f0

Speaker points:

30- Obama 😲😲😲

29- I caught you breathing during round

28- We made eye contact during round

27- You shook my hand

26- You stand in the firmest __________

25- संस्कृतम् أنت اخي جيد؟ לא חושב שאתה

Pop culture references which will be rewarded by +.3 speaks

Tokyo Sexwale

Quindarius Gooch

Abdullah Abdullah

Tristan Equianimeous Imhotep J. St. Brown

I am a parent judge. who has judged few tournaments in the past. I appreciate well-spoken and confident debaters who can articulate their arguments well. Please be friendly and respectful to your opponent. Absolutely no spreading.

(Scroll down for my PF paradigm)

Defaults

Comparative Worlds

Theory/T -> K -> Case

Reasonability

Drop the arg

No RVI

Fairness

Ethical Certainty

Presume Neg

Quals:

I do LD. I've qualled to the toc and reached deep elims in a few tournaments.

Disclaimer: I haven't done anything debate-related for two years, so I will be rusty with getting back into it.

LD:

Framework: I enjoy framework debates. Although I am a progressive debater, I do understand and can vote off of framework if sufficient enough for me. Just remember to extend reasons as to why your framework should take precedence in this round. Also, don't confuse your case with the framework and cross-apply your case arguments to justify your framework. They are two very different layers of debate.

Kritiks: Kritiks are my favorite part of debate. If you are planning to run a K, please make sure you understand how to debate a K and know sufficiently about the K to debate it.

Theory: When there is real in-round abuse, I think theory is a good check to it. However, when you run theory just for the sake of winning, it's annoying. I will vote off frivolous theory and a priori arguments but with very great displeasure (expect a drop of speaker points). Disclosure is probably good.

Topicality: Topicality arguments are great.

P/CP: Case arguments that pertain to the topic are great. I like clever plans and counter-plans. PiCs are great as well. I'll take whatever you got but remember to extend.

Contentions: If you aren't a progressive debater, this may seem more familiar to you. I am completely fine with lay and traditional arguments, and don't let the previous stuff scare you into thinking that.

Extend: If you don't extend your case in the rebuttal speeches, I'm not going to flow it through the round.

Impact Calculus: I, as the judge, can't attach a value as to how I'm going to judge an argument if you don't tell me how to assign that value. Please remember to weigh your arguments and be explicit.

Add me to the email chain if you are spreading: jungwoo.seo@emory.edu

Please don't spread if your opponents can't either; it's abusive and doesn't promote educational practices that way.

PF:

If you're going to be fast, don't read paraphrased evidence. I will not flow it.

Framework: Although I know that PF is more of a contention level debate, I have seen interesting frameworks being used, so I'm open to new and interesting frameworks that work on proving your point. I default to CBA if no framework is mentioned.

Contentions: You are free to use whatever arguments that you think may help you and if I think you won that, I'll vote for it.

Crossfire: I think crossfire is my favorite part of PF debate. Please keep it civil but don't be afraid to make some sassy comments or ask good questions.

Extend: If you don't extend your case in the summary speech, I'm not going to flow it through the round.

Impact Calculus: This is critical, especially in public forum. I, as the judge, can't attach a value as to how I'm going to judge an argument if you don't tell me how to assign that value. Please remember to weigh your arguments.

Defense: Defense is not "sticky." You need to cleanly extend the defense you want me to evaluate in the summary and ff if you want me to evaluate it.

Theory: I will evaluate theory just as how it is evaluated in LD and CX. You do not need to ask your opponent if you can run theory or not; that's silly.

Please don't shake my hand, thanks.

Hey I am Jacob, I competed in LD for canyon crest, qualled my junior year

Put me on the chain -> jzspiegelman@gmail.com

I mostly read policy args, but I am familiar with K/phil/friv theory stuff too

I don't really care what you read, just weigh and give judge instruction

I'll try my best to be as tab as I can and strive to intervene as little as possible

Short cuts based on my experience/comfortability with args

Larp/policy - 1

T/theory -2

Phil -2/3

k - 2/3

trix - 3

Sam Xiong

Debated 4 years LD for Canyon Crest '20, not debating at Dartmouth '24

ONLINE: Would highly prefer email chain over NSDA Campus upload if possible

Email chain:

xiongs321@gmail.com

I am not the best at flowing. If you want to win, please please slow down on arguments you want me to actually evaluate, especially for denser arguments and analytics not on the doc. SIGNPOST

In the absence of arguments claiming otherwise, i will default to these:

neg presumption

tech > truth

comparative worlds

competing interps, rvis bad, drop the debater

fairness and education are voters

debate is probably a good activity but I can be convinced otherwise

T and Theory are same layer

Metatheory above theory

********

Not really biased against anything except frivolous T/Theory and tricks, I will vote on it but I may require a higher threshold and your speaks may take a hit.

Feel free to run everything, but just please tell me how to evaluate, weigh, and collapse.

K's are great, but don't assume I know all the lit and make sure you're clear and understandable, especially for more complicated/obscure ones.

I lean more than two condo is probably bad.

Once again, please explain stuff in your own words, weigh, slow down and emphasize points etc.

Be respectful, don't be offensive.

Pre-round

If you want to preflow your case/use the restroom/drink water/discuss strategy with your coach squad/set up your table tote/cry, please do so before round or as quickly as possible. Rounds that start on time are a benefit to everyone.

Speaking

Do not spread if you cannot or if your opponent cannot.

Try to talk clearly and loudly. I will call "clear" and "loud" if necessary.

If you will be spreading, send your case to both me and your opponent.

Good speaking skills are appreciated but not necessary to win.

If you attempt to make small talk with me this does not mean you get an auto-win.

Actual Debate Part

Please know the speech times and basic rules of LD.

I'll buy anything as long as there are good warrants.

Please don't turn any -isms (cap is fine)

Do not read K's unless you truly understand them, otherwise they are really sad and disappointing to listen to. Explain all the warrants well.

I won't vote off friv theory, but reading theory to actual abuse is chill.

Overviews are always good :) Off-time road maps are cool as well.

If you notice your opponent cheating in round (i.e. clipping), it is your burden to notify me. If I notice, I will stop the round. If I don't and you don't say anything, nothing will happen.

Notify me during prep or immediately after round if you suspect your opponent has cheated, and have a recording or some kind of evidence. I will then assess how bad their offence was and will drop them if I believe necessary.

Please don't steal prep. I will time all speeches and prep, but this doesn't mean you shouldn't keep time.

CX

If you call CX "crossfire" I will cry.

Yes, it is possible to be assertive without being rude.

If you are being overly aggressive, expect low speaks.

Please don't shake my hand.

Hey, y’all! I’m Natalia (pronouns: she/her/hers, if this somehow comes up in/out of round). Welcome to my paradigm :)

—FOR NOVICES (updated 12/5/19)—

I was my high school's LD captain and coach for two years, and I also did a fair amount of middle school judging. I'm pretty comfortable with teaching and judging novices--kinda miss it, tbh. A couple miscellaneous things to remember:

Content: Almost any style of argumentation is okay: I'm happy to judge either a traditional or a more progressive debate. More details in the "Argumentation Types" section below.

Speaking:

Key rule of thumb: do what's comfortable for you. Speaks won't depend on if you stand or sit, if you do or don't shake my hand, or if you do or don't wear formal wear.

Be nice to your opponent! I will literally and figuratively frown upon unnecessary aggression or dunking on a less experienced debater. More details in the "Speaks" section below.

I'm okay with spreading. That said, only spread if:

1. You and your opponent are BOTH okay with it. Ask beforehand if you aren't sure!

2. You can be clear and efficient. I'll tell you "clear" if I think you need it, but more than 2 "clear"s will get your speaks docked. Breathing heavily (or double breathing) might make you sound like you're spreading, but it can sometimes be slower than just speaking a bit more quickly.

3. You're willing to send your opponent and me a speech doc: zorrilla@princeton.edu. I won't vote on analytics I can't flow, so please slow down for these and taglines/authors.

More questions: feel free to keep reading. Otherwise, see you in round!

P.S.: if you can work in a casual reference to any of the lyrics of Smash Mouth's seminal classic "All Star" in round, I will be happy, and your speaks will, too.

—EXPERIENCE—

High School: Debated in LD for four years in a small school in Southern California. Full disclosure: was mostly a lay debater (qualled to States my sophomore year and Nats my junior year). That said, went to camp the summer after sophomore year and went on the (West Coast) circuit my junior year, with decent records.

College: Currently compete in parli (APDA, BP) at Princeton. Will probably major in philosophy or politics.

TL;DR: Pref me lower if you want to be judged by a career circuit debater (lol), but you could honestly do a lot worse than me.

—ARGUMENTATION TYPES—

I’ll listen to almost anything. Just warrant it well and—I feel like this goes by the wayside (weighside?) a lot—weigh very, very, very clearly, esp. between layers.

Framework/Philosophy: It should maybe tell you something that I am considering majoring in philosophy. I love and wrote my college essays about ethics. I also researched/wrote/ran a decent amount of framework-y cases. While I have basic knowledge of a variety of ethical positions, pretend I don’t and explain the framework to me/your opponent as if you’re explaining it to your best friend who loathes philosophy (s/o to the ever-patient Reva Agashe). Jargon just makes the round unnecessarily inaccessible, and it doesn’t actually convince me you understand what you’re saying (which will predispose me to lower speaks if not a loss). Otherwise, I’m pretty psyched to hear your ideas about framework. As long as you don’t use it as a Trojan horse for your tricks.

LARP/Policy: Again, it should maybe tell you something that I am considering majoring in politics. I read a lot of LARP in high school, I’m pretty up on history and (macro)economics, and I quasi-obsessively follow the news/Twitter. I feel very comfortable evaluating LARP debates. I won’t judge arguments on truth value unless your opponent challenges them, but, like, an argument that clearly accounts for the current political climate is probably better warranted anyway than an argument that doesn’t.

Ks: Didn’t run a lot of Ks. Did debate in California and therefore have a lot of friends who did, including basically all of my labmates at camp. Helped a bunch of said K-loving friends do casewriting. I don’t have a strong predisposition either way on the T v. K debate. I do not love but will vote on vague alts if they aren’t adequately challenged.

Theory: I’ll evaluate it however argued, but definitely not my favorite kind of debate to judge. If you make me vote on something like font size theory, I’ll probably give you lower speaks.

Tricks: Blippy analytics intended to avoid clash make me sad and, as much as I should theoretically try to be tabula rasa, I am very unlikely to vote you up on them. Consider yourself warned, I guess?

TL;DR: Here’s my recommended prefs:

1: Framework/philosophy, LARP/policy

2: Ks

3: Theory (friv theory’s a 4, though)

4: Tricks

—SPEAKS—

30: L O V E D this round. Will probably tell my friends about you later. You are who I wish I could be.

29-range: Really enjoyed your speeches & thought your argumentation was clever/neat. Also, you probably did some very clear weighing that wrote my ballot for me (cough cough).

28-range: Upper end of middling.

27-range: Lower end of middling.

26-range: Room for improvement.

(L)20: Your arguments were overtly racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic/cissexist/etc. You get it. (Related note: please don’t misgender your opponents! If you do this more than once, I’ll assume it wasn’t an accident and dock your speaks by 1-2 points.)

A bit of sass is good and will get you higher speaks! Being mean or condescending to your opponent (esp. a less experienced one! please do not make people want to quit debate) is bad and will get you lower speaks. If you don’t know the difference, don’t risk it :(

It’s been a Hot Sec since I last did circuit debate. Start your speeches on the slower end and build to full speed. But slow down on taglines/authors so I can flow them. I’ll tell you to clear twice before I start docking speaks (I will still tell you to clear if I think you’re being unclear). If I don’t flow analytics because you are too unclear for me to hear them, I obviously will not be able to vote on said analytics, so, like, maybe also slow down a bit on things that aren’t in the speech doc.

Also, to make the round more enjoyable for all of us, I‘ll boost your speaks an undefined amount (probably like half a point?) if you work a noticeable and, like, marginally creative pun into your 2NR/2AR. I think this topic is particularly ripe source material, so please don’t let me down :’)

TL;DR: I think I’m generally pretty generous! Just don’t make the round unpleasant for me and/or your opponent.

—MISCELLANEOUS—

Disclose! But as someone whose wiki broke her first tournament, I get that sometimes stuff happens and will evaluate disclosure theory accordingly.

I don’t have a good poker face. You’ll probably be able to tell roughly what I’m thinking by looking at me. That said, sometimes my “thinking” face looks like my “disagreeing” face, so don’t stress too much.

Add me to the email chain: zorrilla@princeton.edu. SpeechDrop or whatever Kids These Days are using is also chill. I’ll obviously flow your arguments, but you will probably like my decision better if I get to read along with your speech.

On evidence ethics: Since debate is, first and foremost, an educational activity, I take evidence ethics claims (i.e. claims of changes to a card that significantly change its meaning) pretty seriously. If you are willing to stake the round on an accusation that this has happened, raise your hand and tell me what card/cards you would like to challenge. Time will stop, I’ll ask you to explain yourself/your opponent to explain themselves, and then I’ll review the card. If I think the card is miscut, your opponent will receive an L25. If I don’t think the card is miscut, you’ll get the L25. I get that challenges like these can be emotionally draining, but PLEASE continue to be kind/at least civil to your opponents.

On bad-faith postrounding: is yelling at someone about a decision that isn’t going to change really worth it, especially if (hint hint) they can just leave the room and go get some free, warm cookies from Murray-Dodge? In the grand scheme of things, debate is probably not important enough to merit being nasty to other humans. I’m human. Bad calls will happen. We’re all trying our best.

If you have any other questions, feel free to email me at zorrilla@princeton.edu or hit me up on FB Messenger!