Email: ariel_azbel@brown.edu

Update for Strake: I have not judged in forever, nor do I know what the topic is, so keep that in mind.

I’m Ari. I debated for Lake Highland for 5 years. I qualified to the TOC my sophomore, junior and senior year, reaching outrounds my senior year.

As a debater, I did not have a preference on a certain type of argument. I tried to read a little bit of everything (high theory, performance, policy args, other Ks, theory/T, tricks, framework, etc.). I believe the only essential feature of debate that I should uphold as a judge is that an argument is characterized by having a claim, warrant, and impact. You should read whatever style argument you're most comfortable and I'll try to adjudicate as best as possible. If you have any more specific questions, just ask.

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!

Grant Brown (He/Him/His)

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

Head of Debate at the Brearley School

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

Email: grantbrowndebate@gmail.com

Conflicts: Brearley School, Lake Highland Preparatory

Last Updates: 9/26/2023

Scroll to the bottom for Public Forum

The Short Version

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

1. What are their qualifications?

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

2. What will they listen to?

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

3. What are they experienced in?

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

4. What do they like?

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

5. How do they adjudicate debates?

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

The Longer Version

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

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

Kritiks

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

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

Theory

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

Policy Arguments

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

Ethical Frameworks

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

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

Public Forum

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

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

Speaks and Ethics Violations

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

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

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

I do not flow off the doc.

Evidence:

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

Theory:

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

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

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

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

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

I debated for LHP and graduated in 2017.

I will evaluate the round as best as I can based off of the flow. My best advice to get my ballot is to tell me where to vote and weigh (the way to win is to weigh way more). I honestly just want the round explained well.

On another note, I think debate is whatever you make of it- if you want it to be a game, educational space, performance, whatever, it is up to you. Have fun, but please be kind to your opponent.

If you are spreading, please start off slowly, I haven't judged in a while so ease into your speed.

My level of comfort goes:

1. Ks (If you're reading high theory, you'll need to do explaining. I am not familiar with the literature base)

2. Philosophy

3. LARP

4. T/Theory

Don’t let what I put discourage you from doing what you like, just know that you’ll have to do more crystallization as you move down the list.

email chain: matt.mc2018@gmail.com

strake '18, uchicago '22 - no conflicts besides strake

TL:DR - i do not care what arguments you read or how you present them, with the following exceptions

A) repugnant / offensive ones (racism / homophobia / ableism good)

B) ad homs - any argument about the debater as a person or what they did out of the round, I will not evaluate

C) anything asking me to evaluate the debate before any speech that isn't the 2ar - I don't consider speech time / structure up for debate

D) anything with a warrant that isn't fully developed - "competing interps bc reasonability is arbitrary" isn't a full argument. I know what that means but you have to explain it beyond the buzzwords

Also, don't be rude or condescending. I'll drop speaks for it

Speaks: won't disclose, don't ask. I'll try to average a 28.5 though with above a 29 being for someone I think should clear.

things you can do to get higher speaks:

1. start slow and build up to your top speed. Actually on second thought, go maybe 85 percent of your top speed at peak. I haven't flowed in a long time

2. i'll say clear as often as needed, and as long as I can tell you're trying to meet my accomodations I won't deduct speaks. however, if you just ignore me, that'll be annoying

3. the more clearly you understand how a judge evaluates a round, the better your speaks will be. your final speeches should very clearly have a vision of what issues the judge needs to decide in the round, and an explanation for how these issues are resolved in your favor. in other words, round awareness will get you a long way

4. quality > quantity of arguments - don't treat every card you see as an arg gen drill in rebuttals, pick your best arguments, then explain and impact them to the best of your ability

5. warrant comparison in the earliest speech possible - if you read a solvency deficit in the 1N, compare it to 1AC evidence then and there. i dislike sandbagging

6. Being tech matters but i value well-structured speeches more than perfect tech (not to say you should neglect technical execution).

Ideology: not that my beliefs matter at this point, and they're very weak beliefs anyways and will go away the second an arg is made, but if you want ideological stuff?

1. plan focus isn't actively preferable to other models of debate, but it still has value and the fact that you're not in Congress isn't a reason researching and debating usfg policy is fallacious / bad, nor is it preclusive of grassroots activism or the like

2. rejoinder / role of the negative is important. whether that requires a topic focus is less clear. procedural fairness probably has an impact but that should be explained like anything and its by no means preclusive. ssd restrictions on content are probably not exclusion or violence

3. your representations are less important than your advocacy and criticisms should be leveraged as reasons the advocacy is undesirable - reps can still be a reason, but the closer you can argue those reps are to the thesis of the aff, the more convincing they are. that said, i enjoy k debates when the kritik fundamentally engages the aff. usually tend to think the best 2ars vs most ks are 3 minutes throwing down on the perm

4. dont really think most skills/education arguments are compelling voting issues in a vaccum, though as turns case arguments in a clash debate i find them more compelling, and largely believe any style of debate has educational value as a byproduct as long as it encourages argument contestation. someone even convinced me once that tricks affs provide skills useful in law school. that said, argue your model of debate pedogagy as you see fit

5. generally a believer in 'lit determines legitimacy" of most things in debate, especially CP theory and topic T args (by this I mean definitions grounded in the context of the literature with intent to define, not "if ppl write about my aff it's predictable and thus within the bounds of the topic so you can prep for it")

6. most tricks aren't unfair, they're just bad arguments with low opportunity cost to make that lose to making 1 true objection and moving on. i appreciate innovative tricks though like well-thought out framework hijacks, contingent standards (this isn't just skep triggers btw!), or well justified burden structures. emphasis on innovative

7. theory arguments have an opportunity cost (by that i mean the uplayering itself is somewhat unfair) and the abuse story should probably outweigh that opportunity cost if the shell is DTD. yeah specifying the status of the CP is marginally better than not, but is that unfairness worse than the dtd implication mooting 7 mins of 1nc offense and ending the debate?

8. i find that a lot of theory arguments (specifically combo shells) unfortunately boil down to "they said something that's hard to answer and that's bad" and most of the "good" theory arguments are probably reasons the objectionable argument in question is either bad / not competitive / non responsive. that said, i understand the strategic value of making those args as full shells so go off. also, i despise side bias arguments and genuinely think they have no place in debate (probably my strongest actual bias) - id prefer you just make actual arguments.

9. good case debate is always appreciated and should definitely be incorporated into a good k or framework debate

10. i like framework (LD) debate best but think its often not done well due to incentive to misrepresent authors / lean on generic blocks / make dishonest preclusion arguments as a crutch instead of in-depth explanation. good philosophy args can be analytic or continental and i'm reasonably versed in both, but its been a long time since i thought about most of these arguments so explain well. If I don’t have a clear understanding of your warrants, I have no qualms voting against you and starting my rfd with “yeah I didn’t understand your explanation”

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

Coach since 2014

For the most part,you'll be looking at this paradigm because I'll be your LD judge. cross-apply these comments to PF as applicable and to policy if/when I get recruited to judge policy.

Speed and Decorum:

Send me your case. This should go without saying, but let me know that you've actually sent me your case. I won't look for your case unless you tell me to look. Speechdrop.net or tabroom share is probably best rather than email.

I don't care if you sit/stand. Really, I don't. Just generally try to remain in the room. I won't be shaking hands.

Please time your speeches and prep time. I may not keep accurate time of this since my attention is to the content of your speeches. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.

Debate:

I do not prefer theory. I'm usually left feeling that most debaters let it overcomplicate their arguments or worse. Some may even allow it to further make debate inaccessible (especially to those who are likely already crowded out of this forum in some other way). Please don't run it unless there you see literally NO OTHER WAY to respond to your opponent's arguments. Even then, I may not evaluate it the way you want or expect. If you planning to run dense or tricky theory, you should find a different judge.

You have an absolute obligation to articulate your arguments. Even if I’m familiar with the literature or whatever that you might be referencing I *try* to avoid filling in any gaps.

Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD!

Tricks = no. Thanks.

I will not vote for arguments that are ableist, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. This should go without saying, but for the sake of anyone who needs to see it in writing, there you go.

Above all, strive to make sense. I do not prefer any “style” of debate or any particular kind of argument over another. Regardless of what you run, if your case relies on me to connect the dots for you or if it is a literal mess of crappily cut and equally crappily organized evidence sans warrants, you will probably be sad at the end of the round.

I’m the Executive Director of National Symposium for Debate, as well as the site director for NSD’s Flagship LD camp. I’m also an assistant LD coach for Lake Highland Prep.

I debated circuit LD for 4 years in high school, and I graduated in 2003. For what it’s worth, I cleared twice at TOC, and I was in finals my senior year. Since then, I have actively coached LD on the national circuit. For a period, I was a full time classroom teacher and debate coach. I have also coached individually and worked as an assistant coach for a number of circuit programs. I coach/judge at 8-10 TOC level tournaments per year.

Email for docs: tomevnen@gmail.com

TLDR rankings:
K - 1
Phil - 1
Policy - 2
Theory - 1
Tricks - 2
T vs K aff; K aff vs T - 1 (I’m happy on both sides of these debates, regularly vote both ways in these debates, and coach both ways in these debates)

Longer explanation of rankings:

Re my policy ranking - Feel free to read these arguments in front of me. I vote for them frequently. I’ll admit that I do the least amount of thinking and researching on the policy wing of topics. This probably makes me an OK, but not excellent, judge of policy vs policy rounds. In policy vs something else rounds, the 2 ranking doesn’t affect things much, except see paragraph below.

Re my tricks ranking - Again, feel free to read these arguments in front of me. I vote for them (and against them) frequently. I find well thought out tricks that are integrated with the substance of your phil framework or K interesting. I find a lot of other tricks fairly boring. Again, see paragraph below on adaptation.

Generally speaking, I won’t have any objection to what you read. You are usually better off reading your A strategy in front of me than substantially diverging from that strategy to adapt to me. When relevant, you should tweak your A strategy to recognize that I am also open to and comfortable with the standard maneuvers of debate styles other than yours. For example, if your preference is policy arguments and you are debating a K, you should recognize that I won’t functionally assume you can cross-apply the aff or that extinction outweighs the K, when contested. Similarly, if you are a phil debater, you should recognize that I won’t functionally assume that your phil framework precludes the util tricks (modesty, extinction first, etc.).

Whatever your style, if you have thought carefully about strategic interactions with opposing styles, and you are comfortable winning those debates in front of a judge who does not assume all of your priors, I will be a fine judge for you. If you need a judge who is strictly “in your lane” stylistically, then there will be matchups where I am not your ideal judge.

In terms of my familiarity with arguments: in phil lit, I am well read in analytic and continental philosophy (less so analytic philosophy, except in the area of ethics) and in the groups in between (Hegel and post-Hegelians, for example). In K lit, I’m well read in critical/Marxist theory and high theory, and I’m pretty comfortable (though slightly less well read) with the identity literature. I actively coach debaters on all of the above, as well as on theory, T vs K affs, K affs vs T, and (some) tricks. My debaters read some policy args, and there are scenarios where I encourage that, but I am less involved in coaching those arguments.

Miscellaneous

As a general policy, I don't disclose speaks.

Generally speaking, I'm not very receptive to arguments like "evaluate after the 1n" or "no neg analytics" (you know the genre). I'm fine with these arguments when they are scenario specific, and you can give an explanation why a type of argument needed to be made in a specific speech; obviously those arguments are sometimes true. Otherwise, I don't think these arguments are worth reading in front of me -- I never find myself comfortable making decisions based on sweeping claims that mean debaters generally can't respond to arguments.

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

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

My email is mayjay144@gmail.com. Start an email chain, Speechdrop, or use file share on NSDA Campus. DO NOT share me to a google doc of your case, but feel free to send me a google doc link with view-only access.

quick prefs:

Policy arguments & T - 1

Critical arguments/Ks - 1 [non-topical AFFs: 2, not my fave if they could have been T with same lit base as the framing]

Theory - 3

Frivolous theory/trolling/tricks - 4/5/strike

** note: I get triggered by graphic depictions of anti-black violence (e.g. very graphic examples of police brutality, slavery etc) and sexual assault. If you plan to read afro-pessimism, please read a trigger warning or simply take out horrific examples of gratuitous violence. Black violence is not 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.

- I'm not a big fan of complex theory/skep/tricks or heavily pre-written stuff that you do not understand. I encourage you to do whatever you are passionate about, just take the round seriously.

- I think there are productive ways to engage in critical race theory. I don’t think that non-black debaters should be reading radical Black advocacies (e.g. afropessimism, Black nihilism etc.). Read your social justice positions, but please leave our radical Black authors/groups out of it. If you're not Black and you read aforementioned positions I will not vote on it. If you say any racial slur written by the author (or just on your own whim) I will drop you and give you zero speaker points.

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 a speaking activity.

Updated 25 August 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lake Highland ’18

Stanford ’22

Email: muhammadykhattak@gmail.com

Hey! I'm Momo, I debated for Lake Highland for five years primarily in LD and dabbled (4 tournaments, 2 each) in PF and Policy. I've taught at NSD, TDC, and TDI. I was an assistant coach at FlexDebate and am now head coach at Bronx Science.

I believe the only essential feature of debate that I should uphold as a judge is that an argument is characterized by having a claim, warrant, and impact. You should read whatever style argument you’re most comfortable with and I’ll adjudicate the best I can. In that sense, I consider myself pretty tab, and I care about making the right decision. That's all to say, I think debate is a game so just play it how you see fit.

Whether it's phil framework, Ks, tricks, policy, theory, PF, traditional debate, or anything in between, I'm here for it. My aim is to always make the least interventionist decision as possible; so as long as you aim to justify why your model of debate is comparatively better than your opponent's and win offense linking back to that model, you will win.

Don't do anything blatantly offensive or actively aimed to make your opponent feel uncomfortable, could lose you the ballot or speaks.

Notes on online debate

1 - you should time each other ; if someone who is speaking gets kicked, most likely they are unaware of this and continue to speak. The person who is flowing, alternatively, should pause their timer at that moment and continue to flow under the assumption that their opponent is still reading their doc at the same rate.

Once the person who was kicked gets back, if they had already stopped because they realized they were kicked, time restarts at the time the other speaker paused their timer with, although generally you should try not to stop since you should have a local copy of your speech anyways (see 2). The reason why you should try not to stop is because either (a) you're reading cards off a doc in which case your opponent is already flowing anyways or (b) there were extempted arguments which should be confirmed in flex prep and the local copy will help your opponent and myself hear what exact arguments were made. If the person who is kicked rejoins and is still giving their speech, then the point at which the timer was stopped should serve as a timestamp for when to read listen to the recording.

2 - Record a local copy of your speech, either on your phone or QuickTime, so that if the speech cuts out you can send a copy of whatever we missed. I'm not too keen on letting you redo speeches since the wifi may just cut out again, having a local copy makes it easier to navigate these inconsistencies in connection.

3 - You should probably slow down a tad bit*, the bits and bops of Zoom always makes it tough for me to hear what you're saying, and I'm not one to religiously flow off the doc.
*slow down and build up in speed please please i'm a terrible flower

you can implement this method if you'd like - in constructive speeches, read taglines slower and glide through ev or long nondense ev; emphasize what needs emphasis for you to win and transition between flows with large overviews that compare layers. You can follow this up in speeches where you're pressed to collapse (2n/2a) the debate by giving an overview on how the layers of the debate interact, what layer you are collapsing to and then speed up once you get into the substance of winning each particular layer.

all of this is to say, try to go a bit slower in areas where you can. Also using efficient strategy and breaking down rounds in a discrete way that isolates all relevant voting issues or layers can help in later rebuttal speeches and be opportunities to slow down

I did debate from freshman year to senior year. I mostly read K's and phil.

I have not judged since the Round Robin last year, and before that, hadn't done any debate related things since Harvard 2018.

Hypothetically, you can read anything in front of me as long as you explain it well. However, use your judgement pretty conservatively. If you're thinking of reading something that's pretty new in debate or you don't think you'd have enough time for the strat and to explain it clearly, then it probably wouldn't be the right move for me.

Signposting is mega appreciated as I have been out of the activity for quite some time, as well as voting issues (if your voting issues are clear and warranted, I will listen!!). I will say slow and clear as much as needed. I will probably need you to go slower than top speed as it's been a while since I've flowed.

My email is hannah.koegler@gmail.com - include me on the email chain!!

Most importantly, be kind to one another!!

1 K

2 Phil

3 Larp

4 Theory/Tricks

I competed for Bronx Science 2012-2014, coached Scarsdale 2014-2016, and am now entering my last year of being involved with this activity by coaching independently. Conflicts- Bronx Science, Scarsdale, Lake Travis, and a few others.

Go slower then your top speed, if I don't catch an argument I am not going to flow it. I honestly don't care what is run in front of me- just signpost well and explain your arguments. slow down on tags and analytics. I am cool with flex prep. flashing/emailing better not take over a minute or it eats your prep time. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at dam13@geneseo.edu (use email for your email chains.)

Edited for LHP RR and beyond: I honestly hate most of the arguments run this year. Don't get me wrong, I love this activity and think that it's awesome but it seems like a bunch of you on the national circuit have taken it upon yourselves to ruin this perfectly nice debate event to the point that I wish I could travel back in time and force myself to join Policy. I haven’t heard much that I thought was smart or creative aside for a few Ks, a couple plans, and a single framework shell. As I am forced to make a decision, I will do my best to adjudicate but I can’t promise you will like my speaker points nor my decision. I got a little better at flowing but being able to hear y’all’s arguments probably will just makes me dislike them a lot more. Best way to win my ballot is to establish a clear framing mechanism and offense back to it. The saving grace for your speaker points and my sanity is the way you present your arguments. Being funny, making gutsy strategic moves, reading interesting arguments, and/or being smart will be rewarded with really high speaker points. If you are a robot that just reads docs please strike me or just have your coach speak for you instead. If you have a coach that wants to waste my time please strike me. If you want to read a case full of analytic arguments that sounds like you are reciting the alphabet or practicing how to count please, for the love of god, strike me. If I judge you I apologize in advance cause if I do and you do not listen to my advice then chances are I am just going to be replaying an episode of "Entourage" in my head instead of paying attention to your boring/asinine arguments. If you want a free conflict, feel free to send me a couple bucks on Venmo and we can claim a financial relationship (just kidding). If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask me in person (please do not attempt to contact me) about my thoughts on debate.

My pronouns are He/him/his- let me know yours before the round to avoid any issue

Update for online tournaments:

Please slow down and make an extra effort to be clear for these rounds online. I will not call clear online since then we miss some of what you are saying.

I did LD for three years at Cy-Fair HS outside of Houston, Texas, qualifying to the TOC and NSDA nationals, and reaching semifinals at TFA state. I worked for McNeil HS in Austin while attending the University of Texas, and I teach at NSD and TDC.

Conflicts: McNeil HS, Cy-Fair HS, Lovejoy KC, Pembroke Pines MC

TL/DR:

I'd rather evaluate your style of debate than have you do things you're not comfortable with because you think it's what I want. My paradigm is here so you get an idea of how you want to pref me and how to debate in front of me, not to dissuade you from any particular type of debate.

Feel free to ask me questions at cameronmcconway@gmail.com.

If I am judging you at 8 am or late after a long day of rounds, please make an extra effort to be clear and organized. I'm tired and I want to make sure I can evaluate the debate as best as possible, so this is in your best interest!

The trend of taking forever to send speech docs (and then wait for everyone to download them) is extremely annoying. I haven't figured out the best way to check this, so for now I'm asking that you come to round with the aff ready to send, and have docs ready to send as soon as prep ends before the NC. If you think you might have wifi trouble or problems with your email, a flash drive would speed this process up.

General:

I will vote on most arguments as long as they aren't morally objectionable or blatantly false. I will do my best to be tab, but I think there is a level of plausibility necessary for me to vote on an argument (for instance, I won't vote on an obviously false I-meet). It will be difficult to convince me to vote on a super blippy apriori or an argument that turned into a voting issue after being one line in the original speech.

I'd like to be on the email chain in case I need to look at a card, but I will flow you not the speech doc.

Speed:

I'm fine with speed, just slow down on tags/author names and interps/advocacy texts.

T/Theory:

I am comfortable evaluating theory under whichever paradigm you prefer, so long as you justify it. I have found that I enjoy a good theory debate where there is a lot of weighing and internal links.

I am not a fan of disclosure debates, especially when the violation is unverifiable or the wiki was down. That said, there is a difference between a debate about disclosure vs a debate over open source or round reports, and I would much prefer the former.

Ks:

I read both high theory and identity politics. I feel comfortable evaluating most K debates but I strongly prefer debaters err on the side of overexplaining/not relying on jargon rather than assuming that I am familiar with the literature they are reading. These debates tend to either be excellent or my least favorite.

I enjoy K affs, but I do think if you are nontopical you need to a) win that being nontopical is legitimate b) have an evaluative mechanism and c) have offense under that mechanism. I am happy to listen to unique/innovative K affs regardless of their topicality, though I am also happy to listen to T debates against them. I think these can be interesting debates.

Recent observation: I find positions that rely on premises like "performative contradictions good" or "debate itself bad" to be unpersuasive. Not positions that criticize the current iteration of competitive debate (I am fine with that), but rather I think there is inherent value to the act of debating. This doesn't mean I won't vote on high theory authors like Baudrillard, because I will and I have, but I do think your interpretation of these authors should be compatible with your performance.

LARP:

I think that high level LARP debates tend to be more difficult to evaluate because a lot of debaters do not do sufficient weighing or impact calc. I enjoy well done LARP debates, just please do good weighing.

Framework:

I enjoy framework debate more the longer I judge. Slow down a bit on long analytic dumps and err towards overexplaining the dense philosophical warrants, because these things are difficult to flow at your top speed.

Speaks:

I start around a 28.5 and go up or down depending on in-round strategy and skill relative to the tournament. Speaks tend to be over-inflated and relatively arbitrary, so I try to give speaks with influencing who clears in mind. I like speaks as a way to reward well-executed or particularly clever strategies.

EMAIL: mcgin029@gmail.com

POLICY
Slow down; pause between flows; label everything clearly; be aware that I am less familiar with policy norms, so over-explain. Otherwise I try to be more-or-less tab.

LD

I am the head coach at Valley High School and have been coaching LD debate since 1996.

I coach students on both the local and national circuits.

I can flow speed reasonably well, particularly if you speak clearly. If I can't flow you I will say "clear" or "slow" a couple of times before I give up and begin playing Pac Man.

You can debate however you like in front of me, as well as you explain your arguments clearly and do a good job of extending and weighing impacts back to whatever decision mechanism(s) have been presented.

I prefer that you not swear in round.

PREP TIME ENDS WHEN THE DOC IS SENT. THIS IS A REMINDER TO INCORPORATE DOC SENDING INTO YOUR PRACTICE AND DRILLS. IF I SEE YOU FUMBLING WITH YOUR COMPUTER 10 SECONDS AFTER YOU STOP PREP, I'M STARTING PREP RIGHT BACK UP. IF YOU'RE OUT OF PREP THEN I'M STARTING YOUR SPEECH TIME.

I EXPECT ROUNDS TO START EXACTLY AT (MAYBE EVEN EARLIER THAN) THE DESIGNATED START TIME. IF YOU START THE CHAIN AND SEND THE 1AC ~2 MINUTES PRIOR TO THE START TIME WE'LL BE GOOD.

THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR FLIGHT 2 DEBATES STARTING LATE BECAUSE OF DEBATERS. YOU HAD AN HOUR EXTRA TO PREPARE/START THE EMAIL CHAIN/PRE-FLOW.

IF A TIMER IS NOT RUNNING (speech, cx, prep time) YOU SHOULD NOT BE PREPPING (looking at docs, typing, writing) THAT IS STEALING PREP

Okay enough yelling. Sorry I'm getting old and grumpy.

Email: okunlolanelson@gmail.com [Add me to the chain]

About me: I debated in Texas mostly in LD and did a little Policy. Had a short stint for Northwestern debate (GO CATS). If you're reading quickly before a round, read the bold.

General/Short version:

- Tech > Truth

- Judge instruction is axiomatic. The best final speeches start and end with judge instruction.

- Assume I know very little about the topic, your author, the norms, the meta e.t.c. This means (for the most part) you do you, extend and explain your position and I'll do my best to objectively evaluate it

- If its a Policy throwdown, please slow down a bit in those final speeches. Remember I'm probably not familiar with the topic. This is mostly for LD since shorter speeches/rounds means less time to explain those [internal] links.

- I'm not flowing of the doc - I believe that judges flowing off the doc incentivizes HORRIBLE clarity and rhetorical practices. Won't even glance at the document unless absolutely needed (1/10 debates). It is YOUR job to extend and explain your evidence, not my job to read it and explain it for you. Clarity is axiomatic.

- PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD SLOW DOWN on analytics, tags, interpretations, plan/cp text, theory. You can go as fast as you want on the card body. Remember speed can be a gift or a curse.

- Debate whatever and however you want. Go all out and do your thing, just DO NOT be violent or make the space unsafe.

- Frame your impacts and weigh your impacts. No one wins their framework anymore. Its a shame. It would make debates atleast 37% easier to decide.

- Errr on the side of explanation and slow down a bit for dense [analytic] philosophical debates. I do not have a PhD in philosophy.

- Bad theory debates get more annoying as I get older. I promise you no one is thrilled to decide on a debate on "evaluate the debate after the 1AC" be forreal. You still have to respond to bad theory arguments though (shouldn't be terribly hard)

- You will auto-lose if you clip cards or falsely accuse. You will auto-lose for evidence ethics violations

- A good speech consists of judge instruction, overview, line by line, and crystallization (and obviously strategy). Good speeches = good speaks. Rhetoric and Persuasion is important.

- I don't care how far away or how close to the topic you are but you must justify your practice. This is your activity not mine. I'm simply here to give feedback, decide a winner, and enjoy the free food from the judges lounge. If you think fairness is an impact, defend it. If you think skills matter, defend it. If you think defending USFG action causes psychological violence, defend it.

- One thing to note for "non-T" affs vs T, I need you to account for/interact with your opponents impact. If I am simply left with a fairness/skills impact vs the impact turns and no interaction between the 2 and no Top Level framing issues, I will be forced to intervene. (This is bad for affirmatives because I think that fairness is *probably* a good thing)

- If there's an important CX concession, please flag it and/or get my attention in case I have zoned out.

- If i'm judging Policy debate, just don't assume I know some jargon, norm, or innovative strategy and err on the side of explanation.

- I won't kick the CP for you unless you tell me to *AND justify* why I should.

- No you cannot "Insert re-highlighting." Are you serious? Why is this even a thing? If its not read, its not on my flow.

- Don't get too **graphic** on descriptions of antiblack violence (or any violence for that matter). Trigger warnings are welcomed and encouraged.

- Referencing college teams or other teams doesn't really get you anywhere, "our models allows for Michigan vs Berkeley debates" I simply do not know or care about these teams

- If you need to know something specifically ask before the round.

• Good luck, do your thing, and have fun!

I coach at American Heritage and have been coaching privately for 6 years now. My email for speech docs is: Stevescopa23@gmail.com.

Conflicts for TOC external to my school: Cary Academy, David Huang

Shortcut:

Philosophy - 1

Theory - 1

Non-Identity Ks - 1/2

T - 2

Identity K's - 2-4 depending how you read them

Policy - 5/Strike

General: I'm tech > truth, read whatever you want. I have a low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments but they need to be extended in each speech. Also, if I don't think an argument has a warrant I won't vote on it. Speaks are inflated by good strategy and execution and capped by how bad i think your arguments are. If you're reading a bunch of unserious nonsense you might win but most likely won't get good speaks.

- I default to truth testing if no other RoB is read.

- I don’t evaluate embedded clash unless there is an argument as to why I should or the round is irresolvable without it.

- I do not believe you get new 2n responses to AC arguments unless an argument is made for why you get those arguments in the NC.

- I will vote on disclosure theory. Just don’t read it against novices or people who clearly don’t know what it is. I also won’t evaluate it if it becomes clear/verifiable the debater’s team won’t allow it or other similar circumstances.

- Don’t need to flash analytics to your opponent but I would like them

- Even if something is labeled an independent voter, if there is no warrant for why it is one, I won’t evaluate it as such. I also don’t really think “x author is sexist/racist/etc so you should lose” makes much sense. I’ll vote on it if you win it but it’s an uphill battle.

Theory: Go for it - this is probably one of the easier things for me to judge, and I really enjoy judging nuanced theory debates. Slow down on the interpretation a bit if it’s something more nuanced. I don’t “gut check” frivolous shells but obviously if you are winning reasonability then I will evaluate through whatever your brightline is. Also, for counter interps “converse of the interp” is not sufficient, if your opponent says “idk what the converse is so I can’t be held to the norm” I will buy that argument, just actually come up with a counter interp.

I really like RVIs and think they are underutilized so if you successfully go for one I will be happy.

T: T debates weren’t nearly as nuanced when I debated so you may have to explain some of the particulars more than you may be used to. I am also a sucker for semantics.

T “framework”: To be honest I am agnostic on whether affs should be T. I probably lean yes, but I also find non-T affs pretty interesting and fun to judge at times. I don’t consider an aff that doesn’t defend fiat but does defend the principle of the resolution non-T, and I am less persuaded by T in that sense.

Tricks: Sure, but speaks might suffer depending how they're executed and how dumb I think they are.

Ks: I really enjoy a good K debate. Especially psycho, baudrillard, nietzsche, and cap. The more specific the links the better. In a relatively equal debate i dont think i've ever voted for deleuze.

Larp: Probably the worst for this but will listen to it, just need to explain things a little more than you normally would. It is probably an uphill battle to win util vs other phil or Ks but possible if that's your thing.

Framework: This is my favorite type of debate and really want it to make a comeback. Great speaks if you can execute this well and/or read something that interests me.

Speaks: I average probably a 28.5. I assign them based on mostly strategy/execution with a little bit of content, but content can only improve your speaks not make them worse really (with the exception of disclosure probably). I like unique and clever arguments and well executed strategy - I would not advise you to go for a tricks aff if you are a larp debater just because I am judging you, do what you do well to get good speaks. I am also somewhat expressive when I think about how arguments interact so be mindful of that i guess. Also, if I can tell your 1ar/2n/2ar is pre-written your speaks will probably suffer.

How do I get a 30?

I won’t guarantee a 30 based on these strategies but it will definitely increase your chances of getting one if you can successfully pull off any of the following:

1) Going NC, AC really well with a phil NC

2) A good analytic PIC

3) Any unique fwk/K/RoB that I haven’t heard before or think is really interesting

4) A true theory shell or one I haven’t heard before

5) Execute a Skep trigger/contingent standard well

6) Successfully going for an RVI

Lay debates: If you are clearly better than your opponent and it is obvious that you are winning the round, please, dear lord, do not use all of your speech time just because you have the time - win the round and sit down so we can have a discussion and make it more educational than just you repeating conceded arguments for 13 minutes.

I debated for Lake Highland for four years qualifying to the TOC my senior year.

Ultra-short version: I’m comfortable evaluating rounds that are K, framework, or theory heavy. I’m fine listening to util/LARP rounds, but I might not be the best judge to adjudicate them. Don’t forget about Hume.

Warrants: Unless you justify why I should accept something without a warrant (for example, oppression is wrong), arguments must have warrants. Fancy rhetoric != a warrant. Repeating the claim twice != a warrant. “My author says so” != a warrant (unless there’s a reason the author is an authority and is making a descriptive claim they are qualified to make). Arguments without warrants are just claims, as a result I will not vote on something that does not have a warrant. I will, however, vote on arguments with warrants that are clearly false and essentially nonsense so long as your opponent doesn’t point out the nonsense.

Ks: I'm familiar with a lot of K lit ranging from Wilderson to Heidegger so feel free to run whatever you have in front of me.

Theory: Offensive counter-interps are great. I might be a bit annoyed if you run a clearly absurd and obscure shell, but I’m fine evaluating theory rounds. I think education and fairness aren’t voters arguments are underutilized. I default CI until/unless reasonability is justified.

Extensions: If and only if the claim is uncontested, you don’t have to extend the warrant. I’ll be pretty lenient on 2ar extensions. You don’t have to extend theory interps or violations if no I-meets are made (still extend counter-interps).

Speaker points: Here is a list of things I think are awesome and will earn great speaks:

• Science or mathematics used to justify positions (automatic 30 if original/unique/uncommon)
• Hume’s inductive fallacy
• Condo logic
• Original/uncommon positions
• Impact turns
• Cleverly triggered permissibility

Speed: Start slow then ramp up speed. Your speed should be inversely proportional to the blipy-ness of your speech. If you want to emphasize something specific, slow down slightly for it.

If you have any questions, ask me before the round.

Email chain: msigalow61@gmail.com

Conflicts: Lake Highland Preparatory School

Policy at CFL Nationals:

I coached Circuit LD from 2011 until the 2019-2020 School Year and judged very frequently but haven't judged since then (I just graduated law school). My students have done very well. I debated policy for Emory University from 2011-2014 and have a decent knowledge of NDT-level policy debate but my background is in LD. I am not as familiar with the substantive content of many arguments, especially old arguments the community would know but I would not, or new arguments that became popular after my time. In LD, I judged a lot of "clash of civ" debates and am quite comfortable with K debates, although on the team I coached was the guy who did all the topic-relevant plan/disad/T stuff.

Some quick policy debate comments

1. Almost universally, I am unaware of any particular reputation a team might have. Try not to be too chummy with me or the other judges on any panel to which I might be on. I think that's a form of gatekeeping.
2. I have not had to flow speed in a bit, so be a little generous, if you can afford to do so.
3. I don't think permutations need net benefits (I'm not sure if this view is mainstream).
4. If a component of an affirmative is necessary for the affirmative to solve their advantage, then failure to solve it means the affirmative has not solved their advantage. If instead that component is sufficient, a counterplan that solves that component solves the whole advantage. If it is neither, by the end of the debate it should be clear what role that component plays. I will need less explaining on these points. 
5. Bullying is bad (coaches and competitors). Be nice! Also, talking over people or making fun of their appearance is impermissible.
6. I have seen a disproportionate number of Emory IW and Michigan AP speeches. 

Some general comments for this tournament, including LD-focused biases that may impact how I judge 

1. I am not sure what policy is like at CFL Nationals, but I will be keenly aware of the impact the speed could have in a debate where one team can't flow it and the other team and the judges can. I am not sure to what extent these norms exist in policy.
2. It is probably much easier to get me to vote on a theory argument like condo bad or process counterplans bad than it would be for policy folks, because theory is treated differently in LD.
3. If you can convince me an argument is genuinely new, I won't evaluate it.
4. I don't know the topic or its norms so I would be careful of a T debate.
5. Women get talked over in debates far too much. If I believe you are contributing to this problem I may penalize you.

The LD rules below may apply, but they disproportionately arise because LD's very low number of speeches necessitates stating preferences like those because of the inability to call out late-breaking decisional stances, so they are probably not as important.

LD:

1. No new arguments or arguments that are the exact opposites of a previously made argument.
2. Severely mislabeling arguments is extremely bad.
3. I will not evaluate the debate at any point before its end.
4. I default to offense-defense, competing interps, durable fiat, perms test competition, and that the aff defends implementation.

My email is beccatraber (at) gmail (dot) com. I want to be on the email chain. I don't disclose speaks.

I am a debate coach and former teacher at Lake Highland Prep school. I help run NSD Flagship on site. I'm currently a law student at Texas.

Added Nov 19, 2022: Several recent rounds made me think I needed to make something clear. I probably won't find your arguments that funny--I am old, I've certainly seen it before. Please don't waste my time with meme rounds stuffed full with things like shoes theory or other outrageous offs. Particularly don't run things where the joke basically depends on it being funny to care about something related to social justice. I have no aversion to tricky or clever arguments, but I do strongly care about argument quality and if it's something that's been floating around since 2004, I've definitely seen it too many times to actually find it clever. Your speaks will suffer if you don't take this seriously.

MJP Shorthand:

I predominately coach k, phil, and theory debaters. I'm comfortable judging any given round. I regularly vote for every type of case/debater. If you want to know what my preferences are, the following is pretty accurate:

K - 1

Phil - 1

Theory - 2

Tricks - 3

Policy - 3** (see details below, in the circuit section)

(My debaters told me to add those numbers, but it bears repeating: I can and will judge whatever round you want me to have. This is just what makes me happiest to judge)

Traditional LD Paradigm:

(If you are reading this at a CFL, this is what you should focus on. You can read the circuit thing if you want, but this overrules it in a very non-circuit context.)

Overall, I want to judge the debate you want me to judge, so you do you. A few thoughts about what I think on things:

1. Please don't go new in the second speeches, especially the 2AR. I will not evaluate new evidence or new framing that your opponent doesn't have a chance to answer.
2. If an argument is dropped and unresponded to in the first chance it has to be responded to (eg, the NC doesn't respond to something in the AC), I consider it true. You can't respond to it directly, but you may frame the argument or weigh against it. You can contest the implications.
3. I flow the whole round on my computer. That's how I make my decision. That's why I am typing the whole time.
4. I would prefer if you time yourself--I am very out of the habit of time signals. Tell me if you want them.
5. In general, I think the value/criterion is crucial for LD. You must normatively justify a criterion that is capable of serving as a measuring stick for what impacts matter in the round. This means that ideally for me, your criterion should be warranted in terms of why it is the right way to think about morality, not just defining it. This has the effect of me generally preferring criteria that are specific actions ("not treating people as a means to an end") than broad references to the intellectual history of the idea ("Kant's categorical imperative.") To generalize: criteria should have a verb.
6. I am willing to exclude consequentialist impacts if the framework is won explaining why I should.
7. Comparative impacting is very important to me. I want to know why your argument is good/true, but I want to know that in terms of why your opponent's argument is bad/false.
8. Be extremely clear about what you think is aff ground and what is neg ground and why. I've judged a lot of CFL debates lately where there has been intense disagreement about what the aff could defend--be clear when that's happening and try to explain why your approach is more consistent with the literature. Part of that involves looking for definitions and sources in context: avoid using general dictionaries for technical terms.
9. If you raise issues like the author qualifications or any general problem with the way that your opponent warrants something, I need an argument from you as to why that matters. For instance, don't just say "this evidence is older than my evidence," point out the intervening event that would make me think the date matters.
10. I am fine with speed in theory, but it is very important to me that everyone is on the same page. If your opponent is not used to flowing full spreading, please don't. You may speak quickly, you may sit down, you may do whatever jargon you like--as long as you prioritize sharing the space and really think about explaining your arguments fully.
11. I don't mind you reading progressive arguments, but it is very important to me that everyone understand them. What that means is that you are welcome to read a k or topicality, but you have a very high burden of articulating its meaning and function in the round. I'll vote on T, for instance, but I'm going to consciously abandon my assumptions about T being a voting issue. If you want me to vote on it, you must explain it in round, in a way that your opponent understands. The difference between me and a more traditional judge will mostly be that I won't be surprised or off-put by the argument, but you still have to justify it to me.
12. I tend not to be allowed to disclose, but I will give oral feedback after the round. You don't have to stay for it, but I'm happy to answer any questions you have!

Circuit LD Paradigm:

Qualifications: I debated on the national circuit for the Kinkaid School, graduated 2008. It's a long time ago, but I finaled at the TOC and won several national tournaments. I've been coaching and teaching on the national circuit since. I am finishing my dissertation at Yale University in Political Theory. In Fall 2020, I started working as a full-time teacher at Lake Highland Prep in Florida. I've taught at more camps than I care to think about at present, including top labs at NSD and TDC.

Shorthand:

K - 1

Phil - 1

Theory - 2

Tricks - 3

Policy - 3** (see details below)

Some general explanations of those numbers & specific preferences, roughly put into the categories:

K

I am well-read in a wide variety of critical literature. I'm familiar with the array of authors commonly read in debate.

I like k-affs, both topical and non-topical. I generally buy method links, method perms, advocacy links, advocacy perms, and so on. I can and do buy impact turns. That being said: I also regularly vote against ks, and am willing to hear arguments about acceptable and unacceptable k/link/perm/alt practices.

I think it is important to be able to articulate what the alt/advocacy looks like as a material practice, but I think that's possible and persuasive for even the most high theory and esoteric ks.

The critical literatures I've coached or read the authors myself include (but aren't limited to): ableism, a variety of anti-capitalisms/marxisms including Jodi Dean, anthropocentrism, a variety of anti-Blackness literatures, Baudrillard, semiocapitalism, ecology critiques, securitization/threat construction, nationalism critiques, a variety of queer theories, Heidegger, Deleuze, Laruelle, Lacan, Derrida, Foucault, Bataille, and others. I'm old and I read a lot. I'm comfortable in this space.

Ontological Pessimism: I am uncomfortable with debaters reading ontologically pessimistic positions about identity groups that they do not belong to. I won't auto-drop the debater reading it, but I am an easy get for an argument that they should lose by the opponent.

As a general thing, I would like to strongly remind you that these are positions about real people who are in the room with you, and you should be mindful of that when you deploy narratives of suffering as a way to win the round. And yes, this applies to "invisible" identities as well. If you're reading an ontologically pessimist position, especially if the thrust of the debate is about how things that are or are not consistent with that identity, and things that identity cannot or can do--I completely think it's fair game for your opponent to ask you if you identify in that way.

If you're not willing to answer the question, perhaps you shouldn't be running the case. I've sat through a lot of disability debates recently and I'm starting to get very frustrated with the way that people casually talk about disabled people, without any explicit accountability to disabled humans as people in the space and not just figures of Lacanian abjection. I will vote on it, but try not to be a jerk. This isn't just a debate argument.

If you read a slur or insult based on an identity that doesn't apply to you (race, gender, ability, class...anything), I am not voting for you. You lose. There's no debate argument that I'll listen to justifying it. Even if it is an example of a bad thing: I don't care. You lose. Cut around it. Changing letters around isn't redacting it if you still read it.

Policy FW/T-Must-Be-Topical: I regularly vote both that affs must be topical and that they don't have to be. I regularly coach in both directions. I think the question is very interesting and one of my favorite parts of debate--when done with specific interaction with the content of the aff. I particularly like non-standard T-FW and TVAs which aren't the classic "must defend the hypothetical implementation of a policy action."

Accessibility note for performances: If you don't flash the exact text of your speech, please do not play any additional sounds underneath your speaking. If there is sound underneath your speaking, please flash the exact text of what you are reading. I do not want to undermine the performance you want to engage in and whichever option you prefer is fine for me. It is fine to have part of your speech be on paper with music underneath and then turn the music off when you go off paper. I struggle to understand what is being said over noise and I'm uncomfortable being unable to know what is being said with precision.

Phil

I am well-read in a variety of philosophical literature, predominantly in the post-Kantian continental tradition and political theory. I also enjoy a well-constructed phil case. Some of my favorite debates are k v phil, also--I see them generally as dealing with the same questions and concerns.

For phil positions, I do think it is important that the debater be able to explain how the ethical conception and/or the conception of the subject manifests in lived human reality.

I am generally more persuaded by epistemic confidence than epistemic modesty, but I think the debate is usually malformed and strange--I would prefer if those debates deal with specific impact scenarios or specifics of the phil framework in question.

I prefer detailed and well-developed syllogisms as opposed to short and unrelated prefer-additionalys. A good "prefer-additionally" should more or less be a framework interaction/pre-empt.

In general, I've been in this activity a long time. The frameworks I've coached or read the authors myself include (but aren't limited to): Kant, Hegel, Marx, alienation, Levinas, Butler, Agonism, Spinoza, Agamben, Hobbes, contractualism/contractarianism, virtue ethics, testimony... I'm really solid on framework literatures.

Theory

I'm willing to listen to either reasonability or competing interpretations.

I don't assume either fairness or jurisdiction as axiomatic voting issues, so feel free to engage on that level of the theory debate.

I'm suspicious of precision/jurisdiction/semantics as the sole thing you extend out of a T-shell and am generally compelled by reasonability in the form of "if they don't have any pragmatics offense, as long as I demonstrate it is compliant with a legit way of interpreting the word, it doesn't have to be the best interpretation."

I do really enjoy a well-developed theory argument, just make sure you are holding to the same standards of warranting here that I demand anywhere. Internal links between the standards and the interpretation, and the standards and the voter, are both key.

I love a good counter interp that is more than defending the violation--those result in strategic and fun rounds.

I'm willing to buy semantic I-Meets.

I find AFC/ACC read in the 1AR annoying and unpersuasive, though I have voted for it.

I am willing to vote on RVIs. I don't generally think K-style impact turns are automatically answered by RVIs-bad type arguments, unless there is work done.

Disclosure: Is by now a pretty solid norm and I recognize that. I have voted many times on particular disclosure interps, but in my heart of hearts think the ways that most people handle disclosure competing interps tends to lead to regress.

Tricks

I enjoy when debaters are substantive about what it means to prove the resolution true/false and explain how that interacts with the burdens of the round. I am more inclined to vote for substantive and developed tricks/triggers, and even if you're going for a short or "blippy" argument, you'd be well-served to do extensive interactions and cross-applications.

I want a ballot story and impact scenario, even with a permissibility trigger. (Even if the impact is that the resolution is tautologically true, I want that expressed straightforwardly and consistently).

I have a fairly high gut-check for dumb arguments, so I'm not your best bet if you want to be winning on the resolved a priori and things that are purely reliant on opponents dropping half-sentences from your case. But if you can robustly explain the theory of truth under which your a prior affirms/negates, you're probably okay.

Also: you know what an apriori is. Or you know what they mean. If you want to hedge your bets, answer in good faith -- for instance, instead of saying "what does that mean?" say "many of my arguments could, depending on what you read, end up implying that it is impossible to prove the resolution false/true. what specifically are you looking for?"

"Don't Evaluate After The 1ar": Feel free to run these arguments if you want, but know that my threshold is extremely high for "evaluate debate after [speech that is not the 2ar]." It is very difficult to persuade me to meaningfully do this. A better way to make this argument would be to tell me what sort of responses I shouldn't permit and why. For instance, new paradigm issues bad, cross-apps bad, no embedded clash, no new reasons for [specific argument] -- all fine and plausible. I just don't know what it means to actually stop evaluating later speeches. Paradigmatically, speech times are speech times and it makes no sense to me why I should obviate some of your opponent's time for any in-round reason. If you have a specific version of this argument you want to check with me, feel free to do so before round.

Policy Debate

I have policy as a 3 only because I often find myself frustrated with how inane and unsubstantive a lot of long impact stories in LD are. If you have good, up to date evidence that compellingly tells a consequentialist result of a policy: I'm all in, I love that.

I really enjoy specific, well-researched and creative plans. I find a well-executed policy debate very impressive. Make sure you're able to articulate a specific and compelling causal story.

Make sure you know what all the words mean and that you can clearly explain the empirical and institutional structure of the DA/plan. As an example of the sort of thing that annoys me: a DA that depends on a Supreme Court case getting all the way through the appellate system in two weeks to trigger a politics impact before an election will make me roll my eyes.

There's also a disturbing trend of plans that are straight-up inherent--which I hate, that doesn't make any sense with a consequentialist/policymaking FW.

I am absolutely willing to buy zero risk claims, especially in regards to DAs/advantages with no apparent understanding of how the institutions they're talking about work.

I find the policy style affs where the advantages/inherency are all about why the actor doesn't want to do the action and will never do the action, and then the plan is the actor doing the thing they'd never do completely inane--that being said, they're common and I vote on them all the time.

I am generally compelled by the idea that a fiated plan needs an actor.

Assorted Other Preferences:

The following are other assorted preferences. Just know that everything I'm about to say is simply a preference and not a rule; given a warranted argument, I will shift off of just about any position that I already have or that your opponent gave me.

Speed: I have no problem with spreading -- all I ask is that you are still clear enough to follow. What this means is that you need to have vocal variation and emphasis on important parts of your case, like card names and key arguments.

Threshold for Extensions: If I am able to understand the argument and the function of it in the context of the individual speech, it is extended. I do appreciate explicit citation of card names, for flowing purposes.

CX: CX is really important to me, please use it. You have very little chance of fantastic speaker points without a really good cross-x. I would prefer if y'all don't use CX as prep, although I have no problems with questions being asked during prep time (Talk for at least three minutes: feel free to talk the rest of the time, too). If you are getting a concession you want to make absolutely sure that I write down, get eye-contact and repeat to me what you view the concession as.

Do not be unnecessarily mean. It is not very persuasive. It will drop your speaks. Be mindful of various power-dynamics at play in the room. Something I am particularly bothered by is the insistence that a marginalized debater does not understand their case, particularly when it is framed like: [male coach] wrote this for you, right [female debater]? Or isn't there a TVA, [Black debater], you could have used [white debater's] advocacy. Feel free to mention specific cases that are topical, best not to name drop. I can't think of an occasion when it is appropriate to explicitly challenge the authorship or understanding of a particular argument.

When debating someone significantly more traditional or less experienced: your speaks will benefit from explaining your arguments as straightforwardly as you can. I won't penalize you for the first speeches, but in whatever speech happens after the differences in experience level becomes clear, you should treat them almost as a pedagogical exercise. Win the round, but do so in a way where you aren't only trying to tell me why you win the round, but you're trying to make sure your opponent also understands what is happening.

Presumption: I don't default any particular way. I am willing to listen to presumption arguments which would then make me default, given the particular way the round shakes down, but my normal response to a round where no one meets their burden is to lower my standards until one person does meet their burden. Now, I hate doing this and it makes me grumpy, so expect lower speaker points in a situation where nobody meets their burden and nobody makes an argument about why I should presume any which way. This just points to the need to clearly outline my role and the role of my ballot, and be precise as to how you are meeting it.

Note for TOC: I haven't judged in a couple months, so don't assume I'm up to date on all the recent topic trends. Also, when flowing virtually I've noticed that I need a few more seconds to isolate sections of the debate so please don't transition too quickly between signposts.

I'm Reed (He/Him). I did LD for four years at Lexington High School ('14-'18), went to TOC my junior and senior years, and reached elims at a bunch of bid tournaments & round robins along the way. I've taught at NSD over the summer and currently coach a number of students through Flex Debate.

I'll try my best to be objective and will evaluate pretty much any argument as long as it is properly warranted and implicated, with the exception of arguments that are actively exclusionary/racist/homophobic/ableist/etc.

I read mostly policy, philosophy, and theory my senior year, but have experience with and am totally comfortable voting on Ks and tricks. I don't think my preferences as a debater carry over a ton into how I evaluate rounds. I'll be just as happy watching a dense deleuze v. kant debate as I will be judging plan v. counterplan debates. Regardless of the content of your positions, all I really care about is whether you can execute your arguments well, demonstrate strategic vision, and explain things in a clear & understandable way.

I'm cautious of overly-long paradigms but if you're looking for any more clarification either Sam Azbel or Grant Brown's paradigm would be a decent reference for how I approach debates.

Things that will get you higher speaker points:

-good CX :)))

-unique Ks

-genuine clash in framework debates

-smart/tricky LARP strategies

-persuasive abuse stories on theory

-demonstration of topic knowledge

-good ev comparison

*I will not make a decision that procedurally excludes any of the 5 speeches. What this means is if you ask me to "evaluate the debate after the 1ac/1nc/1ar/2nr", i will most likely ignore it, as I've found that doing so would create an incredibly arbitrary decision procedure that I don't feel would benefit anyone in the way they are hoping.

Do your best, have fun, and please ask questions if you have them. I am always willing to discuss my reason for decision/give comments after the round. If you feel the need to ask me anything before the round, shoot me an email: rw9427a@student.american.edu

I am currently a policy and PF coach at Taipei American School. My previous affiliations include Fulbright Taiwan, the University of Wyoming, Apple Valley High School, The Harker School, the University of Oklahoma, and Bartlesville High School. I have debated or coached policy, LD, PF, WSD, BP, Congress, and Ethics Bowl.

Email for the chain: lwzhou10 at gmail.com

---

TOC Public Forum

Put the Public back in Public Forum.

For the TOC, follow all of the evidence rules and guidelines listed in the tournament policies. I care a lot about proper citations, good evidence norms, clipping, and misrepresentation.

I won't vote for arguments spread, theory, kritiks, or anything unrelated to the truth or falsity of the resolution. I find it extremely difficult to vote for arguments that lack resolutional basis (e.g., most theory or procedural arguments, some kritikal arguments, etc.). I find trends to evade debate over the topic to be anathema to my beliefs about what Public Forum debate ought to look like.

I care that you debate the topic in a way that reflects serious engagement with the relevant scholarly literature. I would also prefer to judge debates that do not contain references to arcane debate norms or jargon.

Additionally, I expect that your evidence abides by NSDA rules as outlined in the NSDA Evidence Guide. If I find evidence that does not conform to these guidelines, I will minimally disregard that piece of evidence and maximally vote against you.

tl;dr won't blink twice about voting against teams that violate evidence rules or try to make PF sound like policy-lite.

Other Things

Exchanging evidence in a manner consistent with the NSDA's rules on evidence exchange has become a painfully slow process. Please simply set up an email chain or use an online file sharing service in order to quickly facilitate the exchange of relevant evidence. Calling for individual pieces of evidence appears to me as nothing more than prep stealing.

If the Final Focus is all read from the computer, just send me the speech docs before the debate starts to save us some time. I'll also cap your speaks at 28.5.

I do not believe that either team has any obligation to "frontline" in second rebuttal, but my preferences on this are malleable. If "frontlining" is the agreed upon norm, I expect that the second speaking team also devote time to rebuttals in the constructive speeches.

The idea of defense being "sticky" seems illogical to me.

There is also a strong trend towards under-developing arguments in an activity that already operates with compressed speech times. I also strongly dislike the practice of spamming one-line quotes with no context (or warrant) from a dozen sources in a single speech. I will reward teams generously if they invest in a few well-warranted arguments which they spend time meaningfully weighing compared to if they continue to shotgun arguments with little regard for their plausibility or quality.

---

Policy

Stolen from Matt Liu: "Feb 2022 update: If your highlighting is incoherent gibberish, you will earn the speaker points of someone who said incoherent gibberish. The more of your highlighting that is incoherent, the more of your speech will be incoherent, and the less points you will earn. To earn speaker points, you must communicate coherent ideas."

I debated for OU back in the day but you shouldn't read too much into that—I wasn't ever particularly good or invested when I was competing. I lean more towards the policy side than the K side and I'm probably going to be unfamiliar with a lot of the ins-and-outs of most kritiks, although I will do my best to fairly evaluate the debate as it happens.

1. I tend to think the role of the aff is to demonstrate that the benefits of a topical plan outweigh its costs and that the role of the neg is to demonstrate that the costs and/or opportunity costs of the aff's plan outweigh its benefits.
2. I find variations of "fairness bad" or "logic/reasoning bad," to be incredibly difficult to win given that I think those are fundamental presuppositions of debate itself. Similarly, I find procedural fairness impacts to be the best 2NRs on T/Framework.
3. Conditionality seems obviously good, but I'm not opposed to a 2AR on condo. Most other theory arguments seem like reasons to reject the argument, not the team. I lean towards reasonability. Most counterplan issues seem best resolved at the level of competition, not theory.
4. Warrant depth is good. Argument comparison is good. Both together—even better.
5. Give judge instruction—tell me how to evaluate the debate.

None of these biases are locked in—in-round debating will be the ultimate determinant of an argument’s legitimacy.

---

WSD

My debate experience is primarily in LD, policy, and PF. I do not consider myself well-versed in all the intricacies or nuances of WSD strategy and norms. My only strong preference is that want to see well-developed and warranted arguments. I would prefer fewer, better developed arguments over more, less-developed arguments.

---

Online Procedural Concerns

1. Follow tournament procedure regarding online competition best practices.
2. Record your speeches locally. If you cut out and don't have a local backup, that's a you problem.
3. Keep your camera on when you speak, I don't care if it's on otherwise. Only exception is if there are tech or internet issues---keeping the camera off for the entirety of the debate otherwise is a good way to lose speaker points.
4. I'll keep my camera off for prep time, but I'll verbally indicate I'm ready before each speech and turn on the camera for your speeches. If you don't hear me say I'm ready and see my camera on, don't start.
5. Yes, I'll say clear and stuff for online rounds.

Can't Judge: Stuyvesant, Lexington

Background: I debated for 4 years at Lexington and competed almost exclusively on the national circuit.

I coached for Stuyvesant from 2014-2017 and also helped out some former students for TOC 2018. I haven't judged since that tournament and have 0 content knowledge about the topic.

I think part of what makes debate great is its incredible openness. Given that fact, I am fine with speed, theory, policy-style argumentation, dense framework arguments, kritiks, performance, tricks, and pretty much anything else you can think of. Debate is your game. Play it how you want to.

Feel free to message me with any questions at pzhou@wesleyan.edu

Some judges that influenced me: Sam Azbel