I'm a Public Forum debater through and through, and you should know that I approach judging as a debater. I want to see line-by-line, but I'm absolutely not interested in spreading. This isn't because I can't keep up with speed: I want to see a few well-considered arguments with meticulous weighing and impacts, not several poorly-consider arguments. To quote former champion high school debater and current U.S. Senator Ted Cruz: Spreading is "a pernicious disease that has undermined the very essence of high school and college debate." On a slightly separate note, a card saying something is true does not make it true if you don't have a *reasoned* warrant to back it up.

In terms of content, if frameworks come under contention I want to see some reasoning behind them. I will be open to most frameworks, but the context of liberal individualism is going to be particularly important to me when judging rounds where that might be relevant. Convincing me to accept a communitarian, collectivist or hyper-utilitarian framework is simply going to take more work. On the other hand, I will be inclined to frameworks that reject purely utilitarian perspectives and approach matters outside of a "societal" perspective. While you should never say "never," I'm probably not the judge with which to run any arguments grounded in Critical Theory. At the end of the day, solving for individual freedom almost always will matter in my decision. On a somewhat related point, I also acknowledge that there are impacts that are unquantifiable but nonetheless important: logos is the easiest thing to debate, but ethos matters and you can win on an argument because it is necessary to fulfill an agreed-upon set of values (which would hopefully be reflected in your framework).

You can email with any questions or concerns: logangrodsky@gmail.com.

For Policy Debate: Novice Rounds only, If you spread I will not listen to you I will just flow off the email chain, If you want me to listen you have to slow down, Ks preferred.

For Parlimentary (NPDA) and IPDA: Open/Varsity rounds, Topicality is a voting issue but should not be the sole reason I vote for a side otherwise I'll be annoyed.

PF: (any division) Impact calculus is key. Offense and defense is crucial and will be weighed on my flow but it helps when you bring it up yourself as well.

Hello and thank you for reading my paradigm!

The basics:

I'm Teri, and my pronouns are They/Them. I've done policy debate for ~4 years in high school at Bronx Science.

Add me to the email chain, please! My email is LAMT1@bxscience.edu.

Tl;dr:

- For virtual debates: Make sure to be clear when you spread (I'd suggest ~80% speed)! Cameras on or off doesn't really matter to me, whatever you prefer is fine.

- Run what you want to run, read what you want to read (as long as it isn't sexist/racist/homophobic/etc.) Just make sure to explain it and signpost.

- Tech > Truth; as a judge it's my job to evaluate your skill as a debater, not of what you believe. The only exception to this is if it's sexist/racist/etc etc.

- Spreading is fine, just be clear.

- I tend to time debates alongside y'all. If you ever misclick/restart your timer you can ask me for the time I have on my timer.

- Additionally: I know some teams like to use prep time to extend CEX. I'm fine with that as long as both teams are ok with it as well.

- Disclosing is based on what the tournament wants, but I'm good with disclosing/not disclosing.

- Be polite, be chill, etc. Y'all are mature and I trust you.

- Any questions? As me before/during the round and I can answer!