Occupation: Firmware director at Roku

Dougherty Valley High School judge

I have judged LD at 3 lay tournaments.

I deduct speaker points from thirty in increments of 0.2 based on multiple filler words, pauses (more or fewer deductions depending on length), bad enunciation, unprofessionalism, etc. Please do not spread, and talk at a moderate speed.

At the end of the debate, the winner must have done these better than their opponents: refuted opponent's arguments, defended their own case using evidence and logic, conducted a good cross-examination (will weight pretty heavily!), answered questions well during opponent's cross-examination, evaluated framework, and weighed impacts. I also will know exactly what to look for if you provide voting issues (why I should vote for you) in the last speech.

I try to take notes as much as I can, but I am relatively new to judging debate and won't rely 100% on my notes. I write down the framework and main points with refutations as well.

From 1-10 in importance:

"Appearance/Clothing" is 3

"Use of Evidence" is 8 (if attacked by the opponent in refutation, importance increases)

"Real World Impacts" is 9 (weigh against opponent's impacts under framework)

"Cross Examination" is 7 (delivering and answering both)

"Debate Skill over Truthful Arguments" is 6 (If the opponent doesn't attack a claim/argument for being improbable, I will not consider it as improbable unless it's not supported by evidence at all and it's 100% conjecture, and etc.)

Please add me to email chains - thburgess99@gmail.com

I’m fine with you running any and all arguments, including high theory K arguments, as long as you can explain them well.

I’m fine with spreading as long as you can still speak clearly.

I fully subscribe to the idea that debate is a game that should be enjoyed, so have fun! And don’t disrespect your opponents.

I’m not familiar with the debate topic, as this is my first time this year judging, so don’t assume I am.

I debated policy for three years in high school, so I know the ins and outs of debate, but if you do end up running any K arguments that aren’t cap or security, make sure you give a quick overview and explain the links to the aff well.

Please don’t hesitate to email me any questions you have before or after the round!

4 years of debate at James Logan High School, 1 Semester of debate at Binghamton University

At James Logan, I was a straight up policy debater, and at Binghamton, I was a straight up performance debater

I have judged high school debate on the 2014-2015 topic, the 2018-2019 topic, and the 2022-2023 topic

Top level: Frame the round. First, what am I? Am I a policymaker, am I an educator or am I a critic, what IS the role of the judge? Second off, what is the role of the ballot? What does my ballot do? Third off, why should I prefer your arguments over theirs? Framing arguments WIN rounds.

Performance affirmatives and negatives: I LOVE THESE! Dance! Blast music! Rap! As long as you have offense against your opponent and can win and can defend your arguments, do as you please!

Framework against K/performance affs: I would like reasons why pretending to be a policymaker or policymaking in terms of this topic is specifically good and has benefits over their model of education/model of debate

Counterplans: These are ok, I would love to see a straight turned counterplan though on the aff

Disadvantages: These are ok, I would love to see a straight turned Disadvantage though. on the aff

Kritiks: These are ok, I would like to see a straight turned Kritik though on the aff

For performance affirmatives: If you aren't defending a type of binary, I would highly suggest you watch out for this binary good, and this paradigm of analysis is better for analyzing our world type of arguments.

I like when performance affirmatives are engaged with other Ks, instead of just topicality/framework. I debated for Binghamton so I saw lots of performance vs performance rounds.

I also like BINARY VS BINARY rounds, so like black/white binary vs radical feminism male/female binary

I also haven't debated a while, so try to go slower or not spread at all. If you do spread, be slow on your tags, or just include me on the speech doc.

Parent judge with 5+ years of judging experience. Would prefer if debaters don't speak too fast.

I'm a parent involved with Debate for over 6 years. Have 2 boys who are both part of Congressional Debate. But given the number of tournaments I've volunteered as a parent judge, I've experience judging many of the debate events.

The key things I look for are

- strong well articulated and substantiated arguments

- effective refutations and counter arguments

- presentation style

- although I can follow speakers who try to speak really fast to cram in more points - I prefer and encourage the use of a moderate pace - as I strongly believe it allows for better articulation.

I expect debaters to respect their opponents and maintain decorum through out.

I'm happy to provide any clarification before or after the round.

Occupation: I am a CPA(working in finance/business)

School Affiliations: Dougherty Valley High School Years of Judging/Event Types: Judged LD for 2 year How will you award speaker points to the debaters? Speaks will be given based on clarity, performance and speaking ability. What sorts of things help you to make a decision at the end of the debate? I look primarily toward HOW arguments are made(Are they clear? Logical? Do you seem like you know what you are doing?). I do place heavy emphasis on cards but I very much appreciate a well said logical argument. Do you take a lot of notes or flow the debate? I flow the debate the best that I can. Please don't spread or go too fast, I wont understand and will probably tank your speaks.

I am Truth over Tech, please articulate your responses and contextualize them if you want me to vote on them.

Rank each using the following rubric: 1 - not at all 5-somewhat 10- weighed heavily

Clothing/Appearance: 3. Use of Evidence: 8 Real World Impacts: 8 Cross Examination: 6 Debate skill over truthful arguments: 1

General

I am a parent judge and a professional journalist, so although I have little experience judging debates I keep up with policy and politics. Don't read a K aff, a complicated K, or any high theory stuff. Don't spread. Tag team is fine. Signpost and give a framework for why you're winning (the stock issues cuz this is GGSA). I know that having a lay can be annoying, but adapting your argument style is important and necessary, so make your arguments clear. Do ev comparison and impact calc. This will win you the debate.

Theory

In general since I'm a parent I won't understand theory and all your standards. If they do something blatantly unfair, like read a new CP in the 1NR, it'll be more convincing if you actually explain why there was abuse in simple terms, and why they made it unfair, rather than speeding through a bunch of standards from your theory masterfile.

Ks

I mean, it's lay debate. Maybe you can run cap if you explain the link really well but it's gonna be hard for me to buy the link story. In general not a great idea.

DAs and CPs

Of course.

Please use Credible Evidence and speak clearly and slowly. Use of logical deduction based reasoning will help achieve higher scores. Your talk should reflect the amount of research that has been put in for the prep and help you score higher.

Email chain: lisaj@sonic.net

About me - I am a parent judge-please do not spread. I have judged league debates for three years, but I am still not super well versed in debate. I can handle a bit faster than conversational speed, and I try to flow the best I can but I sometimes can't get all the arguments. Please don't run theory or K's when I am judging. I understand Disadvantages and counterplans better than those arguments, and I am open to vote on presumption on neg.

Background Info

I work in Visa in product management, and am a judge from Dougherty Valley High School. I have judged many tournaments over the course of five years. Earlier on I judged Policy, I’ve judged some Parliamentary, but most commonly I judge Public Forum. I care greatly about selecting the right outcome of the debate, so I pay close attention to the debate. I also always take note if there is something someone did exceptionally well or poorly to help me decide on the outcome.

Voting

I give out speaker points based on the persuasion, preparedness, and presentation skills of the debaters. The better you fulfil these characteristics, the higher the speaker points you will be given are. I will give lower speaker points for rude behavior and/or language as well.

Besides case and refutations, there are other points that may make me lean towards a specific side. These points are the debaters’ general understanding of the topic, following the rules of debate, and the confidence level of the debaters.

Other

The number from 1-10 is the impact the point has on how I vote.

Clothing/Appearance - 4: Clothing doesn’t really have an impact on the debating abilities of the debaters, so it doesn’t influence my decision very much

Use of Evidence - 8: Arguments can’t be supported without solid evidence to back it up. It has a major influence on how I weigh the validity of a contention.

Real World Impacts - 7: Impacts are necessary to show what the contention will ultimately lead to. It is necessary to weigh contentions against each other.

Cross Examination - 8: The way the debaters interact during the cross-examination displays the analytical abilities of the debaters and their presence of mind.

Debate Skill vs Truthful Arguments: Although both are very important I ultimately weigh truthful arguments over debate skill. It is more important that the substance of the contentions are factual rather than someone who is well-spoken, but arguing completely made-up contentions. But it is important to know that it is very rare that the two sides will be on the extremes of these two characteristics. This means that it is still critical to have both traits.

Hello Everyone!

As stated above my name is Maria Jose, you can also call me MJ. I am originally from Bogota, Colombia and moved to the U.S at the beginning of high school. I debated for St. Vincent De Paul and have been judging at high school debate tournaments over the last couple of years. I am currently the assistant coach for Lowell High School.

Please include me on the email chain mjlozano96@gmail.com

(Avoid flashing, it takes too much time)

I am open to any arguments but please do not be offensive or disrespectful. I am familiar with both policy and K styles, however, I am not very familiar with high theory or obscure K’s.

I expect you to be well versed on whatever arguments you choose to run. It is your role to write the ballot for me. You should tell me how to evaluate the debate. I think framing is really important in any debate.

Preferences:

1. Do not heavily rely on your evidence. Reading cards is important but there is way more to a debate than that. Whenever you extend a card, remind me why it is important for the purpose of the debate.

2. I love good overviews and analytics.

3. Discourse is important.

4. I will not vote on T, unless you substantially explain to me why it is a voting issue. Similarly, if you run a CP you must convince me that it is competitive and has a net benefit.

5. Line by line debate is a must along with good sign posting.

6. K aff’s: I like them. You do not have to read a plan text, however, I do prefer if the AFF is related in some way to the resolution.

7.K’s: You must be well versed on the lit.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me!

I am a parent judge and I would love if you consider the following during a debate.

1) Please do not spread. I prefer you talk slowly, and clearly.

2.) Be courteous of everyone in the room.

3.) As stated at the top, I am a parent judge. Don't expect me to know all debate jargon.

4.) Have fun with the debate!

I prefer moderate speed. I vote for clear speaking and convincing arguments.

I have judged debate for three years with a preference to Policy and Public Forum. My primary exposure has been to lay debate.

I consider myself well read and up to date on current issues. I enjoy a debate where both sides demonstrate an understanding of the arguments they are presenting. My judgements are based solely on what is presented with no bias. If I hear something stated that is incorrect, it is up to the other team to challenge it. Failure to do so may result in a point for the team that used it.

For lay debates, I weigh the rebuttal rounds more heavily than the constructive rounds. It is one thing to present a lot of arguments, it is another to be able to connect them in a narrative that is both logically sound and persuasive. If you use your rebuttal time to just rehash your constructive arguments, it may lose my interest.

Above all, be courteous and respectful to your opponents and to the judge. Spreading is ok as long as you have practiced it.

Here's my background:

Occupation: CS and engineering

School Affiliation: Dougherty Valley

Judging Experience: I have judged public forum for 4 years.

Speaker points: 27.5 is an average debater. I award 29s and up for very good speakers.

I evaluate rounds based on the clarity of the argument and your extension throughout the debate. I won't vote on arguments that don't make logical sense or are simply untrue. You need to explain your arguments in simple words in the summary and final focus so I can follow the clash of the debate and accurately understand the debate.

I do flow debates to an extent although it might not be like a coach or debater. However I will be taking notes throughout the debate to see what has been extended by the end.

Other things - ranked from 1-5 on how important they are for me:

Clothing/Appearance: 1

Use of Evidence: 5

Real World Impacts: 5

Cross examination: 3

Debate skill over truthful arguments: 4

I've been a lay judge since 2014, primarily for Policy, and also have experience in LD and PoFo. (Lots of IE experience, too.)

I'm pretty easy going, and if both teams agree on something (timing prep, sharing podium), I'm fine with it. If you spread, I can keep up, but my comments/ suggestions for you will be fewer. I'm a big fan of politeness and kindness between partners and between teams. We're all just here to do our best, and while intellectual sparring is great, there's no need to try to eviscerate each other. Let's have a debate, not a bloodbath!

I prefer traditional debates that emphasize quality over quantity of argumentation. Persuasion and communication skills are important in debate, so please present your cases at a conversational pace. I have an **extremely high** threshold for explanation on the K, so sticking with the counter plan/disad debate is a better strategy in front of me. Define any debate jargon clearly if you want to use it.

I debated for 4 years at South East High School, and I'm a third year at Cal. I've judged at BAUDL and LAMDL tournaments before as well as the Cal Invitational.

I will vote on any arguments that are explained thoroughly and convincingly; I don't have an opposition to any specific types of debate. You do you, just make sure that you explain yourself well.
I am okay with spreading, as long as it is clear.

I am a parent judge. Please explain all arguments clearly and do not spread. I will be taking notes throughout the round. Good luck!

I am a parent judge from Dougherty Valley,and have judged primarily LD for one year. I will award speaker points based on your speed, clarity, and overall presentation of your arguments. I like off time road maps and a moderate-to-slow speaking speed, and I make decisions based on your impacts, links, and the offense provided on your opponents cases. Make sure you weigh impacts throughout the debate and extend all your arguments clearly. I will be flowing as well as taking notes throughout the debate and will do my best to make fair and reasonable decisions. As to my weighting of certain aspects of debate:

Clothing/Appearance-1, not important at all for the decision

Use of evidence-7, evidence is always preferred, but some arguments that are fairly obvious are ok to have analytics as support. Don’t just read out cards without any explanation or analysis though.

Real World Impacts-9, It is very important to have substantial and important impacts. This doesn’t mean that only war and extinction are the only important ones; just make sure you explain the importance of each impact in respect to timeframe, probability, or magnitude.

Cross examination-6, be clear, concise, and confident. However do not be rude or demeaning or I will dock speaks. Be strategic and bring up important points during your speech since I won’t flow cross.

Debate Skill over truthful arguments-5, you must have poise and confidence while debating, however your arguments must be well warranted. There must be a balance between the two skills.

Overall Notes- Do not read any theory, Ks, or T during round. I am still relatively new to debate and will not vote on these types of arguments. Stick to the straighforward stuff and we will be good. Be kind and respectful during your debate, this is something people do to have fun and learn and I will not vote you up if you endanger this environment with rudeness.

I am looking for topical phil or policy on policy debate, so I won't be voting on a Kritik or any high theory argument and expect to listen to moderately paced speeches. However, I have experience judging varsity and junior varsity policy debate having judged for multiple league tournaments.

With that being said, please make your debates about the resolution. That means I will buy topicality arguments on the negative side as long as the interpretations and standards are fleshed out. I will also consider theory arguments such as prep skew if they are within reason. All in all, I will try not to bring any bias into the round, value tech over truth, and would like to judge rounds with clash.

Spreading: I prefer "conversational" speed - feel free to go a little faster on the evidence in the constructives though.

Evaluation: I evaluate all arguments except ones that are offensive (ie. racist/derogatory). However, I strongly prefer policy-based cases and disads/counter plans. Running theory and Kritiks in front of me isn't too great of an idea; nonetheless, telling me where to vote and why while doing strong comparative analysis will win you speaks and the round. 

Flashing: I prefer you to add me to the email chain; my email is: zimingsun@gmail.com.

he/him/his

Pronounced phonetically as DEB-nil. Not pronounced "judge", "Mister Sur", or "deb-NEIL".

Policy Coach at Lowell High School, San Francisco

Email: lowelldebatedocs [at] gmail.com for email chains. If you have my personal email, don't put it on the email chain. Sensible subject please.

Lay Debate: I care deeply about adaptation and accessibility. I find "medium" debates (splits of lay and circuit judges) incredibly valuable for students' skills. I don't think I'd ever be in a setting where I'm the sole lay judge. In a split setting, please adapt to the most lay judge in your speed and explanation. I won't penalize you for making debate accessible. Some degree of technical evaluation is inevitable, but please don't spread.

Resolving Debates: Above all, tech substantially outweighs truth. The below are preferences, not rules, and will easily be overturned by good debating. But, since nobody's a blank slate, treat the below as heuristics I use in thinking about debate. Incorporating some can explain my decision and help render one in your favor.

I believe debate is a strategy game, in which debaters must communicate research to persuade judges. I'll almost certainly endorse better judge instruction over higher quality yet under-explained evidence. I flow on my laptop, but I only look at the speech doc when online. I will only read a card in deciding if that card was contested by both teams or I was told explicitly to and the evidence was actually explained in debate.

I take an above-average time to decide debates. My decision time has little relationship with the debate's closeness, and more with the time of day and my sleep deprivation. I usually start 5-10 minutes after the 2AR, so I can stretch my legs and let the debate marinate in my head. Debaters work hard, and I reciprocate that effort in making decisions. My decisions themselves are quite short. Most debates come down to 2-4 arguments, and I will identify those and explain my resolution. You're welcome to post-round. It can't change my decision, but I want to learn and improve as a judge and thinker too.

General Background: I work full-time in tech as a software engineer. In my spare time, I have coached policy debate at Lowell in San Francisco since 2018. I am involved in strategy and research and have coached both policy and K debaters to the TOC. I am, quite literally, a "framer", as a member of the national topic wording committee. Before that, I read policy arguments as a 2N at Bellarmine and did youth debate outreach (e.g., SVUDL) as a student at Stanford.

I've judged many excellent debates. Ideologically, I would say I'm 60/40 policy-leaning. I think my voting records don't reflect this, because K debaters tend to see the bigger picture in clash rounds.

Topic Background: I judge and coach regularly and am fully aware of national circuit trends. I'm less in the weeds as many other coaches. I don't cut as many cards as I did in the pandemic years, and I don't work at debate camp.

If you're reading the web3 UBI affirmative, I implemented one of the first CBDC pilots back in 2018/19. If you know what you're talking about, I'm the best possible judge. But if you don't, I'll be much more easily persuaded by the negative, especially on the case debate.

Voting Splits: As of the end of the water topic, I have judged 304 rounds of VCX at invitationals over 9 years. 75 of these were during college; 74 during immigration and arms sales at West Coast invitationals; and 155 on CJR and water, predominantly at octafinals bid tournaments.

Below are my voting splits across the (synthetic) policy-K divide, where the left team represents the affirmative, as best as I could classify debates. Paradigm text can be inaccurate self-psychoanalysis, so I hope the data helps.

I became an aff hack on water. Far too often, the 2AR was the first speech doing comparative analysis instead of reading blocks. I hope this changes as we return to in-person debate.

Water

Policy v. Policy - 18-13: 58% aff over 31 rounds

Policy v. K - 20-18: 56% aff over 38 rounds

K v. Policy - 13-8: 62% aff over 21 rounds

K v. K - 1-1, 50% aff over 2 rounds

Lifetime

Policy v. Policy - 67-56: 55% for the aff over 123 rounds

Policy v. K - 47-52: 47% for the aff over 99 rounds

K v. Policy - 36-34: 51% for the aff over 70 rounds

K v. K - 4-4: 50% for the aff over 8 rounds

Online Debate:

1. I'd prefer your camera on, but won't make a fuss.

2. Please check verbally and/or visually with all judges and debaters before starting your speech.

3. If my camera's off, I'm away, unless I told you otherwise.

Speaker Points: I flow on my computer, but I do not use the speech doc. I want every word said, even in card text and especially in your 2NC topicality blocks, to be clear. I will shout clear twice in a speech. After that, it's your problem.

Note that this assessment is done per-tournament: for calibration, I think a 29.3-29.4 at a finals bid is roughly equivalent to a 28.8-28.9 at an octos bid.

29.5+ — the top speaker at the tournament.

29.3-29.4 — one of the five or ten best speakers at the tournament.

29.1-29.2 — one of the twenty best speakers at the tournament.

28.9-29 — a 75th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would barely clear on points.

28.7-28.8 — a 50th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would not clear on points.

28.3-28.6 — a 25th percentile speaker at the tournament.

28-28.2 — a 10th percentile speaker at the tournament.

K Affs and Framework:

1. I have coached all sides of this debate.

2. I will vote for the team whose impact comparison most clearly answers the debate's central question. This typically comes down to the affirmative making negative engagement more difficult versus the neg forcing problematic affirmative positions. You are best served developing 1-2 pieces of offense well, playing defense to the other team's, and telling a condensed story in the final rebuttals.

3. Anything can be an impact---do what you do best. My teams typically read a limits/fairness impact and a procedural clash impact. From Dhruv Sudesh: "I don't have a preference for hearing a skills or fairness argument, but I think the latter requires you to win a higher level of defense to aff arguments."

4. Each team should discuss what a year of debate looks like under their models in concrete terms. Arguments like "TVA", "switch-side debate", and "some neg ground exists" are just subsets of this discussion. It is easy to be hyperbolic and discuss the plethora of random affirmatives, but realistic examples are especially persuasive and important. What would your favorite policy demon (MBA, GBN, etc.) do without an agential constraint? How does critiquing specific policy reforms in a debate improve critical education? Why does negative policy ground not center the affirmative's substantive conversation?

5. As the negative, recognize if this is an impact turn debate or one of competing models early on (as in, during the 2AC). When the negative sees where the 2AR will go and adjusts accordingly, I have found that I am very good for the negative. But when they fail to understand the debate's strategic direction, I almost always vote affirmative. This especially happens when impact turning topicality---negatives do not seem to catch on yet.

6. I quite enjoy leveraging normative positions from 1AC cards for substantive disadvantages or impact turns. This requires careful link explanation by the negative but can be incredibly strategic. Critical affirmatives claim to access broad impacts based on shaky normative claims and the broad endorsement of a worldview, rather than a causal method; they should incur the strategic cost.

7. I am a better judge for presumption and case defense than most. It is often unclear to me how affirmatives solve their impacts or access their impact turns on topicality. The negative should leverage this more.

8. I occasionally judge K v K debates. I do not have especially developed opinions on these debates. Debate math often relies on causality, opportunity cost, and similar concepts rooted in policymaking analysis. These do not translate well to K v K debates, and the team that does the clearest link explanation and impact calculus typically wins. While the notion of "opportunity cost" to a method is still mostly nonsensical to me, I can be convinced either way on permutations' legitimacy.

Kritiks:

1. I do not often coach K teams but have familiarity with basically all critical arguments.

2. Framework almost always decides this debate. While I have voted for many middle-ground frameworks, they make very little strategic sense to me. The affirmative saying that I should "weigh the links against the plan" provides no instruction regarding the central question: how does the judge actually compare the educational implications of the 1AC's representations to the consequences of plan implementation? As a result, I am much better for "hard-line" frameworks that exclude the case or the kritik.

3. I will decide the framework debate in favor of one side's interpretation. I will not resolve some arbitrary middle road that neither side presented.

4. If the kritik is causal to the plan, a well-executing affirmative should almost always win my ballot. The permutation double-bind, uniqueness presses on the link and impact, and a solvency deficit to the alternative will be more than sufficient for the affirmative. The neg will have to win significant turns case arguments, an external impact, and amazing case debating if framework is lost. At this point, you are better served going for a proper counterplan and disadvantage.

5. I will not evaluate non-falsifiable statements about events outside the current debate. Such an evaluation of minors grossly misuses the ballot. Strike me if this is a core part of your strategy.

Topicality:

1. This is about the plan text, not other parts of the 1AC. If you think the plan text is contrived to be topical, beat them on the PIC out of the topic and your topic DA of choice.

2. This is a question of which team's vision of the topic maximizes its benefits for debaters. I compare each team's interpretation of the topic through an offense/defense lens.

3. Reasonability is about the affirmative interpretation, not the affirmative case itself. In its most persuasive form, this means that the substance crowdout caused by topicality debates plus the affirmative's offense on topicality outweighs the offense claimed by the negative. This is an especially useful frame in debates that discuss topic education, precision, and similar arguments.

4. Any standards are fine. I used to be a precision stickler. This changed after attending topic meetings and realizing how arbitrarily wording is chosen.

5. From Anirudh Prabhu: "T is a negative burden which means it is the neg’s job to prove that a violation exists. In a T debate where the 2AR extends we meet, every RFD should start by stating clearly what word or phrase in the resolution the aff violated and why. If you don’t give me the language to do that in your 2NR, I will vote aff on we meet." Topicality 101---the violation is a negative burden. If there's some uncertainty, I almost certainly vote aff with a decent "we meet" explanation.

Theory:

1. As with other arguments, I will resolve this fully technically. Unlike many judges, my argumentative preferences will not implicate how I vote. I will gladly vote on a dropped theory argument---if it was clearly extended as a reason to reject the team---with no regrets.

2. I'm generally in favor of limitless conditionality. But because I adjudicate these debates fully technically, I think I vote affirmative on "conditionality bad" more than most.

3. From Rafael Pierry: "most theoretical objections to CPs are better expressed through competition. ... Against these and similar interpretations, I find neg appeals to arbitrariness difficult to overcome." For me, this is especially true with counterplans that compete on certainty or immediacy. While I do not love the delay counterplan, I think it is much more easily beaten through competition arguments than theoretical ones.

4. If a counterplan has specific literature to the affirmative plan, I will be extremely receptive to its theoretical legitimacy and want to grant competition. But of course, the counterplan text must be written strategically, and the negative must still win competition.

Counterplans:

1. I'm better for strategies that depend on process and competition than most. These represent one of my favorite aspects of debate---they combine theory and substance in fun and creative ways---and I've found that researching and strategizing against them generates huge educational benefits for debaters, certainly on par with more conventionally popular political process arguments like politics and case.

2. I have no disposition between "textual and functional competition" and "only functional competition". Textual alone is pretty bad. Positional competition is similarly tough, unless the affirmative grants it. Think about how a model of competition justifies certain permutations---drawing these connections intelligently helps resolve the theoretical portion of permutations.

3. Similarly, I am agnostic regarding limited intrinsicness, either functional or textual. While it helps check against the truly artificial CPs, it justifies bad practices that hurt the negative. It's certainly a debate that you should take on. That said, if everyone is just spreading blocks, I usually end up negative on the ink. Block to 2NR is easier to trace than 1AR to 2AR.

4. People need to think about deficits to counterplans. If you can't impact deficits to said counterplans, write better advantages. The negative almost definitely does not have evidence contextualizing their solvency mechanism to your internal links---explain why that matters!

5. Presumption goes to less change---debate what this means in round. Absent this instruction, if there is an advocacy in the 2NR and I do not judge kick it when deciding, I'm probably not voting on presumption.

6. Decide in-round if I should kick the CP. I'll likely kick it if left to my own devices. The affirmative should be better than the status quo. (To be honest, this has never mattered in a debate I've judged, and it amuses me that judge kick is such a common paradigm section.)

Disadvantages:

1. There is not always a risk. A small enough signal is overwhelmed by noise, and we cannot determine its sign or magnitude.

2. I do not think you need evidence to make an argument. Many bad advantages can be reduced to noise through smart analytics. Doing so will improve your speaker points. Better evidence will require your own.

3. Shorten overviews, and make sure turns case arguments actually implicate the aff's internal links.

4. Will vote on any and all theoretical arguments---intrinsicness, politics theory, etc. Again, arguments are arguments, debate them out.

Ethics:

1. Cheating means you will get the lowest possible points.

2. You need a recording to prove the other team is clipping. If I am judging and think you are clipping, I will record it and check the recording before I stop the debate. Any other method deprives you of proof.

3. If you mark a card, say where you’re marking it, actually mark it, and offer a marked copy before CX in constructives or the other's team prep time in a rebuttal. You do not need to remove cards you did not read in the marked copy, unless you skipped a truly ridiculous amount. This practice is inane and justifies debaters doc-flowing.

4. Emailing isn’t prep. If you take too long, I'll tell you I'm starting your prep again.

5. If there is a different alleged ethics violation, I will ask the team alleging the violation if they want to stop the debate. If so, I will ask the accused team to provide written defense; check the tournament's citation rules; and decide. I will then decide the debate based on that violation and the tournament policy---I will not restart the debate---this makes cite-checking a no-risk option as a negative strategy, which seems really bad.

IMPORTANT: I will only vote on an ethics violation about previously-read evidence (missing an author, missing a year, paragraph missing but no distortion, etc) if the team alleging the violation has evidence that they contacted the other team and told them about the issue. Clearly, you had the time to look up the article. As a community, we should assume good faith in citation, and let the other team know. And people should not be punished for cards they did not cut. But if they still are reading faulty evidence, even after being told, that's certainly academic malpractice.

Note that if the ethics violation is made as an argument during the debate and advanced in multiple speeches as a theoretical argument, you cannot just decide it is a separate ethics violation later in the debate. I will NOT vote on it, I will be very annoyed with you, and you will probably lose and get 27s if you are resorting to these tactics.

6. The closer a re-highlighting comes to being a new argument, the more likely you should be reading it instead of inserting. If you are point out blatant mis-highlighting in a card, typically in a defensive fashion on case, then insertion is fine. I will readily scratch excessive insertion with clear instruction.

Miscellaneous:

1. I'll only evaluate highlighted warrants in evidence.

2. Dropped arguments should be flagged clearly. If you say that clearly answered arguments were dropped, you're hurting your own persuasion.

3. Please send cards in a Word doc. Body is fine if it's just 1-3 cards. I don't care if you send analytics, though it can help online.

4. Unless the final rebuttals are strictly theoretical, the negative should compile a card doc post 2NR and have it sent soon after the 2AR. The affirmative should start compiling their document promptly after the 2AR. Card docs should only include evidence referenced in the final rebuttals (and the 1NC shell, for the negative)---certainly NOT the entire 1AC.

5. As a judge, I can stop the debate at any point. The above should make it clear that I am very much an argumentative nihilist---in hundreds of debates, I have not come close to stopping one. So if I do, you really messed up, and you probably know it.

6. I am open to a Technical Knockout. This means that the debate is unwinnable for one team. If you think this is the case, say "TKO" (probably after your opponents' speech, not yours) and explain why it is unwinnable. If I agree, I will give you 30s and a W. If I disagree and think they can still win the debate, you'll get 25s and an L. Examples include: dropped T argument, dropped conditionality, double turn on the only relevant pieces of offense, dropped CP + DA without any theoretical out.

Be mindful of context: calling this against sophomores in presets looks worse than against an older team in a later prelim. But sometimes, debates are just slaughters, nobody is learning anything, and there will be nothing to judge. I am open to giving you some time back, and to adding a carrot to spice up debate.

7. Not about deciding debates, but a general offer to debate folk reading this. As someone who works in tech, I think it is a really enjoyable career path and quite similar to policy debate in many ways. If you would like to learn more about tech careers, please feel free to email me. As a high school student, it was very hard to learn about careers not done by my parents or their friends (part of why I'm in tech now!). I am happy to pass on what knowledge I have.

Above all, be kind to each other, and have fun!

I like logic based arguments with a strong link chain to the impacts.

Most impacts are fine with me, but your cards and link chain needs to sell me on your argument for me to vote you up.

I will be voting on the side that have provided the most evidence and have proved to me that they should win the round.

Make sure to impact weigh and sign post. Also I would prefer if there was no spreading, please.

I love it when there is a voters section at the end of the last speech and specific judge instruction.

Tell me why you deserve to win the round at the end of your last speech, it will help me contextualize the whole round.

E-mail chain: lowelldebatedocs [at] gmail.com

Hi students,

I'm a parent judge. Please don't spread or else I won't understand you. Do speak clearly. Be civil and respectful to your opponents.

Good luck!

2024- 2/4/2024

I'm not just any judge; I'm a ”cool” judge with a journey dating back to 2000. So, when you step into this arena, know that you're dealing with someone who's witnessed the ebb and flow of the debate currents over the last 2 decades. I am old.

General:
Yes you can go fast if you want to, just be clear, and loud enough for me to hear. I will be flowing along and won’t look at doc’s or cards unless warranted by y’all. I will do my best to time with you.

World Crafting:

Your task is to construct a compelling narrative, competing worlds, both sides have a world to offer, you sell it.

Argument Framing:

Frame your arguments as pillars that support the world you've built. Your job is to make me see the strategic significance of your narrative. Don't just present; show me why your world outweighs the others.

The K:

I have a soft spot, but only if done well. Critical acumen is your secret weapon. Integrate it seamlessly into your world, making it a key component of your narrative. I also am not a fan of non black POC running afropress, or similar k's, so please don’t. Other than that, no issues with K’s.

Theory:

Preemptive theory is unnecessary imo unless the topic warrants it, but most debates do not need a theory most of the time, but it is your round, so do you.

Tech vs. Truth:

Truth sometimes trumps tech, and in other rounds, tech might take the lead. But what matters most is how well your crafted world stands.

Rudeness is a No-Go:

Discourteous vibes won't elevate your speaks. For real

Impact Calculus and Critical Thinking:

Impact calculus is the key to your world's strategic significance. Dive into critical thinking, showing why your crafted universe is not just valid but important.

Authentic Knowledge Over Blocks:

Don't just parrot blocks; show genuine understanding. Bring knowledge to the forefront, not just rehearsed lines.

Voting Issues:

Present me with clean voting issues – make it glaringly apparent why your world is the one I should endorse. THERE IS NO 3NR. So please make it definitive in the last rebuttal

TL;DR

Be clear

Weigh

Impact calculus

liberal.cynic.yo@gmail.com

>If you want to add me to the chain or send hate mail.<

2023
i will flow to the best of my ability i have the carpal tunnel but can still keep up
spreading is only chill if you are clear
I don't need to be on the email chain but here it is if you feel like adding me anyway
liberal.cynic.yo@gmail.com
I am indifferent to the kind of argument you are choosing to use, i care if you understand it

ask questions

My paradigm was lost to the void, who knows what it said...

for long beach 2018
i'll make this, and fix it later

1. yes, i flow

2. yes, speed is fine

3. flashing isn't prep (unless it takes wayy to long )

4. i look at the round as competing narratives, i do not care what you run as long as you know what it is you are running

5. ask questions