History
I debated 3 years at Baltimore City College High School. The first year of my high school career I did mainly Policy Debate. The last two years of my Debate career I delved into the Kritik on both sides of the Debate. The majority of my arguments were mostly race theory and arguments about antiblackness.

I mostly debated the k and I love kritiks. I think that a kritical perspective is important for opening the activity to more marginalized experiences. I believe that it can be productive both for the sport and for the community.  

Paradigm
Despite my love for Kritiks and Race arguments, I will admit that I am less biased than most with my orientation. When I watch and Judge debate, I will do my best to listen carefully to the actual arguments being made and will vote on almost anything if you win the debate. I believe that debate should be about even competition that is based on what is said in round and how it effects the outside world. In terms of argumentation I believe in truth and tech almost equally, with truth just weighing slightly higher on the scale. This means that a conceded argument is true, but within context of reason. I do value the flow; and it still has a major impact on my decision.  

I am fine with spreading; just be clear and slow on tags.

For K teams
For K teams, explain arguments and links. If I do not understand why things are the way they are or even how the Alternative solves for things. then I will have more trouble voting you up. Do yourself a favor and impact and explain each claim you make. For those reading Kritiks I believe a genuine belief and representation of the arguments your talking about is important. Also, if your an all white team that reads a race k against poc I will likely not vote on it unless it has a legit (and I mean hardcore legit) link. That being said in any situation, I will try my best to be open minded.

Policy v Ks/plans with critical advantages
For Policy Teams that are on the Aff and are going against such arguments; do not break out k-ish advantages for a super policy Aff. You should just read what you want and the do the neccessary level of argumentation to win against such arguments. If you naturally read policy affs that have a k twist; then that is fine. 

Topicality
In order for me to vote on Topicality; it really needs to be impacted out. There should probably be more to the Standards part of the Debate other than education and Fairness. (Recently that has been the only extension of T that I have heard in debates that I have judged.) If it is education and Fairness you need to answer the questions of "why is the model of debate that you are advocating for producing important? Other questions such as, "what is the type of education you are producing/why is that good?" What is fairness and why does that matter in this Debate especially against the opponents Impacts. These are the the types of questions that need to be answered in addition to answering the other teams arguments in order to get my ballot. Answering these questions are probably not strictly regulated to folks who run T/FW...., but I have found that the explanations to these questions have been severely lacking in the majority of rounds that I've judged with teams who have brought up this argument. This is why I put this explanation here. I will admit; I am more open than I used to be, but I still do not believe that you were forced to run T. However, I will vote on it if the necessary work is done. In terms of articulation I would be interested in hearing a critical spin on Framework argument that talks about why the State focus may be good politically for (whater K is being talked about.) I am good on theory, so if you run it I'm cool. I'm more geared towards social political justice arguments, but whatever.

Email: mccsong8@gmail.com Updated 3/9/24

About Me

I did LD and Extemp 2014-18, coached LD 18-22, judged occasionally since then.

3/9 edit: I haven’t judged in a while, so I’m not as quick with jargon and speed. I’ll attempt to update the rest but if I miss anything, please ask before round.

LD: I still think LD is supposed to be more philosophical/morals based, but I also enjoy policy, theory, and K debates. I don’t feel as though I judge performance rounds very well. I also expect good evidence, and will include the whole card and not just the highlighted parts as part of your evidence. I expect engagement on the actual merits of arguments. Debate is a game but at all ends of it are real people, so be kind.

Oh, also, if you say anything clearly racist/homophobic/sexist/etc., I will likely vote you down on the spot and give 0 speaks. That doesn't have any place in the educational space of speech and debate. Outside of being xenophobic, hateful, or spouting hate speech, say whatever you want, I guess.

If you have any further questions, feel free to reach me atmccsong8@gmail.com

MC

2 years of experience as a high school speech competitor, four years of experience debating on the American Parliamentary Debate Association circuit.

Ok with speed (flowing with pen and paper so please don't gosuperfast)

Looking for weighing, impacts, points of crytalization, and kindness

LD

Overview

Basically, I prefer a more traditional style of LD. That being said, I don't have any huge objections to progressive debate. I am fine with philosophy and try not to intervene too much. I can enjoy debates that focus on framework or philosophical issues and those that focus on contentions and substantive argumentation. A good round is a good round, no matter the layer(s) that get the most attention. I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting a criterion and by identifying who weighs most heavily under this standard. Winning the value or criterion is not itself a reason for you to win, unless you can weigh under it. Tell me what arguments you're winning, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round. I strongly prefer that clash focus on points of significance in the round and that speeches be organized. Roadmaps and signposting are extremely helpful, so please stick to roadmaps once you've given them.

I judge mostly on the local level. I was a policy debater a millennia ago, have been coaching LD, PF and speech for 13 years and have had policy teams in the past. My students have reached the elimination rounds at the NCFL Grand Nationals in LD and Policy.

This is my LD paradigm. I will not answer questions about my preferences or judging style once the first speech has been given. I do not disclose or provide oral critiques unless required to do so by the tournament. As a coach I value a well written ballot so that I can discuss the rounds with my debaters. My position on disclosure and oral critique is non-negotiable.

Argumentation

- Topicality matters. If you want to run something non-topical, go ahead, but be prepared to strongly defend why I should be considering it in the round.

- Only make theory arguments when the violation is genuinely unfair and has a real impact on the round. I won't evaluate frivolous theory arguments.

- I will not drop debaters just for making new arguments, but I will drop the arguments. An argument in rebuttal is not new if it is made at the first opportunity a debater has had to address a previous argument. A new point in the Neg's last speech can be rebutted by a new point in the 2AR.

- I will default to the Aff's proffered definitions (assuming they're stated in the AC) unless Neg offers good reason for me prefer a counter-definition (or a modified version of the Aff's definition) proffered by the Neg. I cannot reject a definition unless I am given some alternative definition or understanding to use and that alternative is argued for.

- Please summarize your winning arguments in your last speech. While I may disagree with your list of voting issues, it helps me see what issues you have identified as important and how you weigh them.

Evidence

- I do not require debaters to proactively share their cases with one another or with me. If you want someone's case or evidence, request it--it's simple enough to do. I do, however, expect you to share evidence when requested. I dislike asking for cases pro forma, and in slower debates, I prefer that debaters not call for or examine cases just as an aid for flowing. Don't be lazy.

- I am reluctant to call for evidence. Unless there are accusations of dishonest practices, I will evaluate the credibility of sources based on the arguments made by the debaters in the round.

Speed

- I dislike speed more because I cannot read my handwriting on my flow if you are going too quickly. If the first time I hear an argument is in rebuttal, it will count as a new argument on my flow and will be evaluated as such. I will not vote you down or reduce your speaker points just because you're going faster than I'd ideally like, as long as I can still understand most of what you're saying. I can only vote on what I can flow.

- I will not shout "clear" during rounds. You are first and foremost a communicator. It is your obligation to make eye-contact with/watch the judge, so you should see if I have stopped flowing. If I have stopped flowing, take this as your cue to slow down. If you sustain a pace I find literally incomprehensible, I will stop writing entirely until your pace becomes comprehensible again. Again what is not on my flow is not evaluated in the round.

Timing

- I always time all speeches and prep. My timer keeps the official time. If you need time signals, please ask, but I am not always great at remembering them. Fair warning.

- Prep begins after all requested cards are shown or sent to the requesting team (unless the requesting team wants to or does begin prepping sooner). Prep ends when the debater tells me it ends or they run out of time. Debaters must clearly indicate to me when they are starting and ending prep so that I can keep time. Starting prep before alerting me is unacceptable.

- Feel free to time yourselves. You may time your opponents as well, but please don't cut them off verbally or with an alarm. If you think an opponent has exceeded their time, get my attention quietly.

- A sentence begun before time expires may be completed after time has expired. No compound, complex or run-on sentences.

Cross-Examination

- CX is non-binding unless its content is brought up in your immediately subsequent speech. For example, if you are Aff and raise something said in 2CX in the 2AR, I am going to treat it as a new argument/non-binding and I will discount it. If the Aff wants something in 2CX to be binding, Aff should raise it in the 1AR.

- I do not allow flex prep (using prep time as added cross-ex time) in my rounds unless required to do so by the tournament. If I am on a panel and the tournament rules are unclear, I will defer to the majority on whether to allow it. Similarly, I do not allow cross-ex time to be used as prep time. If you have questions on flex prep or using cross-ex time to prep, please ask before the round begins so that everyone is on the same page. It is always okay to ask!

- I am not a fan of CXs that descend into shouting matches. CX should be interactive and probing, but not combative.

My Redlines

- I will vote down any debater who clearly and intentionally sets out to (1) advocate violence against other human beings; (2) take a position which is Racist, Ableist, Islamophobic, Homophobic, Transphobic, Sexist, Xenophobic, etc.; and/or (3) personally attack an opponent, school, or anyone involved in the activity.

- I will vote down any debater who (1) is exceptionally and insufferably rude, (2) makes threats, and/or (3) falsifies, misquotes, selectively edits, and/or otherwise dishonestly manipulates evidence. To clarify, "exceptional rudeness" includes, but is not limited to, extreme badgering, using an offensive epithet, or making an obscene gesture.

- I will vote down any debater who reads extremely graphic or disturbing evidence which carries a high likelihood of causing serious emotional distress to a participant or audience member in the round, unless a trigger warning is given before the debate and the consent of all present is obtained in advance.

• It is virtually never acceptable to read an obscene word as part of quoted evidence. The educational value must be extraordinarily significant. In such a case, I will expect a debater to justify to me in their speech why the evidence and the word in question are extremely important for me to hear. This is an incredibly high burden to meet, and the justification should be quite compelling. Reading an obscene word without sufficient justification will cause me to ignore the card entirely and reduce your speaker points. Also using obscene language is never acceptable to me in a round. All of you have a bigger vocabulary than that! Find a different word to use in your speech.

Finally,

I don't bite--feel free to ask questions before the round if you have any. If you need to refer to me, you should call me "judge" during a round. Outside of a round, "judge" or "Mrs. Mandile" are acceptable. I use she/her/hers pronouns. Remember: just have fun and do your best. Good Luck!

I am an old-school LD judge. I want a good value clash throughout the round. I loathe spreading; if I can't understand you, I will rely on your opponent to tell me what you said. If you call out drops, you must also give me impacts for them to have any weight with me. You can win my ballot with substantive philosophical arguments, and you can lose my ballot if you get mired in policy.

Email for speech docs: alyssastokes19@gmail.com

I am a 6th-year lay judge, former parent from a very traditional circuit. I do have some experience on the national circuit, almost exclusively in lay rounds. I prefer a topical debate on the substance of the resolution. I like a value and criterion, but I don’t make my decision based solely on framework. I expect empirical evidence but don’t want a policy debate. If you are a progressive debater and aren’t willing/able to adapt, you’ll want to use a strike. While I wouldn’t drop you just for being progressive, I probably wouldn’t comprehend enough of your case to make a good decision.

I am comfortable with a lively conversational speed; do not spread. I am a flow judge, and if I can’t understand you due to excessive speed, I will put down my pen. (And you definitely don’t want me to rely on memory.)

Give me voters. If you can integrate them into your final speech, even better.

I suffer from social anxiety and therefore generally do not not disclose in-round unless the tournament requires it, but I will publish the results after I make my decision; my RFD and feedback will be on your ballot. I appreciate your understanding.

Be nice and have fun!

First of all +1 for actually reading judging paradigms. You've already started off well.

Add me to the email chain: devon.debate@gmail.com

Experience: I debated for three years in high school at Baltimore City College and now I'm one of their coaches. This is my fifth year judging HS debate.

Paradigm: Just a general overview of how I judge debates: I'm fine with spreading as long as you are clear enough. I will listen to almost anything and as long as it's argued well. A dropped argument is a true argument (within reason). I like competitive spirit but don't be a terrible person. By that I mean you can get fiery in your speeches and cross-ex but personal attacks are not cool unless they are really out of line (i.e. they said something outright offensive: racist, sexist, patriarchal, heteronormative,etc.). I want to see a good debate so run what you're comfortable with and know what you're talking about please.

Specifics: Now I'll talk about a few things that are more specific to argumentative style and my own preferences.

DISCLAIMER: Everything beyond this point is my point of view so you should take it with a grain of salt. I'll always judge a debate based on what happens in the round not based on how I feel about the arguments ran. However I will tell you how I felt after the round.

K: I primarily debated kritically during my debating career so that is naturally what I prefer to hear and I know more about. If you run a K, you can trust that I'll probably have a good idea of what you're talking about unless you are running something really obscure.

I read a lot of Deleuze and Foucault myself so I have a higher threshold for these arguments. I really hate generic answers to these arguments...but they can win the debate if they aren't answered well.

Race, so this is an interesting subject. I have read some of the literature behind most classic race arguments and my team has read(or is currently reading) most of the better kritical race theory arguments so I am used to hearing them and I understand them very well. Thus likewise, I expect them to be run well or you are already starting off from behind in my book. If you are an all white partnership, be careful what you say. I'm not going to vote you down for being wrong but being offensive can affect speaker points. So I will listen, just don't say anything that will make me regret that.

Policy: I wouldn't say that straight up policy is something that I love listening to but I will listen to it. Keep it clean. Keep it understandable. Otherwise I have no issues.

T: I really dislike this argument in 99% of situations. If the other team answers it reasonably I will not vote on it. Read something responsive. T is not responsive. If you plan on winning T it better be the whole 2NR or else I'll give the 2AR a lot of leeway on it unless the 1AR just straight dropped it, but you still need an impact. T alone is not a voter. Also if you go for T, especially against a K Aff there damn sure better be some real impacts. I mean real world impacts. Weighing your "education" against systemic issues is not going to be an easy debate to win in front of me.

Theory: I have nothing for or against theory. Be articulate and make sure I understand all the parts of your argument and why what they're doing is bad.

At the end of the day when I'm judging I really just want to see a good debate so if you give me that you can be sure that I will judge it fairly and unbiased.

I have been judging primarily debate events (except for Congress) for fifteen years, first as a parent of a debater and now as a coach's parent. I also judge speech events as needed. I have been judging in the NCFL for fifteen years and in the NSDA for the past four years. For debaters, watch the speed, please -- about 225 words per minute at maximum, and no spreading. Good sportsmanship is very important to me as a judge; please be polite. Good luck with your rounds!

Contact
Email is andrew.torrez@gmail.com for the email chain.

NEW for TOCs (4/19/2022)

I did not judge much during 2021-22; I have 10 rounds on the Jan/Feb topic and three are from outrounds. In those rounds, I voted Aff 5 times (50%), and in out-rounds I voted Aff once (33%). I sat once (Octos @ Golden Desert). I've been through this paradigm recently and it reflects my current judging preferences.

2020-2021 Summary

I judged 60 rounds at last year at 13 different TOC bid-distributing tournaments. In prelims, I voted Aff 24 of 53 rounds (45.2%). In out-rounds I voted Aff 1/7 (14%) (Oof.) I did not sit out on a panel last year (Stanford, Emory, Big Lex, College Prep, Glenbrooks, Grapevine outrounds).

How To Pref Me:

LARP 1 - I'm a LARP hack. I want good, specific topic lit. Longer cards >>>>> more cards.

Ks - 2/3 - treat me like a college policy judge on these; I want a thorough explanation of what the world of the neg looks like in the 1N. You're solid running Cap, Fem, Set Col, Securitization, most post-fiat stuff. Specific links to the 1AC are key. Update: If you want me to vote pre-fiat, the K needs an alt; I will buy a floating PIK as essentially a DA but I'm highly likely to allow new 2AR weighing.

Theory - 2/3 - My threshold for voting is genuine abuse, and I'd prefer to see that in terms of models of debate. I will listen to even frivolous theory arguments but my threshold for answers is very, very low. I vote on RVIs more than most judges. I will vote on Nebel T.

Phil - 2/3 - Happy to evaluate your NCs. The status of most LD phil debate right now is not great - it tends to be a lot of blippy spikes, and I'm definitely on team "give me new 2AR responses on anything extended into the 2N," see tricks below.

Performance/Non-T Affs: 3 - I'm open, and I've enjoyed some of these cases but you probably don't want to pref me high if this is your jam. If you run T/Framework on the neg, I'm likely a very good judge for you.

Lay - 4 - I really love lay debate and can appreciate when it's done well, but I'm tab enough that you're almost certainly better off taking some random parent judge. Note: if you're a circuit debater hitting a lay debater and you adapt to them (i.e., no spreading, no theory args, just run your larp case) and win, I will reward you with a 30. Note: if you're an insecure circuit debater worried you're going to lose to a lay debater and you don't adapt to them, I'll just judge the round normally. If you're the lay debater, be smart in the round.

Tricks - 5 - The most I can say is that I will listen. I voted for Nate Krueger all the time, but he was kind of amazing at trix. My threshold for answers here is very, very low.

Stuff I don't like

Tricks and blippy one-line extensions that foreclose on your opponent's offense.

I'm sticking with 2020's "don't be squirrelly." That means: don't pretend you don't know what an a priori is in CX, don't hide spikes, don't lie about stuff you didn't extend, don't "explain" your crazy-ass Baudrilliard K with 3 minutes of nonsense in CX and then all of a sudden tell a straightforward story in the 2N, don't lie about your super-vague "I'm whole rez!" methods to exclude all clash in the 1AR, etc. Don't be squirrelly!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Longer stuff if you've got time:

Speed

UPDATED - Particularly online, I can no longer handle your top, top speed; it just becomes a kind of hazy whine in my headphones. Call me a 6 or 7 out of 10. Slow WAY down for tags and analyticals, particularly in rebuttals and especially if it's not on your speech doc. If you're spreading prewritten analyticals, send those with your speech doc to me and to your opponent. I'll clear you if I have to.

Evidence

Like I said, long cards >>>> more cards. Don't power-tag. I love love love when debaters re-cut their opponent's evidence in the next speech to show that it was power/mistagged - that has to be read, not inserted.

Nebel T

I think Nebel is correct, but this winds up being a lot more nuanced in the context of an LD round. Yes, semantics outweigh pragmatics on interpretation, but pragmatics control when we're talking voters/remedy. Here's a real-world example of how that played out. So, I agree with Nebel in the abstract that it's kind of silly that on a topic like "RT: States ought to ban their nuclear arsenals," the most common 1AC was Indo-Pak because that's literally not at all what the topic committee wanted you to debate. That being said, I don't think I ever voted for T on the nukes topic against spec affs because the 1AR answer of "come on, there are only 7 nuclear nations, if you're not prepared for Indo-Pak, you haven't done enough research" was probably sufficient. On the other hand, if your plan was to ban landmines in Myanmar as a spec for "states ought to ban lethal autonomous weapons," then yes I voted for Nebel T every time. The Niemi "indict" is crap and we all know it.

On Embedded Clash

I find that I'm evaluating a lot of embedded clash, especially in late outrounds. Here are my thoughts on that: (a) the best thing you can do is give me a real OV that explains the layers; (b) in the absence of strong ink on the flow, I'm open to applying arguments from one sheet to another, even if the overall sheet is a kick; (c) I'm not likely to credit a single-line blip extension as decisive when there are 130 lines on my flow; (d) you can weigh new in the 2N, but don't make new substantive arguments; and (e) I'm strongly disinclined against 1AR theory that basically forces new 2N/2AR responses unless you have a very strong abuse story.

1AR Theory

I'm open, but from a practical perspective, I think you really need to be winning your abuse story since 1AR theory pretty much requires judge intervention since the 2N CIs will be new and the 2AR will be asking me subjectively to evaluate whether they're "good enough." IOW, my threshold for 2N answers is pretty low.

Ks

In terms of my familiarity and preferences: give me post-fiat, topic-specific Ks like cap and set col over incomprehensible generics like Weheliye, Baudrilliard, D&G, etc.. That being said, you do you -- for example, I think the fem killjoy K is 100% true.

Also: chances are virtually 100% that I'm not at all familiar with your literature, and it seems (to me, anyway) that a lot of judges are giving K debaters waaaaaay too much credit for warrants in the underlying lit that are not read/explained in round. I'm not going to do that. This means that if you're exclusively a K-debater, you probably want to pref me lower, to be honest. Be explicit about whether your K is pre- or post-fiat. K vs. K rounds need to be clear about uplayering and internal links if on the same layer.

Disclosure Theory

Update - particularly at TOCs, I think it is important to have good disclosure practices; you all are the debaters that the rest of the community is trying to emulate. Open-sourcing with highlighted cards is the minimum of what I consider "good." I am not a fan of running friv disclo theory against a debater whose practices are, at minimum, "good." I will happily pull the trigger on an RVI on disclo if you've run something appallingly stupid like "must disclose the precise tournament name" against a debater with "good" disclosure practices.

"Don't be shady" applies here, too - don't misdisclose, don't waste your opponent's time before the round and then drop a doc 4 minutes before the round begins, etc.

I will listen to "new 1ACs bad" theory.

Defaults

I will never use a default if an argument is made on the issue, but in the absence of argumentation:

• T > K
• T and Theory are on the same layer; Metatheory uplayers
• Reasonability over competing interps if not specified
• No RVIs (my threshold for warranting this is low, 'I get RVIs' suffices)
• Drop the arg on theory, drop the debater on topicality
• Presume NEG
• Affirming is harder because duh, 1AR
• Neg gets 1 Condo advocacy
• PICs must be uncondo
• Weigh case against K

Speaks

I default to a 28.7-ish. I give 30s whenever the debater a) doesn't make any obvious technical or analytical mistakes and b) does at least one really cool/clever analytical thing, so, you know, reasonably often. Oh, I also give 30s when a tech-heavy debater adapts out of courtesy to a lay opponent. The only thing that will get me to tank your speaks is if you're bullying/obnoxious/abusive in the round.

IF YOU STILL DON'T KNOW, ASK! I'm happy to answer any questions about my paradigm before the round. I love LD, and I try to make it so that debaters enjoy debating in front of me.

It's cool frfr. I'll judge your round. Don't be a racist or w/e and make your arguments well.

-See Devon Schley's Paradigm, we're basically the same person but I like Afropess less-