I was a LD varsity debater. I don't like spreading. I know debating if stressful and hard but try to say why I should vote in your favor throughout the debate. I will vote for whoever convinces me best. Don't be an asshole, I will dock your speaks.

be organized

be kind, you guys are struggling together. seriously, don't be mean to your opponent.

Don't just say "extend", I need to know the arguments that you are extending.

I don't have a preference on cases unless they are super offensive or confusing. If they're confusing, I will ask you to elaborate, and if you can't, I won't take that argument into consideration. If they are offensive, I just won't vote for you.

Offensive arguments: outwardly racist and sexist arguments

If I don't understand what you are saying, I won't take it into consideration when voting.

If you spread, I need your case.

If you have an email chain, please put me in:

claireadamson22@gmail.com

Good Luck guys!

My name is Peyton, I judge Policy/LD.

Contact: peytonbarsel@gmail.com

CASE/GENERAL

I mostly debate policy over K arguments, so if you're reading a K aff make sure to deliberate. I will not vote on a problem that is not pointed out by the other team. If this were to occur, I will debrief after the debate. Please add me to email chains using my email above.

K

Again, I prefer policy arguments, but I won't vote policy over the K. As long as the team presenting the K is clear enough for both their opponents and me, there's no issue.

T

I like topicality. However, for me to vote neg on T, the neg needs to win all parts of it, considering winning T means winning the entire debate.

DA/CP

Use impact calculus to make it clear why I should vote for you and to expand on the relevance of why this is in the debate at all.

CX/SPEAKS

Avoiding questions during CX will likely lower your speaker points though I don't evaluate speaks based on Cross-x as heavily as during speeches. I won't take prep for flashing or sending an email, but if you take too long I'll likely deduct speaks. Make sure that if you aren't taking prep time your partner isn't prepping for their speech. Please be respectful. I will deduct speaks if you do not have respect for the other team.

I was a varsity LD debater in high school. Keep your own time. Speak clearly. Explain how I should weigh your arguments. Be polite to your opponents, a little sassy is different from rude.

I want to be on your email chains: ilanacohentms@gmail.com

I competed in PF for three years in high school. In a round I prefer logical arguments, good pacing and good etiquette.

This is my third year out from college debate. I competed in a variety of formats, including policy, and on the NPDA/NPTE national circuit for three years.

The further out I get, the fewer hard opinions I have. I no longer feel strongly about conditional counterplans, whether the aff is topical, etc., etc. If there are specific things you want to know about, I always try to give debaters some time to ask questions before the round, but my answer is probably going to be "you do you."

The one thing that I still emphasize is framework and impact calculus, which I feel are two sides of the same coin. It is to your advantage and mine to contextualize your arguments through the framework. We almost certainly have different opinions and backgrounds, and you can increase predictability by telling me what to think via the framework debate. It also means I have to think less, which is good.

Please add me on the email chain: audrey.rice@voaut.org

Hi All, I am a parent judge, history of competitive debate in HS (100 years ago). I am familiar with the topic, but if you are a highly competitive team strike me. I will judge based on truth over tech because I am not fluent in all strategies/techniques. I prefer to judge policy oriented debates. Consider striking me if you are a kritikal debater. Spreading is ok at 50% speed. Be respectful. Thanks.

LD/PF Overview:

I am a debate coach and therefore comfortable with both progressive and traditional styles of debate. However, if you decide to go progressive, you must still clearly be topical and clearly have traditional elements like a value and a criterion in LD. In addition, you must still argue your opponents traditional case in a traditional way when you rebuttal.

I like to list things I do not like, so that you can avoid them:

· Telling a judge they can “drop the debate” or that “you can’t allow that argument.” I’ll be the judge, thank you. Please, do not ever tell a judge what to do or don’t do. You should explain your argument in such a way that I feel compelled to do so on my own volition.

· Language that is too aggressive, because assertion is okay but aggression is demeaning and degrades the integrity of debate. For example using phrases such as “are you aware that” for the beginning of a question suggests you think you research more than your opponent. In addition, when debaters say, “my opponent never did…” and then list something their opponent did do, it’s a loss of points for the speaker because I mark that as not paying attention to your opponent. Other phrases that suggest their arguments are “oblivious” or “asinine” or “ignorant” –Don’t suggest your opponent is lacking in any form.

· I dislike when the rebuttals are purely pre-loaded (some blocking is fine) but when your rebuttal is not specific to your opponent’s case and only defends yours against a general argument, I will not count that as a case defense.

· Battles over evidence are borderline pointless. Definitely point out evidence that is misrepresented, outdated, or otherwise taken out of context. Please do not make one piece of evidence last the entire debate. Mention it once, state you’d like to contest it, and let the judge (me) read the evidence at the end of the round. Most of the time it is not evidence that wins my vote, but the explanation and impact. To me, impact is most valuable. Do you know why any of this matters to anyone? Can you explain this in an attainable way for anyone, not just a debate judge? That’s how you prove to me that your argument is holistic and true.

LD/PF Paradigm:
I expect you to time one another, verbally so that I can note when we are over or under.
If you are failing to provide evidence that should be easily available, I will consider this in my vote. Evidence should be organized and known well-enough to reference quickly.
If you fail to engage with your opponent as an intellectual equal worthy of competing against you in the round, I will take this out in speaker points. I may also let it sway my vote, because ad hominem is a fallacy, and I like my debates to remain logical.