Johns Creek High School ‘18

Emory University ‘22 (nursing, no debate in college lol)

Other stuff: lab leader (MS, HS novice), occasional BF tab (2014-2016), Senior Instructor of Summer Programs AUDL. If you have any questions, feel free to email me at sophia.ahn2@emory.edu

Add me to the email chain: sophiaahnemail@gmail.com. Format the subject like this: Round Number: Aff Team Code vs. Neg Team Code. Ask me any questions you have before the round starts.

TL;DR

- If you’re not a nice person, then the rest of my paradigm does not matter. You can still win, but I’ll tank your speaks.

- I don’t have strong preferences. I enjoy judging a diversity of arguments and that’s the beauty of policy debate.

- My topic knowledge is minimal. Acronyms need explanations to hold weight. Judge adaptation is real. I can’t vote on something that I don’t understand.

- Don't pack up early (especially 1A/1N)—keep learning! Flow for rebuttal re-dos, to improve shorthand, find out why you lost/won, etc.

- Debate was historically a formal intercollegiate activity, so it should be treated with that same respect. Dress to impress. Your physical presentation has a minimum.

Speaks/Sportsmanship: Clarity is king. Clipping gives you a 0 and a loss. Read my facial expressions.

Ev: Unless you frame it as a strong voting issue, the date and credentials are not of high importance to me. Focus on the warrants, and I’ll focus on how well you explain them—that’s the educational value of debate. The team that does the better debating will win my ballot.

Case: Read an aff you’re passionate about. Impact calc is important. Empirics are helpful. Turns are fun. Dedev? Absolutely. Racism good? Absolutely not. I’m sure you can draw this line for yourself.

Cross-X: Be nice and speak for yourself. Tag teaming hurts the educational value of debate—practice for future rounds, job interviews, etc.

Framework/Theory: I'm a tabula rasa judge unless told to vote with another paradigm (util, hypo-testing, stock issues, etc.). My role as the judge is one of least intervention.

T: Yes. Running T against a prima facie aff is interesting and difficult, but voteable.

CP: Yes. Explicitly tell me the net benefit.

DA: Absolutely. Cut your own. Read your own.

Ptx DA: Ugh. Just grant uniqueness, so we can focus on the link.

K: Sure. Define the fancy terms. Focus on framework. Explain the alt. If you kick the alt and make it a linear DA, don’t double turn yourself, or you might as well forfeit.

In general, I'm not a huge fan of critical arguments. I'm definitely a more traditional debater than progressive one, which is a result of how I was coached.

Most importantly, run what you enjoy and are best at. Don't change anything just for me. Good luck! :)

I debated at Carrollton from 2015-2019. I’m currently a freshman at Duke. Re: Bricker Randall and DHeidt’s paradigms

Put me on the email chain: cecidlg@gmail.com

Debate what you’re most comfortable with in front of me and I'll evaluate as fairly as possible

Don't be rude and don't clip

Please include me in the email-chain: 22cdeschapelles@carrollton.org

2022 Senior at Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart. Been debating for 6 years now (since 7th grade).

TL;DR/Important: I haven't been debating on this topic, so do your best to explain things to me. I have done some topic research but in pretty niche areas. Additionally, the hardest thing I find about judging novices is not knowing how to weigh certain things. So the biggest thing for me (no matter the argument type) is to impact out your arguments in the last two rebuttals and compare them to your opponents'. It's definitely one of the harder things to do in debate, but just try to work on this skill in front of me and I'll likely reward you.

*Note - these are my biases and preconditions. I'll likely try to reward the team that did the better debating, but the following are good things to keep in mind as debate is about learning to convince people no matter their biases and since no judge is a blank robot.

Longer rantier version for specific arguments:

DA's: Love 'em. Especially politics. Give me a good politics disad over a kritik any day (emphasis on good). I think one of the best and easiest ways to win on the neg is doing some good turns case arg's and having the 1ar drop them. If you're aff, don't drop them and make some case turns DA arguments. I love seeing DA's and case interact.

CP's: Yes! I love case-specific ones but generic ones are great too, especially on this topic (I feel your pain 2n's). I am NOT a good judge for process CP's. I'll likely side with the aff on theory here. Condo is good for 1-2 options, any more than that and it gets iffy.

Kritiks: In the words of DHeidt, "A kritik is just a bad DA with a CP that doesn't solve the case." If that doesn't tell you my attitude towards kritiks as a whole, I don't know what will. Don't be scared to read them in front of me though - I think flex teams are the best. If you read a K please please please contextualize the links to the affirmative (recut 1ac evidence, use cross ex) and don't just label everything and anything a "link".

T: I think on this topic, this is a way more common winning 2nr. I deeply sympathize with 2n's on how massive this topic is and I don't want you to be scared going for T with me. And for aff's, I've lead a non-topical policy aff in the past and loved it so don't be scared defending a larger interpretation. For both sides, just make sure you paint a picture of what the topic looks like under your AND your opponents' interpretations. Make me terrified of the other interpretation.

K-aff's and TUSFG: I side with the negative here. I think affirmatives should instrumentally defend the resolution and that it creates better debates overall. Procedural fairness is definitely an impact and I think education from this topic would be a lot better under the neg's interpretation. That's not to say I don't appreciate critical literature or education, I just think it can be done on the neg just as well.

I debated for four years at Northview High School (09'-13') and very occasionally debated for the Barkley Forum at Emory University (13'-17'). [akash.doshi21@gmail.com]

I've randomly inserted a couple quotes from some debaters who have impacted how I view the activity.

on evidence / debating

tech over truth. Good evidence is good. But good debating is always better. What does this mean? Having a better/more qualified/more recent piece of evidence won't do you much if you can't coherently explain and impact the argument itself as well as how it affects the debate. If you really think your piece of evidence is better and/or that the difference in evidence quality should matter in how I resolve the argument, then tell me.

"I really don't care what arguments you read. Debate is cool because it's an intellectual marketplace in which a debater's persuasion, not my ideology, determines what sinks or swims." - Alex Miles

I'm policy-oriented in terms of how I used to debate and my fundamental evaluation of different arguments but I can be persuaded to vote for **almost** anything.

Debate is always about communication. Be clear. Sacrificing clarity for a bit more speed won't do you much good in front of me. I also feel like speed at some point trades off with persuasiveness which is something I value not just in terms of speaker points, but also in terms of evaluating arguments. That being said, you can go extremely fast idc I'm just saying understand when to use inflection or slowing down to break down an intricate argument, etc.

I think zero risk of an argument is possible but my threshold is relatively high.

Judges try to remain as impartial and unbiased as possible but the nature of communication is that we will be persuaded by arguments that make intuitive sense. Does this mean you can't run confusing/nuanced arguments? No. Does it mean there's a higher threshold to actually explain what your nebulous process CP does and why it solves better? Yes.

Recognizing that an argument was dropped is not sufficient. Explain the argument, it's warrants, and how the concession of the argument affects the debate.

"I wish the debate norm was less focused on whether every impact escalated to maximum magnitude. Most of them probably don't. Things can be bad without being an extinction event.I am definitely guilty of being a debater." - Daniel Taylor

I am definitely guilty of being a debater who often used existential / try-or-die framing but I whole heartedly agree with the above. Intuitive arguments that can dismantle improbable extinction scenarios while articulating why something can be very bad without needing to eviscerate every human on the planet is very persuasive to me.

On framework

There are valuable things to learn from just about any topic you could think of. But I believe the resolution is the only non-arbitrary starting point from which both fair and meaningful discussion can occur. goes w/o saying that the affirmative probably needs a plan

On theory and topicality

One conditional advocacy is probably okay, more justifies the question. Most theory arguments I don't lean one way or another and in most cases its not a reason to reject the team. That being said you should not be afraid to go for theory, but recognize that these debates are often incoherent exchanges of short, jargon-filled arguments so unless you're ready to unpack or show some level of analysis earlier in the debate the threshold is high.

I think severance or intrinsic perms being justified by multiple conditional advocacies or PIC/process cp's bad is a persuasive arg if done correctly.

I default to competing interpretations. I think reasonability is arbitrary. but I just feel like the aff should be able to prove the type of debate and topic they justify via their plan is better than a world of debate without it.

I think topicality is inherently about presenting your vision of what the topic should look like under your interpretation and why it is better

the argument that the affirmative does not meet their own c/i should probably be made more by negative teams extending topicality into the block (if it makes sense)

On the criticism

I think winning the link level is particularly important in K debates. Case must be part of the discussion i.e. the criticism must be both relevant and relative to the affirmative. In order to win the criticism in front of me you must be impacting it as it relates to case and thus you should be "winning case" in some sense. I'm always going to vote for the devil I know over the one I don't i.e. explaining what the alternative does and why that's a better approach then the affirmative is also important. that being said most aff teams should capitalize on this or make arguments that combat these mistakes by negative teams more.

I believe affirmative arguments against the criticism that are rooted in some form of "the K is a non-unique disad" aren't particularly persuasive but the negative should be able to contextualize / differentiate between residual link instances in the status quo vs the plan and whether the alternative does / need / should resolve both or just the latter.

misc.

I've judged a decent amount of debates on this topic, however I am probably not as familiar with the topic as y'all are. So buzzwords and concepts that are commonly tossed around in rounds will probably need to be contextualized a bit better at first. Fine to use afterward.

blatant performative contradictions like reading realism against a criticism when your aff is not realist erk me but aren't nearly leveraged enough by either side anymore.

I believe 'uniqueness controls direction of the link' can be a particularly persuasive framing mechanism if done correctly.

I understand that debate is inherently a competitive activity and things do get heated, but there is a clear distinction between being competitive and being obnoxious/rude.

I don't have a great poker face. If I'm particularly vibing/not vibing with an argument, you'll probably be able to tell. It'll also remind you to look up once in a while.

I love a good impact turn debate (heg good/bad in particular) but people don't really go for it or straight turn disads etc. anymore and it disappoints me. I'm not going to vote on these things just bc you go for it. I'm just saying I miss it.

Death is probably bad.

no need to read this, just food for thought.

Debate is inherently a relative, arbitrary, and qualitative activity. There's no quantifiable way to determine winners, all participants and the judge possess their own implicit and explicit biases that are impossible to flip 'on' or 'off' or separate from our evaluation of ideas and arguments, regardless of how hard we 'try' (I put the word try in quotes because its not something you can try to do, it just exists whether you like it or whether you let yourself believe it or not).

Through this view, consider the following hypothetical situation: a local tournament is short on judges and so a soccer mom with absolutely zero experience in any form of debate or any activity dealing in rhetoric or discourse for that matter has agreed to judge to help alleviate the shortage. She judges a round between a novice team of two freshman who are debating at their second tournament ever and a team that has cleared at the TOC before, made it to the late out rounds of multiple national tournaments, and have attended 'prestigious' debate camps. Both teams debate their hearts out and she votes for the former. Most would just chalk this up to circumstance, or because the judge doesn't understand the technical aspects of the activity. The novice team may have double turned themselves or dropped multiple critical arguments and by every major 'indicator', lost the debate. They could have dropped an entire flow. They could have got up in their final speech, made animal noises for 30 seconds and sat down. In my view, none of that matters. The novice team has won and the other has lost, fair and square.

the judge and your audience exist on a completely independent plane from everything else. in debate and in life. and this is a margin of error that you must willfully accept and embrace in order to truly understand this activity.

My pronouns are she/they. Just call me Jordan instead of judge. I am a sophomore at USC's film school and debate for their policy team. I’m very happy to be here. :)

Add me to the chain: jorfree03@gmail.com

Conflicts: Roswell, Grady, Decatur, and Rockdale.

UPDATE - Online Debate:

- Ask if everyone is ready before you begin.

- Have your camera on when speaking.

General:

- Be nice to your opponents AND your partner.

- Look at my face. I'm expressive.

- I LOVE CX. The most interesting part of the debate.

K Stuff:

- K teams should use claim/warrant, line by line, empirical evidence and debate off of the flow.

- If the aff has to defend their assumptions, I will usually give them access to their impacts.

- “Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good” is persuasive to me.

- I prefer an advocacy or some relation to the resolution.

- Not a great judge for high theory. I do not understand your tags.

- I am extremely sensitive to the ways debate norms affect disadvantaged groups.

Theory:

- I won't vote on things that happened outside of the round (including prefs).

- At the Novice/JV level, it's usually a wash. Unless it's dropped, condo, or a particularly abusive violation, I won't care much. This includes ASPEC.

Organization/Flowing:

- If you're not clear, you're not getting flowed. I vote off of my flow.

- I dislike overviews. If it's a particularly confusing argument- sure, go ahead. But if it can go in the line by line, put it in the line by line.

- Mark the cards you have not finished & send out a new document.

- I like numbering. Don't get too caught up in it.

- Tag your analytics.

- Stop messing with the speech doc you send out. If the other team being able to read your analytics will hurt your chances, make better arguments.

DA/CPs:

- Tell me how Uniqueness and the Link interact.

- I do not default to judge kick. If the aff drops the arg then I will.

- Impact Calculus is essential. Make some case turns. Zero risk exists.

- Be clear which DA is the net benefit to your CP.

I have worked at Emory and Georgetown camps.

Samford

He/Him

Updated as of Indiana 2024

Add me to the chain: maddoxforfun@gmail.com

TLDR: I judge off the flow. Clash is great. Being prepped is awesome, not flowing and debating off of a script is not. I can only flow what I can hear, speed is fine but never sacrifice clarity for it. Start slower at the top of the final rebuttals. Don't change the args you go for in front of me, do what you wanna do and what you think you're best at. Do not ask to give a road map just give one. A roadmap is just the order of the flows, not what the arguments are. If there are more than 3 cards in the speech you should send a doc. Please be nice and have fun!

Above everything else be respectful to everyone involved in round. If you cannot be nice at least be polite. Respect isn't something that should be an added bonus but a norm. If I find that anyone regardless of ability is disrespectful of someone else involved in the round, then speaks will drop like the Nasdaq and I'll probably find it harder for myself to be persuaded by your args.

Everything else:

DA's:

The most important aspect's of the DA to me are comparative analysis, impact calculus, and contextualization with the aff. I don't believe in 100% risk or absolute defense/ 0 risk of the DA but I will vote on arguments near that threshold.

CP's:

Counterplan's should be both functionally and textually competitive. I think you can win with internal NB's, but that it's much harder to evaluate WHY the cp is an opportunity cost of the plan, and makes me err aff on the perm debate. I think that PIC's that steal the aff can be abusive, but not always a reason to reject the arg or team.

T:

I am not the best T vs policy aff's judge. I think teams need to be way slower and more deliberate when going for T, especially in final rebuttals. Reading pre-written speeches at full speed with the assumption I am catching all of this and understanding the deepest and most intricate nuances of the topic has not fared well in front of me. There should be clear ground loss and abuse stories presented in the debate, with contextualization to the plan text and the counter interpretation. I am a 70% reasonability 30% competing interps judge. T is a swinging gate, so if you win that the aff should be weighed/ is topical, you win the debate.

Identity based args note:

I have absolutely no tolerance for anything related to authenticity checking, invalidating anyone's identity based off of some silly game we go to camp for, or anything of that nature that would discourage people from partaking in this activity. Identity rounds have the potential to get personal and I am wholly uncomfortable letting any debater internalize negative things said about their identity, all for a ballot. I reserve the right to vote down any team regardless of how good they think they are based off of this premise.

K Affs:

I believe USFG should: is a norm and not a rule, so I have and will vote on aff's outside of that actor. How to win my ballot with a planless aff: Explicitly lay out what exact harms the affirmative aims to solve, be good on the flow as to why your implementation of X is sufficient and necessary, commit a fair amount of time to judge instruction and impact out what winning each part of the flow means. Be clear as to why my evaluation of X should come before standard policy framing/whatever the 2nr is. vote aff to affirm us because X has/probably will never be persuasive to me. that also applies to k's on the neg.

K's:

K teams who routinely win my ballots are great at explaining what offense me voting for them solves, via post or pre-fiat means. Impact out what winning an arg means, and what args you need to win to come out ahead on flows/which flow matters most. Point to 1ac and 2ac evidence and show me the link, it's really easy convincing me that an aff links when I see the exact verbiage and rhetoric in aff evidence when the neg points it out. Super long 3 minute overviews struggle to find cohesive spots on my flow, yet in speeches that go straight to the line by line I find myself losing the meta-level crux of the flow, so try and toe the line of over-explaining but also efficiency. Impact calc is still a necessity. Overexplain the alt's necessity/sufficiency, and how it correlates to the ballot. Oftentimes teams overinvest in the link debate, and I just don't know what I'm supposed to do with whatever is left of the alt. I don't find aff frameworks that exclude the K to be even slightly convincing. Paired with that I think I will pretty much always weigh the plan's impacts vs the k in my decision unless there is a tremendously lopsided debate had on this that concludes neg. Floating piks are probs bad, and if you kick the alt and go for it as a disad in the 2nr, the aff will get to respond accordingly.

Theory:

True neutral on condo. For condo bad args I don't think its how many worlds were involved in round that signal an aff ballot but what they justify. The difference between 3 and 4 or 5 and 6 conditional worlds isn't that big. but what the negs framework allows and prevents is what gets me to sign off. That being said, you probably never need more than 3 condo. Anything more and you're overloading the 1nc and are gonna link way harder to any in round abuse args. If aspec was hidden on another flow it gets a new 1ar answer. The moral of the story is don't be a coward, let us know youre going for aspec. If you are that scared of the 2ac answering it then it's probably not that good of an arg in this round. Perf con is not an independent voter, but rather an extension of condo or something that gets you ground somewhere else. Think about flowability and pen time before you blaze through multiple paragraphs of analytics.

Framework:

I will almost always weigh the aff, unless the negative forwards a better way of evaluating the debate. You do not have to win the entirety of the framework to win the debate or K flow. I'm fairly convinced by fw perms. Cross applications are key, and 1 dropped warrant could change the way I evaluate the rest of the flow.

Clipping:

If a clipping accusation is made the round immediately ends and is determined based off of the veracity of the accusation. If the accusing team is wrong they will lose, if the accusing team is right they will win. I will adhere to the tournament rules, if provided, pertaining speaks. If no rules are posted I will give 0's to the losing team, and some speaks in the low 29's to the winners.

Card doc:

I am not a card doc heavy judge. My ballot will be reflective of the argumentation on my flow and in round clash, and the card doc is merely supporting the flow. If you think a piece of ev is critical to my decision say so in speech, but do not expect me to recreate the debate based on ev.

Speaks:

A very easy way to lose speaks is to have a lot of downtime in the round where a clock is not running, if there isn't a speech going either you should be running prep, or have announced that the doc is being sent out. Especially after 2+ years of online debate, egregious stealing of prep will be harshly punished speaks wise.

Debate shouldn't be one big meme thread, but humor makes you more convincing and personable(if it's funny that is). I am a big fan of sports or pop culture references.

Be nice to the other team, have fun, and make friends!!! I promise you when everything is said and done you will remember the friends you made and the fun had in the activity more than the rfd's you get

If everyone in the round has a well-updated wiki with open-sourcing, I will give everyone a + .1 in speaks

Email: manu.suresh.john@gmail.com

Tech v. Truth - you really need to explain the arguments though

Condo: Condo is fine in the block but don't go for it in the 2nr, i have a high threshold for voting for this

T: I like a good T debate

CP/DA: this is always good

K: don't forget the different parts of the K: framework, perm, alt, impact

Don't get clip, steal prep and be nice

Don't be racist or sexist - and be nice

Praval Kandimalla

Woodward Academy '21

Email - 21pkandimalla@woodward.edu

Updated 1/11/2021

Bio

I debated for 2 years at Woodward Academy, and now I'm judging for the team. I'm expecting to mostly judge Novice debates, so my paradigm largely focuses on the Novice Division, but I did add a section for divisions outside of Novice at the bottom.

Topic Specifics

I do not have much topic knowledge, so extra explanation would be appreciated. In any case, I'll do my best to follow along.

My Preferences for Novice

My big concerns are flowing, clarity, speech doc creation (tell me if you don't know how, I'll tell you), and clash (directly answering your opponents' arguments). I don't expect any of you to be experts, so CALM DOWN, I will be patient; I was once there too.

I promise to put my full effort into judging and giving you the best feedback I can give. The Novice division is for learning, so my main goal is to teach you how debate works.

The things I like to see the most are in-depth understanding of the topic and effective communication. Topic knowledge is understanding the history of the topic and its nuances and facts. I don't expect any of you to be experts, so don't feel bad if you don't know something. For effective communication, this to me is engaging speaking and organized debating. Once again, I don't expect you to have mastered this, but I do appreciate it.

Also, I love jokes, so feel free to add any.

I don't have any pet peeves, except for pronouncing words correctly (If you say coup with a "p" you're a chicken farmer, if you say it without then you're an international relations specialist). I won't get annoyed if you say something wrong; it's just something I always notice.

One last thing, be respectful to your opponents: don't be mean.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

For any division outside of Novice

My judging philosophy overall reflects those of my coaches, Bill Batterman and Maggie Berthiaume.

All I want is a good, clash-heavy debate. If you try to avoid this (i.e take the easy/lazy way), I will not be happy.

Also, I'm very policy heavy, so I prefer to judge those debates. I'm willing to judge K's, but I don't understand the literature that well, so I won't be a good judge for it.

Quick Specifics

Tech > truth (in most instances).

3 condo is the most I'm comfortable with. That's not to say I'm not okay with any more than 3, but be prepared to face a harder condo debate.

DA: I love DA's, just two things to consider. Have impact clac and fully flush the DA out (uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact).

CP: I don't really have a particular opinion on most CPs, just make sure it's not extremely theoretically dubious. However, I don't like consult CP's; I agree with Dr. Galloway's opinion of them. Also, you need to tell me to judge kick.

K: Just be clear and explain what the K does. Get a specific link and explain the alt well. If I don't have a clear explanation of alt solvency, it will be really difficult for me to vote for it.

FW: No particular opinion here; just clash with the other side's framework and tell me why I should prefer yours.

T: Before I vote on a T, I need at least an explained violation, interpretation, and impact (Example, education or fairness). I don't lean one way or the other much on topicality, but I do believe a smaller topic is a better topic. Also, I find T substantial persuasive when well warranted.

Theory: Outside of consult CP's and more than 3 condo, I don't really lean one way or the other on theory. I would prefer if the theory debate was delivered at a slower pace and contextualized to the round.

Aside from that, I really don't lean in any way, so just debate your best.

I hate voting on T, and clarity should be your priority even if you have to slow down. If you make me laugh (with you, not at you) you'll get higher speaks.

Use common sense; don't be offensive or rude, or else your speaker points will go down. This includes being snippy in cross ex.

Put me on the email chain!

Email: Senadzi.kpeg@gmail.com

You can put me on the email chain at: addiematteson@westminster.net

I am a librarian and the assistant coach for the Westminster Middle School debate team. I competed in forensics (speech, acting, and debate) at both the high school and college level. 

When judging, I look for well organized arguments, and I appreciate roadmaps. As a librarian, I am also keenly aware of information sources. I will be looking for clearly read tags, and I pay attention to the quality and currency of your sources. 

Atlanta Urban Debate League (UDL). Decatur, Ga. Currently I teach AP Lang and direct a small AUDL program without a ton of institutional support but in a previous life I coached mostly policy on the national circuit. In fact, I've been around long enough to see the activity go from notecards in ox boxes to xeroxed briefs to some computerized debates to having everything online. I prefer to flow on paper because that's how I learned back in the dark ages.

You can put me on the E mail chain: mcmahon.beth@gmail.com.

For UDL tournaments:

I am an old school policy coach and do not love the K (even though my teams do run it) because teams just read their blocks and don't evaluate the round. That said, if you run the K, awesome -- be ready to debate the line by line and go for something other than framework. See my note below about having an advocacy of some sort.

For the Barkley Forum: If you are in speech events, know that my background is in policy. If you are a policy debater, know that I haven't judged a lot of varsity debates this year so watch the topic specific acronyms. From what I've seen it will be fine but just wanted you to be aware.

Old stuff:

Current Urban Debate League coach (Atlanta/AUDL) but a long time ago (when we carried tubs, no one had a cell phone, and the K was still kinda new) I used to coach and judge on the national circuit. I took a sabbatical from coaching (had kids, came back, things have changed, no more tubs). I still flow on paper and probably always will. FYI -- I have not judged national circuit varsity debates consistently since 2008 when I worked at a now-defunct national circuit program that had some money for travel. I've been told I'm more tech over truth and although I enjoy listening to K debates I don't have a K background (my national circuit experience has all been old school policy so like DA plus case plus CP). If you are a K team I expect some sort of ADVOCACY not just a bunch of block reading and a framework dump. If you don't have a plan you still need to advocate FOR something. Theory dumps are very frustrating to me because I don't know how to evaluate the round.

Crystalizing the round in rebuttals is an important skill - especially in front of a judge like me that did not spend 8 weeks at camp nor has read all of the lit. Or maybe any of the lit. You absolutely will be more familiar with your evidence than I will so please don't expect that kind of deep dive into the post round discussion. There was a point in my life when I could have those discussions, but I'm not there anymore. I am however more likely to buy your case attacks or a topicality argument so there's that.

Notes for IE/LD -- I judge more policy debate than LD/IE/PF/Congress but at some point this year have judged all of the above. I tend to be more tech over truth with LD and am looking for some sort of impact analysis of the values presented. My policy team does not run the K and debates more traditionally -- one of the most underutilized strategies in LD is to debate the other team's case.

I am a Senior at Westminster and have been debating for 5 years mostly as a 2N.

Most importantly, be nice and have fun! I am going to try to keep this short, but feel free to ask me any questions.

Put me on the email chain - annacaroline2020@gmail.com

DAs - As a debater, I go for politics a lot. The most important thing for me here is impact calc. Tell me why I should vote for you in a way I can write on my ballot.

CPs - I love specific CPs! You should probably have a solvency advocate, condo is probably good, and PICs can be abusive? You can definitely win the opposite of any of these dispositions in front of me.

Ks - I probably don’t understand it going into the round, and I can’t vote for something without understanding what it is I am voting on. Don’t let that change your strat, just explain it to me! Novices should read plans.

T - I enjoy judging good T debates. I haven’t debated in a while, so I don’t know what is commonly considered T.

Alpharetta '22

UGA '26

Put me on the email chain: advaitnnaik@gmail.com

stole from Hargunn Sandhu from Emory:

Note:

I have ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE. Explain acronyms and don't assume I know the limits/consensus on T.

General:

1.Tech > Truth. Better debating can easily overcome any of the preferences I have below. Judge instruction is key, especially in the final rebuttals.

2.Good debating requires quality evidence; strong logical explanation, and contextualization.

3.Online debate: please slow down and enunciate more than you normally would. Clarity should not be sacrificed for speed. Sending analytics might be useful in case internet cuts out. Try to keep your camera on at least during speeches and CX.

4.Racism, sexism, discrimination, or any other problematic actions will result in an L and the lowest speaks.

5.Clipping = L and lowest speaks. If you accuse someone of clipping you must have evidence, if you fail to prove they clipped then you get an L.

Specifics:

1. K:

a. K Affs: Clash > Fairness > Education/Skills. I'm more inclined to vote on t usfg/framework since I have mostly been on this side of the debate. Heg good, cap good, etc are all good 2nr options. However, I do think the aff can win with impact turns to the negative's model. Good K affs have a connection to the topic and a clear offense/defense mechanism in the 1AC.

b. Ks: Leaning towards aff gets to weigh the plan. Who cares if fiat isn't real. Specific links, pulling quotes from the 1AC, and in-depth explanation at every level are very important. Avoid large overviews. Turns case/root cause/alt solves > fw 2nrs. Extinction ow/impact turn > permutation 2ars.

2. CPs/DAs:

a. CPs: Cool. If undebated, I'll judge kick the CP. I might be a little more receptive to intrinsic perms than most.

b. DAs: Turns case is crucial. Politics DAs are good, spin is important. 0% risk is a thing, but hard to get to.

3. Theory:

a. Conditionality: Good. Worth noting that I think aff teams rarely capitalize on neg teams' poor defense of condo.

b. International CP and Ctrl + f word PICs are bad assuming even debating. Neg leaning on most other theory.

4. T - Assuming even debating, competing interps > reasonability. Precise, contextual evidence is key to winning these debates, for both the aff and the neg, but especially the aff if there's a substantial limits differential. Read cards. Both sides should be clashing over their visions of the topic and the impacts to it.

5. Case: Not a fan of framing pages. Impact Turns are fantastic. Good case debating is underutilized. Presumption is possible.

6.Misc:

- Speaks: I'm prolly a little above average giving them out. Specific strategies are good. It always helps to make the round fun. Quality evidence is good. If you opensource, let me know, + .2

- Insert perm texts

- I'm usually not expressive, and anything I do express is usually not your fault.

- Things I prolly won't vote on: ASPEC, death good, and out of round issues

Anish Panchumarthy

Wheeler High School

Put me on the email chain: anish.panchumarthy@wheelermagnet.com

Tech > Truth

K affs

1. I have never read a K aff and only have debated them once or twice. I am not your judge if you want to read a K Aff

2. I favor neg heavily

3. Fairness is an impact and a voter

4. Affs don't get perms

K's on the neg

1. I will always the aff unless FWK is completely dropped

2. I have only read Cap in my debate experience and I am not familiar at all with other K's. Only read other k's if you believe you can explain them well

T

1. Reasonability > Competing Interprets

Theory

1. Only voter is Condo

2. Every other theory is reject the argument

3. Read theory if the neg is being abusive, but explain why they are for me to reject the argument

Counterplans

1. Perms are good and I allow clarification later

2. I won't judge kick

Case

1. Circumvention is not an argument in most cases and durable fiat solves

2. I love good framing debates. There needs to be clash to win framing, just repeating your framing is not a debate

Northview High School '20

2A/1N

Add me to email chains: manavirao38@gmail.com

LD:

1.) I’m a policy debater. Don’t assume that I know what you’re talking about. That being said, if you explain your arguments well and debate your best, you’ll win my ballot.

2.) I will hold LD debaters to all the standards I hold policy debaters to. Look below for more information. All preferences still apply.

3.) Speed is fine, but please please please be clear.

4.) I tend to evaluate framework first. That being said, win your value criteria and I'm much more likely to vote for you.

Some Top Level Stuff:

1.) "Tech over truth, no exception. Reading poor, ridiculous arguments like racism good, patriarchy good, suicide good, etc. will reflect in low speaks." - Faeez Juneja

2.) Clarity > Speed. Please don't try to go 100% speed if you're not going to be clear. I'll yell clear one time, then I'm docking speaks.

3.) Please, be nice. We come to debate to learn and have fun. I won't have fun and neither will anyone else in the room if you're not being nice.

Counterplan/DA

Love. Them. A good PIC that solves the aff and a good (or bad) DA/case turn as a net benefit is sure to get my ballot.

Take advantage of advantage counterplans - solving one impact and turning the other is a very underutilized strat that I like a lot.

Politics DAs: love them, but don't just throw evidence at me. Give me reasons why I should prefer your [x] evidence or why your [y] evidence is better than theirs. Often times these debate get so caught up in the cards that people forget what the cards say. I want evidence comparison - one super good link card can destroy 6 bad link turns.

Topic Specific DAs: I love topic specific DAs. The most compelling arguments is if you can explain why exactly the Aff's plan links to your impacts. You have to win that there is a very high chance of the link.

Kritiks

I like them. However, I'm not super versed in a lot of K literature. If you're reading something like Cap/Neolib or anything similar, great. Win the K. But if you're going to read some Bataille/Baudrillard/D&G mashup, you gotta explain the arguments to me and make me understand them. Only then can you win the flow.

T

I flow aff on T. I think that reasonability is a compelling argument that should beat most of the T violations this year as long as you win standards and impacts.

I do however like it when the aff mishandles T and the 2NR completely crushes them. So do your thing. If you think the aff mishandled T, explain it to me and I'll probably agree with you.

K Affs/Non-Traditional Affs

I don't have anything against them. If you can give me a reason why I should prefer a non-traditional form of debate, you'll be in a good spot. If not, I'm likely to vote neg on framework/T to preserve fairness/clash/education. I am familiar with cap, security and more policy leaning Ks, so if you are reading something I am not familiar with, be sure to take the time to actually explain it. I can't vote on something that I don't get.

Theory

Nothing but condo is a reason to reject the team. That being said, use other theory violations strategically to give you more leeway in your own arguments. I'm swayed easily by reciprocity.

2a for 4 years at alpharetta

add me on the email chain saanya.saurabh@gmail.com

do whatever you want

no clipping

don’t be rude

time your own prep and speeches

clarity > speed

yes, you can tag team

most importantly, have fun

westminster 2020 (2a) – kavyadebate@gmail.com

do what you do best as long as you're respectful to everyone in the room!

case

1. explain your solvency mechanism

2. use the other team's ev against them

3. k affs -- defend something

t

1. impact analysis

2. explain why your interpretation is better than theirs

3. framework makes the game work

k

1. specific links to the plan are good

2. explain how the perm solves/doesn't solve

3. explain what a world of the alt looks like

cp

1. go hard on solvency (specific solvency advocates = good; specific solvency deficits = good)

2. why does the perm (not) solve?

3. offense is always good on this flow

da

1. turns case analysis is my favorite part of debate -- explain it well

2. specific links to the aff are good

3. politics disads >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

theory

1. condo - will vote on condo but a warranted analysis of the distinction between both sides' interpretations is necessary

2. neg fiat - neg leaning on this

3. everything else - probably not a reason to reject the team

cx

1. set up arguments

2. know your arguments and evidence

3. don't take over your partner's cx unless they ask

speaks

i usually range from mid 28s to low 29s for novices

how to get extra speaks

1. solid evidence comparison -- +0.1

2. make a joke about any current westminster debater or any of my friends -- +0.1

3. add me to the email chain without me asking -- +0.1

*max 0.3 raise*

tl;dr: don't say something rude and i'll probably give you decent speaks :)

endnote

1. if i look confused, please explain your argument better

2. feel free to email me with questions if you have any (see email at the top)

3. happy debating!

Background:

USN head coach 2012-present

MBA assistant coach 2000-2002

The stuff you are looking for:

email chain: bwilson at usn.org

K Aff: Defend a hypothetical project that goes beyond the 1AC.

Framework: My general assumption is that predictable limits lead to higher quality debates. Aff, how does your method/performance center on the resolutional question in a way that adds value to this year's topic education? Why does the value of your discussion/method outweigh the benefits of a predictable, topic-focused debate?

Topicality: I am agnostic when it comes to the source of your definitions. Just tell me why they are preferable for this debate. Aff reasonability defense must be coupled with an interpretation, and RTP that interpretation. I will be honest, when it's a T round against an aff that was cut at workshop and has been run all year, I have a gut-check lean to reasonability. Competing interps becomes more compelling when there is significant offense for the interpretation.

Theory: Other than condo, a theory win means I reject the argument unless you do work explaining otherwise. For condo debates, please have a clear interpretation and reasons to reject. I am more open to theory when it is about something particular to the round and is not read from pre-written blocks.

CP's: I prefer CP's that have a solvency advocate. I think a well articulated/warranted perm can beat most plan plus, process CP's.

Politics: I like it better on topics without other viable DAs, but I am fine for these debates.

DAs: I find "turns the case" analysis more compelling at the internal link level.

Cheating: If you are not reading every word you are claiming through underlining or highlighting, that is clipping. If it seems like a one time miscue I will yell something, and unless corrected, I'll disregard the evidence. If it is egregious/persistent, I will be forced to intervene with an L.

If the other team raises a dispute. I will do my best to adjudicate the claim and follow the above reasoning to render a penalty either to dismiss the evidence in question or reject the team. I think I have a fairly high threshold for rendering a decision on an ethics challenge.

RIP wiki paradigms, or how my paradigm started for years but is now showing its age:

I like it when debaters think about the probability of their scenarios and compare and connect the different scenarios in the round. If it is a policy v critical debate, the framing is important, but not in a prior question, ROB, or "only competing policy options" sense. The better team uses their arguments to access or outweigh the other side. I think there is always a means to weigh 1AC advantages against the k, to defend 1AC epistemology as a means to making those advantages more probable and specific. On the flip side, a thorough indictment of 1AC authors and assumptions will make it easier to weigh your alternative, ethics, case turn, etc. Explain the thesis of your k and tell me why it it is a reason to reject the affirmative.

Woodward Update

I have not judged LD before this tournament -- I believe the differences between policy and LD are enormous but obviously I don't have the experience to back up that claim -- I think asking me questions before the round is a good idea. I will update this update as the tournament goes on.

Hello!

Any pronouns are fine with me

snwils6 at emory dot edu -- add me to the email chain

I hope anyone reading this isn't super stressed out! Please ask any questions you have before the round if the rest of this doesn't help!

I debated for 3 years at Brooklyn Tech and for one year at Emory.

Debates on the hs topic -- 1 -- Please try to explain the acronyms you're using because I won't know them.

I read policy args for 1 year and k args for the rest of high school -- I'm did a little policy research for Emory and don't think I lean one way or the other. Debate how you want to debate and I will listen to it -- I do not believe I should influence what you decide to present or go for in the round I happen to be listening to. Choose what you believe to be your best argument, explain it well and be confident you made the right choice.

I like debates where both teams spend as much time listening as they do speaking. Clash is wonderful.