In debate, I look for critically thought out arguments that make sense resolutionally. Answer the question-provide the plan. In old school talk-I am a stock issues/communicator judge for policy debate. Much of that would pose true for Public Forum.

I do not like evidence spew for the sake of spreading opponents out of the round. I can track with moderate speed, but I want to hear some analysis of the argument and subsequent rebuttal. If I have stopped typing on the flow-or writing on my flow pad, I can't judge it. Speed does not win the day for me-signposting is appreciated.

LD-I want to see clear value/criterion debate-when rounds tend toward the policy, I tend to tune out. I was a die-hard LDer who was trained to answer the resolution, provide clear value clash, and wrestle with the pragmatic solutions...if there are any. I like to see how the students can creatively tackle the same resolution-so a less common tactic is cool with me- Again, speed is not my game-if I can't understand you-it doesn't make it one the flow and is not judged.

I love to hear the conversations that come out of really good rounds where there is a clear exchange of ideas and a definite clash-that, to me, is where the most authentic learning takes place! Talk pretty and have fun!!!!

catherinxliu@gmail.com

Sioux Falls Washington ‘21, Harvard ‘25

Experience: I did LD for 4 years. I now do a lot of APDA/BP. I mostly did traditional debate but am generally familiar with/did some circuit. I was a 2021 NSDA finalist in LD.

update for Harvard:

I do not know any topic-specific jargon. It’s in your best interest to explain things very clearly, no matter what position you run.

Here are my general thoughts about debate. Feel free to ask me other questions before the round starts.

• Tech > truth
• I am fine with evaluating most things, and you should run what you're most comfortable with. I would prefer if the aff is at least vaguely in the direction of the topic—what this looks like is up to you. Realistically, I am probably better at evaluating policy positions and stock Ks/phil than I am at evaluating theory or other Ks/phil, but I also think debaters who are good at explaining how things interact with the round will win anyways.
• Reasonable speed is okay, but my ability to understand spreading is really not very high now, and I will not flow off the doc. Slow down especially on tags and analytics.
• You need to extend the whole argument (warrant + impact).
• I usually find that the 2a/n is more effective when you collapse on fewer things that are well weighed instead of many things. If you don't weigh your arguments, I will have to do it for you, and you may be upset by what I think matters most.
• Most theory is fine, but the more frivolous it is, the lower my threshold for responses. Interpret this how you will.
• I will not evaluate tricks.
• Please compare link strength, especially in util v. util debates :(. If aff reads "US presence causes terror through anti-Western sentiment" and neg reads "actually US counterterrorism efforts decrease terror" and then both of you keep extending these arguments past each other without any further comparison, I have no idea how to evaluate the clash and will not vote on it, even if the impact itself is well weighed.
• I like clear judge instruction.

SF Roosevelt '21 ೄྀ࿐ ˊˎ Wake Forest '25

Current Affiliations: New York Urban Debate League

she/her (1A/2N)

luckettjazmyn@gmail.com

╰┈➤ Time yourself

If you are interested in debating for Wake Forest, don't hesitate to reach out about scholarships and debate opportunities.

Miscellaneous Notes:

- If you have a fun/silly strategy or file you have been waiting to break, please do it in front of me

- Be funny, or don't if that's your thing, be nice or be petty if that's your thing --- be more casual if that is what is comfortable for you

- If you feel more comfortable with a camera off instead of on during an online debate, that is fine :)

• I will vote on death good, spark, wipeout, Baudrillard, and most of the other arguments everyone hates (and I would love to judge it)
• I read almost exclusively settler colonialism and afropessimism in high school and college, but I coach policy style Lincoln Douglas and Policy Debaters. I am also fairly well versed on current political issues, the status of the government, and potential global military conflicts/tensions. I do not have a strong side/debate frame that I will adjudicate under. Everything is up for debate.

• 1AR --> 2AR consistency is good, new 2AR arguments are bad

Other Thoughts:

I try my best to eliminate personal bias and offer both teams a fair and equal opportunity to achieve the ballot, but here are a few thoughts that may be helpful:

• permutations should be explained, examples/what would the world look like? I won't vote on a perm that the 2NR literally concedes if the 2AR just says, "extend permutation do both, they dropped it... [insert argument not at all about the permutation here]"
• 2NR/2AR that sits on 3 arguments > 2NR/2AR that goes for 20 conceded arguments
• making an actual argument against what the other team said > spending time reading a bad theory block
• new 2NC CPs/DAs are interesting, if the aff suddenly links after the 2ac, go ahead.
• live to solve other team's impacts > future generations
• literally anything > 5/6 minute presumption 2NR
• claim -> warrant -> impact or it's not an argument
• Don't ask me for a 30
• I will never ask for a card doc, you should never ask me to look at a card. What if you just explained the card???? and made an argument?????? (If someone is like calling ev ethics or saying your ev says something super problematic then yes, I'll look) but I could care less if you cut the greatest card on agricultural development causing climate change published in the 21st century. Show me the greatest arguments and warrants in the 21st century that agricultural development causes climate change).
• I tend to make decisions by pinpointing the negative's central offense and then deciding if the affirmative resolves it or if the affirmative solves to the point that the neg's argument doesn't matter, in every debate I will write a ballot for both teams then copy paste/vote for the one that makes the most sense into tabroom.
• If I give an RFD in less than 10 minutes, don't be offended. I already know how I'm voting 80% of the time within 2 minutes of the 2AR ending. Faster RFD=More time for you to eat and rest.

╔══《✧》══╗

Speaker Points:

29.6+ --- potential champ

29.3-29.5 --- late elims

29-29.2 --- mid elims

28.7-28.9 --- may clear

28.5-28.7 --- go even

28.0-28.5 --- other

╚══《✧》══╝

Include me on the email chain: Rnold042302@gmail.com

Speed preferences (Please read):

PF: Should not be a policy speed, but a faster pace is ok as long as you are clear. It is still your job to make sure that you emphasize/slow down on the most important points you are making. Basically, if you want me to flow it, make sure its clear.

Traditional LD: Between pf and policy, National Circuit: See policy below

Policy: 6/10. I did policy for 3 years, so I'm exposed to spreading. However, I would still prefer not too fast of a round. This isn't a traditionalist preference, but more of a matter of general accessibility for me. You can still spread to an extent, but it needs to be comprehensible. I should be able to get your arguments clearly even without the email chain (Although I would like to be on the email chain). If I think you are being too fast or not clear enough, I will try to say clear, but it is still on you to emphasize and make sure I get your key points. Don't worry about this too much, just remember not to go too speedy.

General "TLDR" about me as a judge :

I did policy for three years and public forum my senior year, but I also have some experience with Lincoln Douglass. I am currently a student at University of Alabama.

I am most likely familiar with a wide variety of types of arguments you would likely run in the round, but don't assume you don't have to do the work to flesh out the arguments you present in the round well.

First and foremost- Run what you are best at. I'd rather see a good debate than what I prefer personally. This doesn't mean you have a free pass to run super bad args but don't feel like you have to completely fit the round around me.

I'm basically Tabula Rasa. Give me a framework/Framing and Ill go with it until it is refuted or dropped. That goes for aff and neg. I would say that I minimize my interference in the round and with my paradigm as much as possible, and when I do have to make decisions (especially on theory) I try to go with whichever debate norms presented (aff/neg) maximizes education in the round (I take into account impacts like accessibility, racism, discrimination, etc as a part of education, so don't shy away from these args in theory).

Policy Specific:

Case Debate: I will vote probably not vote on solvency or case-takeouts alone (unless there are link/impact turns read). neg still needs to extend offense, otherwise I'll probably be very open to Aff "if there's a 1% chance..." type arguments.

CP's- I default to sufficiency framing. The cp's viability as a winning argument (barring theory) is essentially a product of how much it resolves aff impacts and the magnitude of the net benefit. On neg, be clear on what the net benefit is and how the cp doesn't link. Also, if it is not 100% clear on the distinction between the cp and the plan, outline the differences for me. This makes it easier for me to resolve arguments on the perm debate level.

For AFF- Perms are the best, but I'm definitely open to other stuff. Theory is good too, condo, specific to the cp, etc., as long as it is warranted out and you provide me with how they violate the theory arguments. Multiple perms are generally ok-ish, but if they are fairly unique or if a perm is similar to a previous perm, you have to highlight the differences otherwise I'm lenient on allowing neg cross-applications of perm answers.

K's-

I am fine with critical debate on both sides, but I need the link story to be clear for me on the flow. Also, pleaseeeeeeee understand and effectively explain the alt. I need to know how the alt resolves the links, solves for the impacts outlined, etc. Too many affs let the neg get away with not explaining the alt well enough. Even if its not "vague", push neg on this.

K affs are definitely chill, you do you. But if neg pushes framework, make sure you have good answers to the TVA. It doesn't have to be a super in depth arg, but I should see something in the 2ac/1ar about why defending the resolution or a TVA of your K aff is bad. Also unless it strictly does not work with your K, please please please try to have some type of /alt/advocacy statement to act as a stable point for neg-testing.

On neg- I'm most familiar with the cap k and wildersonian afropess args, but you are cool to run whatever as long as you explain it well and make sure I understand the story of the K. Don't assume I know your lit. Also, you will likely need to reduce speed on these arguments given my likely unfamiliarity with the specific literature.

T- Default to competing interps but can be convinced otherwise. Also, on aff don't just say "reasonability". Reasonability also requires extension of a counterinterp or you must win we meet bc Reasonability means we meet a reasonable interp of the Resolution. It's not a wishy washy justification of tangentially topical affs.

Theory: I'm open to most all things, but a caveat: I'm not a big fan of generic wiki-based disclosure arguments (unless it is centered around some other impact like accessibility or taken in a critical direction). If I can tell you are just reading generic "Your aff wasn't listed on the wiki so you should lose" I'll listen to it but I will let you know I don't think its a great argument unless it is tied to deeper accessibility or fairness norms (i.e, tell me a story and give me meaningful impacts). You have to prove why this is a reason to drop the debater. Neg has a higher threshold for winning this than T in my eyes.

LD- I'm most familiar with traditional value-framework LD, but Plans are ok on more progressive circuits or if both debaters are ok with it (but then neg also gets full access to cps and K's). In traditional debates, I first decide which value is to be used in the round (based on arguments made), and then look to see which side maximizes that value. Dropping your framework is ok in my book if you can win under your opponents framework.

I'm also open to more critical arguments or circuit debate styles as long as general accessability to the debate is maintained for both debaters. However, If aff takes a traditional ld approach w/o a plan, neg needs to argue why they (the neg) should get conditional advocacies (this is definitely an uphill battle). For more info on my paradigm for progressive circuit ld style, see ^ for policy.

PF-

I default to hypo testing for public forum. The game is one of "resolution: true or false?" This is similar to what you're normally used to in pf so nothing mainly different. The key difference is that this isn't only just squo versus pro world, but instead a test of the resolution as a truth claim. Therefore, con can make arguments that aren't the squo as long as they don't read a specific plan or advocacy. I repeat, No plan statements or specified advocacies!

Please give me impact comparison in the final speeches (Time, magnitude, probability, etc) to help me do an effective cost-benefit analysis on the topic (if that is the framework of the round). I will also admit i'm a sucker for a story. Cohesive impact narratives are much easier to vote on than messy disconnected ideas.

Critical arguments are ok, but no alts/plans. Theory is also ok, but I'll admit personally I'm not a big fan of wiki disclosure based theory args (see policy section for more). That doesn't mean its not a viable option, just you need to show actual in round harms.

Other than that, have fun!

(Any questions on my paradigm? Feel free to email me or ask before the round begins)

Other Notes:

-Feel free to use all of cx even if you don't have more great questions. It's free prep for your partner. I won't dock speaks for this unless it is egregiously bad.

Numbered points are from the NSDA ballot

1. The resolution evaluated is a proposition of value, which concerns itself with what ought to be instead of what is. Values are ideals held by individuals, societies, governments, etc., which serve as the highest goals to be considered or achieved within the context of the resolution in question.

2. Each debater has the burden to prove his or her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle. It is unrealistic to expect a debater to prove complete validity or invalidity of the resolution. The better debater is the one who, on the whole, proves his/her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle.

3. Students are encouraged to research topic-specific literature and applicable works of philosophy. The nature of proof should be in the logic and the ethos of a student's independent analysis and/or authoritative opinion.

4. Communication should emphasize clarity. Accordingly, a judge should only evaluate those arguments that were presented in a manner that was clear and understandable to him/her as a judge. Throughout the debate, the competitors should display civility as well as a professional demeanor and style of delivery.

5. After a case is presented, neither debater should be rewarded for presenting a speech completely unrelated to the arguments of his or her opponent; there must be clash concerning the major arguments in the debate. Cross-examination should clarify, challenge, and/or advance arguments.

6. The judge shall disregard new arguments introduced in rebuttal. This does not include the introduction of new evidence in support of points already advanced or the refutation of arguments introduced by opponents.

7. Because debaters cannot choose which side of the resolution to advocate, judges must be objective evaluators of both sides of the resolution. Evaluate the round based only on the arguments that the debaters made and not on personal opinions or on arguments you would have made.

I prefer to make my final decision of the voting issues the debaters present in the context of the round.  I do believe the debate is ultimately about the resolution. 

Deliver rate: I prefer typical conversational speed

Framework (value/criterion): Debaters need to tell me how the resolution should be evaluated based on its key value term(s) i.e. ought

Evidence:  Using known philosophical positions might be easier to understand, but are not required.  A philosophical argument does not require evidence, nor do thought experiments.  However, factual arguments require evidence.

Flowing: I write down the key arguments throughout the round vs keeping a rigorous flow.

Plans and Counterplans:  Not acceptable

Pet peeves: I dislike debaters arguing the generic faults of extreme positions on utilitarianism and deontology, rather than talking about the principles and consequences that are specifically tied to the resolution. I have become disenchanted with policy debate and don't like excesses of policy debate creeping into LD debate i.e. speed and kritiks. 

Experience:  I have judged LD since it started which was around 1979.  I was a high school policy debater.  I debated CEDA in college when they did propositions of value.  I have coached CEDA at the college level.  I'm currently an LD coach and have previously coached policy and public forum debate.  

Run something crazy.

Debated varsity PF in South Dakota. Have been judging for the last six years.

Evidence indict are accepted.

Specific questions about judging style are welcomed before the round begins.

If you are going to go for an evidence violation make sure it's a valid one. If I feel the violation is frivolous I will vote you down.

Best bet is to ask me any questions before the round.

About me:

I was a 4-year policy debater at Roosevelt High School, Sioux Falls.

I want to be on the email chain david.wells [at] yale.edu or kinderifer [at] gmail.com.

he/him

Policy:

Speed is probably 7/10. I am tech oriented. I want to refrain from intervening in the debate as much as possible. Extinction is probably bad but I am willing to hear otherwise. I think debate is good and has had a positive impact on my life. Don't be mean. Both teams worked hard and deserve to be respected.

My beliefs:

-Aff needs a clear internal link chain to the impact. Teams often focus too much on impacts and not enough of the debate on the link story, this is where you should start.

-I like impact turns that still take norms of morality into consideration.

-Condo is good.

-Fairness is not an impact.

-Kritiks are interesting. Explain your stuff.

- Judge instruction is important. If you don't tell me how to evaluate debates, I will usually just default to pragmatism and decide myself. I hate doing this.

-I usually start at 28.5 and go up or down based on performance. Weighing impacts, evidence comparison, strategic decisions, and judge instruction goes a long way.

PF:

I will be a flow judge. Tech > Truth. Impact calculus/weighing is a good way to get to my ballot.

If 2nd rebuttal doesn't frontline, 1st summary doesn't have to extend defense.

Debate what you're best at. The policy arguments I have seen/read run the gamut. I will be comfortable with most arguments.

I dislike the phrase offtime "roadmap," and I try not to pull the trigger on uncarded or unwarranted frameworks.

LD:

I will be a flow judge. Tech > Truth. I think the value and criterion are just a lens to filter the case debate so if you want my ballot you should start there. Don't be mean. Both teams worked hard and deserve to be respected.

If you want to read circuit LD arguments, I will follow but I will hold you to a policy debate standard. Practically, that means I will try not to pull the trigger on blippy or unwarranted theory arguments and the like, but I like plans, kritiks, etc.

I want to refrain from intervening in the debate as much as possible, so please use judge instruction liberally. This is especially important in LD where I may be unfamiliar with how some of your frameworks will filter the flow. Including an extra sentence about what your case looks like under your criterion will go a long way with me.