General Paradigm

If you have questions about my decision/want feedback or want to complain about what a terrible judge I am

email me: benlbrazelton@gmail.com

(If there are any issues I need to know before the round regarding physical/non-physical accessibility, shoot me an email.)

Experience

Competed for Madison West High School. Public Forum, Extemp, and limited Congress experience in High School. I coach a few schools privately now, and teach at camps.

Personal Info

I study Education with an emphasis on critical race/queer theories. I'm further left than liberal, so I especially respond to well-constructed Critical Race, Gender or Queer Theory arguments. Equity is the name of the game, but I'll accept any criteria that is well-warranted.

As a Judge, I am...

- Pretty Flow. I will be flowing on excel or paper or whatever else.

- A little lay. Teams that speak clearly and persuasively have an innate advantage over those that don't.

- Very lazy. Do the work for me, because I hate the mental gymnastics for teams that don't weigh, signpost, etc.

- Kind of Tabula Rasa. I'll drop my individual opinions, and technical knowledge, etc. and be as close to a blank slate as I feel comfortable being. That said, I'm not going to pretend like people aren't incorrect or lying. Also, see the next section for when I stop being tabs.

What you MUST DO when I am judge:

- If you choose to make arguments that concern sexual assault, racialized/gendered violence, stuff like that, and either a. do not offer some sort of warning ahead of time or b. do it without the delicacy it deserves, I will almost categorically drop the argument. These arguments are almost always personal to someone (whether they be in the room or at the tournament), so that needs to be respected.

- Don't be blatantly (or subtly) racist, sexist, classist, etc. It's obvious to put in a paradigm, not so obvious in round. I will call you out, and (based on the magnitude of what you said/did) drop you. Tabs come off.

- Don't be a jerk. Gendered and racialized dynamics are everywhere, and if I get a whiff of exploitation therein, tabs are off.

What you CAN do:

I'm a big fan of including theory and Kritikal debate-- if we are talking about debate, any kinds of arguments (no matter how 'accessible' they may be) should be fair game. If you want to run K's or theory, whatever, that's fine by me, so long as you give me clear reasons to vote for them.

What I look for in argumentation:

- Be smart. This seems obvious, but you aren't going to win the round by obfuscating arguments, or trying to convince me that basic facts aren't true. This is one of the most cliche things to put in a paradigm, but smart analytics beat a lot of cards. Having an appreciation for what the world is like when the debate round is over helps everything. Teams that can find contradictions in opponents' cases can cross out contentions without every dropping a carded response.

- Claims, Warrants, and Impacts. Please extend the later two into summary, and absolutely in Final Focus. If it isn't in both I won't vote for them. Please refrain from extending through ink, or resurrecting dead arguments.

- WEIGHING. Please weigh for me, because I get really frustrated having to weigh myself. If you don't weigh the round for me, I will, and I will use criteria that will definitely frustrate at least 50% of competitors in the room.

- Teams that tell a consistent story will do much better than teams that stretch themselves out. Paint me a picture of what the world will look like, aff or neg, and stick to that. Framework and overviews help.

What I look for in Cross-X:

- I don't flow CX, but I will sit patiently and wait for it to end.

- If you get any strong concessions, they should be in your speeches too. If they aren't, they didn't happen.

- Don't be a jerk. I don't just consider it rude, I think the predatory, aggressive debater really exploits a lot to get there. Assertion should not trespass into aggression, and if it does, I will wreak havoc on your speaker points.

Speaking Points:

Points are evaluated based on the tournament (TOC will be tougher to get 30s than a local).

- 30s = you are a flawless debater. J. Scott Wunn himself would fall to his knees and praise you.

- 29.5s = you are a very, very good debater. J. Scott Wunn would likely shake your hand after the round.

- 29s = Very good debater. Maybe you make a few mistakes, but overall gave a very high-quality performance. J. Scott Wunn would likely call you "buddy."

- 28s = Exactly average. J. Scott Wunn probably would not remember you.

- 27s = Quite a bit of room for improvement. J. Scott Wunn would be concerned.

- 26s = you either have a lot to work on, or you messed up big.

26> = Uh oh. You must've said something very offensive.

Evidence Ethics

It is the responsibility of the other team to call for evidence, unless I absolutely know it to be miscut, or there is so little weighing in the round that I need to evaluate the strength of link/impact myself.

If someone miscut/misinterpreted evidence, call for it and let me know in your speeches. If you are accused of miscutting, offer something more substantive than "no it's not"-- either apologize and drop it from the round, or defend your interpretation.

My vengeful judging fury:

- I'm a very spiteful judge, so if you are acting like jerks, or making stupid arguments, I will earnestly want to drop you. I've picked up teams very begrudgingly, and that is typically reflected in speaker points. Consider yourselves warned.

"Finally, I flow as completely as I can, generally in enough detail that I could debate with it. However, I'm continually temped to follow a "judge a team as they are judging yours" versus a "judge a team as you would want yours judged" rule. Particularly at high-stakes tournaments, including the TOC, I've had my teams judged by a judge who makes little or no effort to flow. I can't imagine any team at one of those tournaments happy with that type of experience yet those judges still represent them. I think lay-sourced judges and the adaptation required is a good skill and check on the event, but a minimum training and expectation of norms should be communicated to them with an attempt to comply with them. To a certain degree this problem creates a competitive inequity - other teams face the extreme randomness imposed by a judge who does not track arguments as they are made and answered - yet that judge's team avoids it. I've yet to hit the right confluence of events where I'd actually adopt "untrained lay" as a paradigm, but it may happen sometime."

- My Coach in High School

Policy Paradigm

K's and Performance

If they run T and don't engage with the warrants, they've conceded them. Please extend warrants and don't just make it a Framework debate.

I'm a big fan of K's if they have something important to say. That said, if y'all just wanna win spreading Baudrillard and try and trick people out, I'm less convinced. I see K's as a kind of necessary resistance to the oppressive structures of debate––if you're going to reject the resolution, make sure it's for a good reason and not just to be tricky.

I'm a big fan of intellectual clarity in your K's, so don't run sources that don't agree with each other (i.e. Afropessimism and Marxism shouldn't be in the same speech without clarifying those ideological differences).

Spreading

After however many years of debate, I'm pretty good at flwoing. That said, I shouldn't have to read the round to understand it. If you are speaking in a way that I don't understand and can't follow the round, I won't flow. That means heavy tech debaters who do double-breaths will probably be disappointed. Speak clearly––if your card is read so fast you don't care if I catch it, it's probably not valuable enough to be in your speech.

Policy-making

I'm far more convinced by a strong link (high probability/timeframe) than a big impact (magnitude and scope). I tend to weigh based on how real the arguments sound and if it sounds like you're making a stretch I'm less interested. That is to say, I'm far more likely to vote for a well-warranted regional impact than global nuclear extinction. I'll almost never vote for global nuclear extinction if I'm presented with a clear alternative impact.

Please feel free to run evidence indicts in justifying the strength of the link––if somebody is justifying nuclear war impacts with a Krauthammer card, just indict.

Public Forum Paradigm

See general paradigm

As of Harvard 2018: no off-time roadmaps; evidence indicts should be a part of strategy.

I never debated policy myself, but have judged it extensively over the past 8+ years. I have also judged all other debate formats pretty extensively. I debated at the college level and have since been coaching at the college level, but again, in non-policy formats.

-I can handle most spreading, but please don’t be monotone.

-I will vote primarily on the flow, unless you do something racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

-I thoroughly enjoy K debate.

-Fine with any kind of performance debate too.

-Unsurprisingly, I’m willing to vote on anything related to the structure of debate.

-All of that said, I am more than open to traditional policy debate, so don’t be afraid to engage in that.

-Don’t cut cards. Call out your opponent if they are. Don’t lie about it if they aren’t. I won’t look at cards unless you tell me I need to. Cutting cards or lying about opponents cutting cards is a major offense to me.

-Explicitly weigh arguments for me. If I have to weigh arguments myself, that is forcing me to intervene as a judge, which I don’t want to do.

-Anything else, just ask.

-Be nice, have fun, and good luck.

Noah DiAntonio

Update as of February 2023

I would take everything below as useful but not perfect information, because as I get further from my time as a debater I can tell that my preferences are changing and my ability to judge super technically is decreasing (I am not a "lay" judge but I am also not actively thinking about debate as often as I used to.) I have also been judging at the rookie/novice/JV level lately, so these comments are especially tailored to debaters at those levels.

The feedback that I always give debaters is that no matter what argument you are running, what matters is that you tell a compelling story about your advocacy and what voting for you means. That entails characterizing what the world looks like now, and how it will change with the passage of the plan (or CP or alt). The key to doing this is 1) having overviews in all speeches starting with the 2AC which tell me your story, 2) extending your arguments in every speech, even the ones your opponents don't address (that isn't to say you can't kick arguments, you can, but arguments you are not kicking need to be explicitly extended), and 3) contextualizing your evidence in relation to this story you are telling me. Evidence is the content that fills out the story, but it isn't the story itself. It is how you bring all the evidence together and explain it in your own words that makes the story. It is also important that as you do this, you tell me, preferably very directly, to which arguments should lead me to vote for you and why.

I also strongly advise debaters to focus on direct clash with opposing arguments. The best debaters are able to respond to opposing arguments while also telling their own story (see above), but if you need to spend two minutes telling me your story and then three minutes just refuting your opponents arguments on a line-by-line basis, that's great too. But don't drop your opponents' arguments!

So, in short: Tell me why you should win and directly tell me that what your opponent said is wrong, and you are already most of the way there!

One other thing I have noticed and want to comment on. When doing impact calculus, it isn't just a time to say that your impact matters. It is really an opportunity for direct comparison between two impacts. Let's take the classic example of nuclear war vs. climate change. Both teams say they will lead to extinction. Here is what I, on the nuclear war side, might say:

• Probability and Magnitude: Climate change is slow and humanity has time to adapt. Nuclear war is immediate, and there's no adapting to a rapid-onset nuclear winter. Furthermore, nuclear winter makes the entire earth uninhabitable, while climate change will make some areas worse but others more habitable, and in those areas people will certainly survive. That means that the probability of nuclear war leading to a full human extinction is higher, and thus it is the higher magnitude impact as well.
• Timeframe and Reversibility: The impacts of climate change are potentially reversible due to scientific advances in the coming decades. Once a nuke is launched, there is no going back. Our impact happens first and makes solving climate change impossible. Vote to prevent a nuclear war now to allow humanity the chance to fix climate change.

Now, that is far from perfect, but I write that to demonstrate that real comparison between impacts is what impact calculus is all about. Do this well, and it will be very advantageous for you.

Update for NSDA Nats 2021

Haven't judged on this topic yet.

Open to all types of arguments. Strong warrants are key.

I prefer realistic link chains. The more ridiculous, the higher your threshold of explanation will be.

Also, on Kritiks, I didn't read them and am not as experienced with them, but I like them and I have a strong background in social theory (I studied it in college) especially Marxism, Feminism, and Foucualt. However, that means that I am going to want you to explain even MORE clearly because I will probably be better able to tell if you don't actually know what you're talking about.

And for answering a Kritik (on either side) I appreciate engagement with the substance of the K.

Paradigm as of Harvard 2020

tl;dr:

1) Don't go too fast.

2) Run anything, but explain it well.

3) I don't debate anymore or keep up with what is going on in debate. Do with that what you will.

Experience:

I did policy and extemp for four years on a local Missouri circuit. I competed at NSDA and NCFL nationals in policy. Now I debate Parli for Harvard. I have judged all types of debate as well as multiple events, but only on the local level.

Here are my preferences:

LD:

I debated LD for the first two years of high school, (once again, local level), but I am not up on the current trends in circuit LD. However, I do know the basics (speech times and order, the resolution, etc.).

However, I am essentially a policy debater.

Speed:

I (generally) did not spread when I debated in high school. I'm fine with you spreading in front of me, just realize that I am not as trained as some of your judges may be when it comes to flowing spreading. For my comprehension, I would recommend that you slow down and emphasize your most important warrants. Basically, if you want me to REALLY understand something, slow down a bit.

I also would prefer if you slow down for blippy arguments if you want me to be able to flow them.

I really don’t want to have to tell you to slow down, but I will yell “clear” or “slow” if I must.

Value/Value Criterion:

I believe that V/VC debates aren't really a thing anymore in circuit LD, but when I did LD I debated that way. I won't care if you have a value construct or not, but I do like those debates.

Philosophy:

I'm not knowledgeable about much philosophy, so make sure to just explain your warrants well if you are trying to get me to adopt a certain ethical framework. I won't need deep explanation for more basic things like util or rejecting oppression, but if you think the philosophy in your case wouldn't make sense to a lay-person, explain it well to me.

Update as of 2019: I’ve read a bit more philosophy now. I have a light understanding of the social contract theorists and a decent understanding of Marx.

Plans:

Plans are fine in LD. I even think PF should have plans to be honest.

Advantages/Disads:

I like them. I was mostly a ADV/DA debater when I did policy, so I will probably intuitively understand your ADV/DA. I will be happier voting for a DA if you do a lot of weighing against the aff impacts (and vice versa). I'm also partial to uniqueness take-outs and I love turns.

Also, I love movements disads. If you run one, you aren't guaranteed to win but you will make me smile.

Counterplans:

I didn't run too many, but I really like them. I will default to a counterplan being theoretically legit unless the aff says otherwise. I like when the 1NC counterplan shell includes a sentence or two about why they are competitive, but that isn't required, I will assume competition until the aff perms.

Speaking of perms, I am fairly liberal when it comes to what I allow. Simply telling me a perm is intrinsic/severance won't matter unless you develop that into a well-impacted theory argument. I also want the aff, when making a perm, to actually say what they mean by the perm. I can guess what "perm do both" means in the context of this aff and CP, but just spelling it out leaves no room for confusion.

Kritiks:

I was not a K debater. I am happy to see and vote for Ks, but just recognize that if you are running something more complex than cap, I'm going to need you to explain things in more detail. What I most want to see out of the neg if they are running a K is 1) strong anti-perm arguments and 2) really well-developed alt solvency. Those are the areas where I am usually most skeptical of Ks, and thus you're going to want to be strong on those fronts.

Also, the old “kick the alt and go for a non-uq DA” line is fine by me, but make sure the impact is worse than the status quo in this case.

Condo:

I think it is fine, though if you win the condo bad debate I will think condo is not fine for the purposes of the round. If you are really spreading out the aff, I will give them some leeway in the 2AR. I'm not going to vote for completely new 2AR arguments, but I'll probably accept some new explanation.

Aff condo is not okay (Kicking advantages is obviously fine, but kicking out of your advocacy is not, unless you have some REALLY compelling reason otherwise).

Topicality:

I like T a lot. I will be happiest if you don't just throw blippy arguments at me and instead invest some time into the standards debate. I also want you to impact your voters for me. Fairness and education (and your other voters) matter for a reason, I want to hear those reasons.

I'm not really into T being an RVI, but if you win that it is I'll vote on it.

Slow down for T.

Theory:

Apart from T, I liked Inherency and Solvency Advocate theory when I was a debater. I will pretty much listen to any theory if you warrant it well. See what I said on Topicality.

I'm not familiar with what theory is being run on the circuit, but I think theory debates are fun so if you just explain it well you should be fine.

Slow down for theory.

Other:

Being told how you want me to vote in your rebuttal will make it more likely that I will vote that way.

If you are rude, I will dock your speaker points.

If you are racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic/transphobic or anything else of that nature in round, I will dock your speaker points and you will lose the round. If it is incredibly egregious I may end the round, but please, how about no one makes this relevant.

Contact:

If you have questions, you can email me at noahdiantonio@college.harvard.edu.

I participated in Open division high school debate for 2 years and college debate for one semester. I am most familiar with policy debate. I have since been judging Policy Debate for the last 3 years. 

My judging style is could be described as Tabula Rasa, however on Kritique and Debate Theory arguments, I require that these be well developed, or they are easily defeated with Topicality and Fairness counter arguments.  If you do run a Kritik, I encourage you to know the philosophy to some depth.  There have been a number of rounds where I have had to begrudgingly vote for a K, even though it was clear that the team running it was not well versed in, say Nihilism.  As a Tabula Rasa judge, it is up to you to properly define the framework within which the round should be judged.

I prefer a few, well reasoned arguments that are carried, developed, and built upon throughout the round.  Most rounds typically come down to the rebuttals, where the debaters tell me the important issues, how, and why I should vote in their favor.  I like to have a clear, concise summary of the issues you believe are important, and where you stand.

Roadmaps and sign posts are a key component, and especially necessary if you spread.  Spreading should be done in a way that still conveys your arguments and logic. While communication skill is important, I will weigh issues more heavily in a decision. 

Add me to the email chain: katherineguo8@gmail.com

she/her/hers

Mission San Jose 2019, Wellesley College 2023. I study economics, with a focus on international political economy and health economics, and history, with a focus on imperial China. 

Lay/JV LD my freshman year and then circuit LD from sophomore year on. I broke at HW and Stanford my junior year, and while I did not debate extensively senior year, I broke at Stanford my senior year. I also did extemp and impromptu. I don't debate in college and haven't judged circuit LD since December 2019.  

Order of paradigms: LD, PF, CX

Conflicts: Mission San Jose High School, Golden State Academy, Dana Hall School

Update for CPS 2019: I haven't legitimately touched circuit LD since the middle of senior year, so please, please, please 1) don't hit me with 100% speed all at once 2) err on the side of overexplaining for anything not LARP-y 3) I'm not a morning person, so 8am rounds need to be super clear

LD Paradigm:

Shortcut:

LARP: 1

LARP-y K's :2

Phil/T/Theory: 2-3

High Theory and Performance K's: 4

Tricks: 5

Speed is kind of fine, start off slower so that I can get a sense of your tone. I haven't heard spreading since 2019. I will yell clear until I can understand you. I do not care if you sit or stand. I flow on paper.

I primarily debated LARP, theory, and phil. Was not a huge K debater, but being out of debate has given me a new appreciation for K lit so do what you will with that information.

LARP:

CP's must be competitive (either textually or functionally). Please have carded CP's. You don't have to have a solvency advocate, but I'd highly prefer if you have one; it's also probably better for you.

I'm ambivalent on one condo bad, but decidedly aff on 2+ condo bad. I lean neg on PIC's.

Unpopular opinion, but I love politics DA's, especially if you can make nuanced arguments about the current state of affairs.

K's:

I never read high theory K's in round but I generally enjoy learning about them and the lit. You'll have to explain these very well for me to vote for you. I'm also not your best judge for a performance v. performance debate, but I'll do my best.

It's a safe bet to assume I understand your standard LARP-y K's (cap, biopower, setcol, fem, etc).

If you have a shifty alt, such as a mindset shift alt, I will marginally lean aff on theory.

You need to be able to link to the aff in some way, shape, or form. The stronger the link, the more convinced I'll be.

Please make more perms than just the "perm double-bind" arg and be able to explain your perms.

For theory purposes, perms are tests of competition, not new ground.

T/Theory/Tricks:

I default competing interps, RVI's, drop the debater, and education, but I can definitely be persuaded the other way.

I think I Meets, especially semantic I Meets, are very under-used.

If you are the neg and you read T, please do not just skip the standards and go straight to the voters in the 2NR unless you are 100% convinced that you are winning the standards.

I have since forgotten the difference between a CI and an OCI. 

Not the best judge for tricks, but my team had some random things on the dropbox.

Do not make me flow theory blipstorms unless you're incredibly clear or have them in the text of the speech doc.

I find friv theory amusing, go for it if it's your thing, but that means you're going to have to go for a CI and I'm much more likely to grant your opp the RVI.

Philosophy:

I read this consistently through my junior year and senior year. My go to NC/NR strat was NC, CP or DA, DA, and I normally went for the NC in the 2NR. I definitely favored sentimentalism and contractualism but I read a decent portion of the lit. Kantian-derivatives and social contract theories are probably my preferred fields. Most of my cases were analytic heavy, so I'm fine with those.

You should be able to actually explain the normative ethic you're defending.

I default to epistemic modesty (bc that's the norm), but I regularly went for EC.

I read more ideal phil than non-ideal but I don't have a preference.

If you group arguments well when responding, I'll be much happier.

FWK (K vs. Theory vs. T vs. phil):

More ambivalent on K vs Theory, but will default to theory/T before K

Phil > K

T > theory

Misc.:

Don't be rude in CX; sass and snark is fine. Read a content warning at the beginning of your case if it's warranted -- if you feel uncomfortable in round because of what is being read, let me know in any way you feel comfortable. If you use Chicago citations, complete with proper footnotes, I'll give you an extra .2 speaks for kicks. Have proper citations regardless (MLA, etc) Please don't post-round me because I might cry -- RFDs already stress me out.

PF Paradigm:

I attend a school with a large PF presence, and I scouted outrounds for the PF team through sophomore year, so I have a pretty good sense of how it works. That being said, I am by no means well-versed in the nuances of PF. Speed is perfectly fine, but I will yell clear if I cannot understand what you are saying.

I am fine with theory in PF -- my high school PF teams read theory back in 2018.

If you want me to evaluate something in FF, you have to have at least brought it up in summary. Extensions need to have warrants; I don't need the full card explained again, but I need to know which card, what the card says, and why the card matters in the context of the full round. Please make your weighing very clear, especially as I'm less familiar with the way PF rounds tend to be evaluated in the end.

Please do not be overly aggressive in cross.

CX Paradigm:

All my defaults are the same as my LD paradigm. If there's something that specific to policy, you're going to have to explain it a little bit more. You're going to have to tell me if your opponent has dropped arguments/introduced new args when not allowed because I'm not as familiar with CX evidence rules. I don't think RVIs exist in policy.

Hello, I'm Julie and I've judged Policy, Congress, PF, Speech etc. at the TOC, national qualifiers and at the Massachusetts state and local level for a decade.

Policy: If you are amazing at spreading, I have a hard time understanding at the highest velocity, so try to remember to slow it down. I'm willing to have a debater persuade me of a technical violation, but it's not of default focus for me, so articulate it clearly.

Congress: I highly value mutual respect for one another in my chambers, so please be persuasive while also being respectful. Argue the issues, not the people. I immensely dislike rudeness as I think it's a malady of the times.

Thanks,

About me:

I did PF from 2013 to 2017 at Walt Whitman High School in Maryland. I coached/ judged frequently as a first year out, although I've been semi-retired from high school debate since 2018. Currently, I'm a student at Brandeis University in Massachusetts, where I'm majoring in economics and history. I regularly compete in APDA and BP style parliamentary debate. I use he/ they pronouns.

Major preferences:

Unless you want me to intervene, you have to weigh competing impacts as well as links into the same impact. Weighing should be comparative (X outweighs Y because) or superlative (X comes before everything else because). Comparative weighing tends to be more persuasive than superlative because it actually accounts for the quality of your opponents' arguments instead of precluding them on face. That being said, I'll vote for any weighing as long as it's done correctly.

I touched at this in the last paragraph, but to reiterate: you must weigh your link(s) against your opponents' link(s) when you're both trying to access the same impact. In all the rounds I've judged, failure to weigh links is easily the most common mistake that costs debaters the round. (This is especially true for higher-level rounds.)

Don't wait until second final focus to weigh, doing so deliberately avoids clash and makes it nearly impossible for the first speaking team to win on weighing. I will reluctantly evaluate new weighing in second final focus if it's the only substantive weighing in the round, or if it's the only way to resolve clash over existing weighing.

As you may have noticed, the past three paragraphs have all been about weighing. That's because weighing is important. A lot of successful debaters have a habit of telling teams they judges to "weigh more" or "weigh better" without explaining how, and I despise this. If you want to improve your weighing but you're not sure how, find me after the round and we can talk.

Second rebuttal doesn't need to address defense, but they must cover offense and/or theory arguments introduced by the first rebuttal. Weighing from first rebuttal should probably be addressed, but I'm fine with you waiting until summary. Dropped defense must be present in final focus for me to evaluate it, but I don't need it in first summary (first summary still needs to extend/ rebuild defense if it was responded to in second rebuttal, otherwise I won't buy them in final focus.)

Offensive overviews, new "advantages" or "disads", and "turns" that are really just blippy new arguments with the same terminal impact as your opponents are fair game in first rebuttal, but not in second. Actual turns on their arguments are fine in second rebuttal.

As long as they're properly warranted, I usually don't care if arguments are carded. (Arguments predicated on empirical/ fact claims are the exception to this.) Evidence comparison is not as compelling as argument comparison, but I'll vote on it if you tell me to. In rounds where teams should have compared warrants but didn't, I often intervene on evidence. Your opponents get free prep time while you're searching for evidence; this is a good norm because it encourages teams to have evidence readily available

Theory is fine in the case of egregious abuse by your opponents. If you read theory and I think it's frivolous, I probably won't drop you but I will tank your speaks. I default to reasonability because this is PF and your opponents probably don't know what a counterinterp is. Theory must be introduced immediately after the violation has occurred if you want me to evaluate it. Cross (or questioning during prep) checks. Feel free to ask me how I feel about specific theory arguments before the round.

Plans and CPs are fine as long as the resolution actually proposes an action. You don't need to prove your advocacy is probable unless your opponents make an argument saying otherwise. If you read a specific plan/ CP that's very unpredictable and probably abusive, I'll heavily err towards your opponents if they contest it. (So don't be afraid to call your opponents out!)

Kritikal arguments are fine if you actually know how to make/ implicate them. I'm probably most conducive to cap, security, or orientalism (especially on the BRI topic). Read dense continental philosophy or postmodern arguments at your own risk.

Try not to speak above 215 words per minute. My upper limit is probably around 230 WPM, so go fast at your own risk.

Don't be mean. Stop making dramatic faces at your opponents' arguments, they're not going to persuade me. Avoid repeatedly cutting your opponents off in crossfire. Don't be blatantly dismissive or hostile towards your opponents' arguments when you respond to them (this is mostly directed at you, male debaters with non-male opponents).

Minor preferences (there aren't round-deciding, but please show some competency and do what I say):

Flip for sides and preflow as early as you can. (This especially goes for you, second flight.)

Please don't give me a full-on roadmap unless you're doing something really unusual. (I've judged enough rounds to know that you're going down their case and back to your own if time permits.)

Please don't try to shake my hand after the round.

I don't care if you sit or stand, so please don't ask me.

I don't care if a coach, teammate, or family member observes the round, so please don't ask me.

tl;dr yeah, you can go fast

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain: jrmartin707@gmail.com

--

Debated in college for UC Berkeley, have coached high school and college teams at local and TOC levels, etc. Doing a bit of occasional coaching and judging now but I'm not plugged into the circuit hardcore; you should assume I'm familiar with everything argumentatively/stylistically and very little on the topic. Generally, same stuff everyone says: debate like you want to debate, explain things and impact them, tell me why you winning or losing an argument does or does not influence my decision, and have fun. Otherwise, here’s some things you probably want to know:

- My own argumentative evolution has been from a pretty exclusively K debater early on to almost all policy work by the end, though I've coached all kinds. For what it’s worth, if you need an easy way to rank me, I lean more and more towards enjoying straight-up policy debates the more I judge. It's tough to disentangle "what are you a good judge for" and "what are you gonna have more fun watching" sometimes, even though they're definitely different, so I'm just gonna be honest and say that if you have no good reason to pick the K or the DA or which of your affs you're gonna read, might as well read the policy one. My favorite debates to judge are: huge in-depth case throwdowns, techy aff-specific counterplan debates, K on K clashes that are grounded in true disputes in the literature, impact turn debates (on the case or against a DA/K), and well-executed topicality debates.

- I do fundamentally believe that framework is true and debate would be better if people read plans, not that that means I exclusively vote negative in those debates. Predictability and debatability sound like pretty important things to me, and I think most aff framework counter-interps do not develop a feasible role for the negative and what neg prep should look like in their version of debate, but that doesn't mean any given neg team executes properly. I think like most everyone I’d rather here some clever unique strategy, but I dislike the dichotomy that framework isn’t a “substantive” argument and that the negative “didn’t engage the aff” by reading it. It's a good argument. The best aff answers lay out really clear alternatives for what debate should look like and impact turn all the skills that policy-focused debate generates.

- I’m generally unpersuaded by arguments along the lines of “the permutation/framework/etc. is violence/stealing our advocacy/etc.”, arguments that the negative doesn’t have to disprove the affirmative, purely nihilistic alternatives, and K speeches that consist entirely of buzzwords where you expect me to fill in what I already know about your concepts. I’m not afraid to give decisions which consist mostly of “I have no idea what you were talking about most of the time” if you just repeated the words “rhizome” or “foundational antagonism” at me, even if I know what you were trying to mean. Additionally, I'm super not down with arguments that are about things outside of the debate, like "show us your prefs" style stuff. I think the other team needs like a ten second defense of "you can only critique stuff we actually said" and I'm checked out.

- I have relatively few strong predispositions about common theory arguments; conditionality is probably fine but not necessarily, etc. I'll be extremely flow-centric here: I have absolutely voted for really bad theory args that got dropped, and also refused to vote for dropped ones when they were never a full argument with an impact in the first place.

- Evidence comparison, and calling out your opponent’s terrible, terrible evidence for what it is, is both extremely important and probably the best way to rack up your speaker points, alongside detailed impact calculus. The best ways to hurt your speaker points are to be a jerk to your partner, to get angry for no reason in cross-ex, and to spend your whole speech behind your laptop not paying any attention to the judge's reactions. Try to be a kind person who knows their stuff and the rest will follow.

- Because so many debates start with the question, "Can we do open CX?", the answer is always the same: you can, technically, there's no rule against it. But I would really recommend you don't - it's always better to get practice handling your CXs alone, going to your partner only as a last resort. It's important that they have the time to prep their next speech (that's three full minutes of free prep time!) and it's also much better for both of your speaker points if you each look organized and have mastery of your material.

rnix@bostondebate.org

Policy Debate Coach for 3 years at Edward M Kennedy (MA), now working for the Boston Debate League. I'm familiar with the resolution and most of the common policy Affs this year. I'm familiar with the more common K and Theory arguments, but if you're running a theory-heavy kritikal aff, do a little bit extra to make sure I understand your argument. I believe my role as the judge is to help both teams improve their arguments and learn from the round.

I go blank slate as best as possible, but I will vote down offensive arguments, and I will explain myself fully in my feedback if that is the reason why I voted you down. I will vote on anything, including K, T, Theory, FW.

Please extend your positions throughout the debate, if you drop an entire position in a speech, even if you bring it back later, I will vote on fairness/violation issues (but only if the other team actually explains the nature of the violation and why I should care that there was a violation in the round, I will do my best not to intervene). Violations won't lose you the debate, but they may cause me not to consider some of your arguments.

I will only ask to see evidence if there has been a direct challenge by the opposing team to it's content or validity.

Impact analysis is the debate round. Convince me why your impacts within your framework are best and why you best achieve your framework and you'll win the round. If one side drops framework, I will assume whatever framework the other team gives me. You need to do the work to weigh the most important arguments at the end of the round. It's safe to assume that if an argument was run and extended throughout the debate that I will at least minimally weigh it in my decision calc, so ultimately you need to explain to me why the summation of your impacts outweighs those of the other team.

I'm pretty good with speed, but volume is important, as long as you're loud enough we'll be all set. There is something to be said for emphasizing your most important points by extending them throughout the round and changing your tone when you present them. Otherwise I will assume everything you're saying has equal weight, which may not benefit you in the round.

Organization is important. Tell me which flow you're on and tell me when you move to something new. If you're giving a line-by-line, let me know, otherwise I'm going to flow everything straight down as an over/underview. I won't do the work for you on the flow.

1. I am a student at Tufts University and I did Public Forum Debate for 5 years on the national circuit. I have judged and coached before. So yes, I know what I’m doing

2. No spreading.

3. I am a Tech over truth/tabula rusa judge, but within reasonable parameters (ex, if you tell me that gravity has been suspended on earth and we are being hunted by Demogorgons, I will not believe you)

4. While I love a sassy debate, respect for your opponents comes first

5. Any form of blatant bigotry (racism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc) will result in an automatic loss

6. Please don't be an asshole

Now for some technical things:

1. IMPACT CALCULUS (weighing) please and thank you

2. If you want to have a progressive debate round (theory, kritiks), I’m fine with it ONLY if you and your opponents are on the same page AND you feel comfortable running the argument. If you don’t know what I am talking about, don’t worry about it.

3. I may not be a lay judge, but I am a lazy judge. That means: I don’t extend through ink, I don’t flow cross, and I wan't analyze and weigh your points for you. Also, if you think something is wrong with your opponent’s evidence, it is your job to call them out for it

4. Yes you should extend defense in summary

5. Did I mention that weighing your impacts is really important?

Bonus: If you can reference a meme during the round in a non-disruptive way, I will give you extra speaker points

If y’all have any questions please ask me before the round. Good luck, I am so excited hear you debate!

I debated in high school (policy) and college (policy but mostly parliamentary) and have been judging off and on for nearly 10 years.

I try to be as much of a blank slate as I can and am open to hearing any argument that you wish to make. But I expect debaters to be respectful to the other team and the audience. Convince me why your framework is best and why you best achieve your framework and you'll win the round. If one side drops framework, I will assume whatever framework the other team gives me.

Please extend your positions throughout the debate. If you drop an entire position in a speech, even if you bring it back later, I will vote on fairness/violation issues (but only if the other team actually explains the nature of the violation and why I should care that there was a violation in the round).

I will only ask to see evidence if there has been a direct challenge by the opposing team to its content or validity. In general, I try to avoid this if it all possible.

I'm okay with speed but am not as fast as I used to be. I ask that you be clear and I won't punish you if I have to ask you to be slower mid-speech. I also only judge a couple tournaments each year and therefore have limited topic knowledge.

Hello! I’m Angelina and I did CX for Dulles (in Texas) from 2014-2018

Yes, please add me to the email chain if there is one, but I don't need you to flash your args to me: ajzhang254@gmail.com

2019-2020 Debate Season

(CX)

I did CX all four years in high school, but no longer debate in college. I judge sporadically throughout the year. This means that I am well versed in the structure and general arguments in policy, but am unfamiliar with topic nuances. This affects 1. Your aff - please have a coherent aff story and your framework (ie how should I evaluate your impacts). 2. Topicality - as this is a technical debate about the topic, please be clear in the interpretation, violation, and voters. It will probably serve you well to slow down on these debates in general. 3. DAs and CPs - please explain the competitiveness of your CP text and for DAs, please be explicit about your link story. 4. K links - again, contextualize to the topic. Note, these things are probably important regardless of whether or not I'm familiar with the topic or not.

Overall, do whatever you’re good at. As long as you explain and warrant out your args and have a reason for why it matters in relation to your opponents (IE clash) then there shouldn’t be a problem. Please, please do weighing. It makes it much easier to evaluate and keeps judge intervention to a minimum.

For specifics,

General Logistics

1. Speed is fine, but keep in mind I don’t do debate anymore in college, so maybe aim for 70% of your full speed. Please differentiate your tags from the card text. I will say clear as many times as I need if you actually slow down. Otherwise, I'll stop if the speed doesn't change. Anything I don’t catch won’t make it onto the flow.

2. Prep ends when your flash drive leaves the computer or when the email is sent out. Please don’t steal prep.

3. Flex prep is fine as long as both debaters agree to.

4. I don’t care where you sit, and I don’t care if you stand or sit. Whatever makes you comfortable/perform the best is encouraged.

Argument Things

1. Tech over Truth

- this does not apply racists/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/etc arguments/statements. If that is your intent, I will drop the debater.

2. LARP is fine. I like a good DA/CP/Case debate.

3. Ks are fine

- K affs (I did this most of my junior and senior year). I’ve been on both sides of the T-FW vs K aff debate. It would be nice if the aff related to the topic whatever that means to you, but it doesn’t have to be (but you have to justify why it isn’t otherwise theory becomes pretty convincing). For T-FW, do impact weighing and contextualize it.

- Ks are fine but please explain and apply. Don’t assume I know your K (because honestly, I probably won't to the extent you think/want me to). Buzzwords and jargon don’t make me happy. I need to understand your K in order to vote on it. Please have an explanation for how your alt functions if it's relevant, and why your ROB matters in comparison to your opponent's. Perms should have a perm text or at minimum, an explanation on the mechanism.

3. Topicality/Theory is okay

- Please slow down on these debates. They usually become blippy and hard to catch. If you’re collapsing to it please have an explanation of what is needed to vote for you.

- Topicality should have carded definitions. You should also have internal links to your voters and reasons why your standards matter in this round

- Theory is fine, but I also didn’t really go for theory much so if you’re collapsing to theory please flush it out for me. Weigh your argument

- I did policy, RVIs weren’t a thing

(LD)

I debated maybe a total of 10 rounds of LD my entire career (mostly my senior year) so most of my LD experience is second hand based on conversations with members of my team. That being said, I did do CX debate for four years and did both K and policy styles so take what you will from that. Overall, do what you're good at and I'll do my best to follow.

Argument Things Specific to LD

1. NC FW – I don’t have much experience with this debate, so I might not be the best judge for you. In my head, I see it sort of like a ROJ/ROB in K debate and I’ll view the FW that outwieghts to filter your impacts unless told otherwise

2. Other LD Stuff – I don’t know how a Spike or NIB functions. If this is your strat, please explain the mechanisms or I’m probably not the best judge for you.

Final Thoughts

Don’t be a jerk. I think debate should strive to be as inclusive as possible. If it means slowing down or explaining your args in CX for a novice or inexperienced debater, please do so. I don't necessitate a trigger warning unless your aff includes graphic descriptions or invokes potentially triggering situations (if you think your aff needs one, then it probably does), but I will evaluate arguments for why a trigger warning is necessary even if your aff doesn't meet the above criteria.

If you have any questions, feel free to email me or ask before round.

Have Fun!