Hi, I'm Gio, a senior at Duke University. I debated in LD for Harrison HS, got 13 career bids (3 bids my junior year and 10 my senior year) & won 5 bid tournaments (including the Glenbrooks). I mainly read Ks, but you should read arguments you're good at. Don't read a K if you don't know how to defend it.

Add me to the email chain: giovannicutri7@gmail.com

Obvi, don't say anything racist, sexist or homophobic, etc. Also, don't spread against novices; you should be good enough to win on the flow without doing that.

I don't like tricks and most likely won't evaluate them.

Don't be late to round. Your speaks will be lowered if you are. Clear spreading and clever strategies are key for high speaks.

fjmakler@gmail.com

pomo/phil/tricks - 1/2

theory/k - 2/3

larp - 4

i like to think i evaluate rounds pretty technically. read whatever you want but i was mostly into poststructuralist/pomo stuff, existentialism, kant, tricks, etc. im most familiar with deleuze, baudrillard, nietzsche, and the like but that said ur gonna have to explain your arguments no matter what. i'll evaluate any argument that i understand unless theres a reason i can't.

please make it interesting thats my only request, obviously i'll judge every round to the best of my ability but i would much rather judge an interesting round and hear cool arguments. that usually doesn't mean "meme" arguments, but if you're good enough to win with a meme arg then by all means go for it.

I am a senior at Harrison High School with 1 year of debate experience, and 2 years of judging experience. I debated Junior Year. I will be attending Wesleyan University in the fall.

Spreading: If you're going to spread, please tell me prior to the round so we can start an email chain.

My email: irajd@harrisoncsd.org

Speaking Points: I will award high speaker points for speakers who do the following:

-Speak clearly and effectively

-Speak with inflection and tone (avoid monotone speeches)

-Be clear and to the point

I will decrease speaking points for speakers who:

-Use profanity

-Sit during speeches and cross-ex (unless you're physically unable to)

-Are late

-Yell (it's not necessary)

-Are disrespectful to their opponent or myself

-Are overly aggressive in Cross-Ex

-Bang their hands, slam the table, stomp their feet (it's really not necessary)

-Steal prep time

*Please avoid definition debate unless it is relevant. (Webster vs. Dictionary.com definition debate is not necessary and a complete waste of time)

Practices that I like:

-Extend all your cards, arguments and turn.

-If your opponent concedes an argument or doesn't respond to one of your arguments, say so.

-Give voting issues at the end of your speech- tell me why I should vote for you

-Don't make turns (etc) on arguments and not explain them

Framework: Explain why you're argument link back to your framework, and oppose your opponents

-Respond to framework debate. The framework is a huge component of your case, and I will often vote on who links back to the framework the best.

-If you agree with your opponents framework, explain why your arguments link better to that framework.

Theory:

-Novices: I prefer that you don't read theory. If you do, I probably won't consider it in the round.

-Varsity: please don't read abusive theory. I will intervene clearly irrelevant theory.

Tricks:

Just don't. I won't evaluate and probably won't listen.

Shortcut: Identity/Materialism Ks > T > Larp > Ethical frameworks or High theory Ks> Theory > Dense tricks

Please time/record yourselves and each other

Email: Sklein.debate@gmail.com

Hunter '20

I did four years of LD and qualified to the TOC twice. I taught at NSD Flagship '20, NSD Philly '20, and TDC '20. I have not judged since Yale 2021. This is my wiki from senior year.

I will evaluate any argument in the round and try to refrain from inserting my opinions as long as arguments a) have a warrant that I can explain in my decision and b) are not clearly offensive. I will not understand your position (especially philosophical/high theory ones) as well as you do. If you are reading a non-T aff or high theory K, explain what the aff/alt/method does. If an argument is important, let me know: have explicit weighing, spend time on the argument, or even tell me to highlight it on excel.

Additional preferences: https://linktr.ee/sklein.debate

PF: I am looking for the most persuasive debater given the arguments on the flow. I taught PF for four weeks at the NYCUDL and am familiar with the format, but have no background on the current topic. I am fine with speed (I neither expect nor prefer it) but would like to have the speech doc if you spread.

Hi! I'm Sonali (she/they)

Harrison High School '21, Cornell University Dec '24

For speech docs: harrison.debate.team@gmail.com

tl;dr pref me high if you read Ks/performance/trad and strike me if your strat is tricks

Newark 25 note: I think I have started to care less and less about what people read in front of me. What I want is clarity. I don't care that I read Tuck & Yang a million times in high school, I want you to explain it to me like I am 5. This is especially true for positions I never read. If you insist on reading phil (for example! this applies to literally every other form of debate tho) in front of me, I want a definition of every word that is not in the common lexicon.

Stanford 25 note: pleeeeeeeease slow your roll for online debate :( I can't vote for arguments I didn't hear/didn't know where you put them on the flow and that sucks for everyone involved. ALSO please signpost and make it clear where on the flow you are. It's especially hard to keep up with rounds with a lot of layers via online debate. Make it clear which argument you are responding to, otherwise I'll prob miss it. (Harvard 25 addendum: yeah this all applies to in person debate too. I'm slow, go max 70% of your top speed in person)

Accommodations & Accessibility

Please tell me & your opponent any accommodations you may need before the round. Content warnings are good.

Also just in general, the nicer and more accommodating you are, the better speaks you'll get. That doesn't mean let your opponent walk all over you, but it does mean try to genuinely answer their questions & be kind. I love sass but there is a difference between being sassy and being mean :/

It is always in your best interest to send pre-written analytics. This is a good practice that I reward with better speaks. I can't vote on something if I don't have it flowed and sending analytics in your speech doc is a great way to make sure I have it flowed.

I always want a marked doc.

Speaks

I control what speaks you get so I'm not listening to "give me a 30." Feel free to read it but don't be surprised when you get a 26 :( Also judges who say "bring me a coffee for +0.2 speaks" are weird and predatory. Debaters are kids, get your own coffee.

I don't disclose speaker points.

General Notes

I graduated 4 years ago and don't coach so tournaments are my only exposure to the topic (read: idk nuances of the topic). I'm fine with speed as long as you're clear (I will slow & clear you as much as I need - I have a processing disorder)

Stolen from Rebecca Anderson's paradigm: "please stop spreading against lay opponents. It does not make me want to vote for you. probably a low-point win at best so it is not in your best interest" --> if you can't beat a lay opponent without spreading, you probably don't deserve the win

Stuff about me that influences me as a judge

- I read mostly (read: pretty much only) Ks and performance in high school so that's what I'm familiar with (Ks meaning setcol, antiblackness, fem, etc.)

- I don't care if you're topical or not

- I'm not good at flowing theory and I only really want to see it if there is actual abuse happening. I am very sympathetic to gut checking frivolous theory, especially when it's against a K/K aff.

- I love trad debate! This is my second favorite type of debate after K/Performance.

- larp is fine

- Phil: If I didn't learn anything about phil & high theory from four years of debate I promise you I will not learn about it from a 40-minute round. would not recommend reading phil & high theory in front of me (I'm including psychoanalysis in this or anything dense that requires me to have previous knowledge in a lit base)

- I'm like 70% truth 30% tech (truth > tech)

- The burden of proof is on you to explain your theory to me. I'm not going to do research to understand you.

- By the end of the round, I need to be able to explain whatever it is I am voting for. If I can't do that, I'm not voting for you. I feel like there has been a trend in debate towards being hypertechnical, but at risk of sounding like a lay judge, it makes you lose sight of the big picture and what it exactly is you're telling me to vote for

- pretty please don't read more than 3 offs in front of me :) it is so so so confusing

- don't read tricks & frivolous theory in front of me xoxo

- Disclosure is prob good unless you have a good reason to not disclose. Using the wiki is good unless you have a good reason not to use the wiki

- --> I will vote on disclosure theory (prefer it read as a K but I'll vote on it in theory form)

- BUT you don't need to disclose new affs/new advocacy texts

In conclusion pref me high if you read Ks/performance/trad and strike me if your strat is theory & tricks (Harvard 25: also phil! probably should strike me if you want to read phil)

Want more info? Here's a much longer paradigm that I used to have up but then deleted because no one was reading it! Now I'm putting it back because why not!

Framework

I love framework (not t-framework)! I think it is genuinely the most important part of any round. I have seen so many rounds where only one person reads a framework, the other person reads offense that doesn't link, and the person who read framework spends too much time answering the offense. Use your framework to exclude the other person's offense! That's what it's there for!

ROB/ROJ of "vote for the better debater" is silly. It is a waste of time to read that in front of me. If you do, I determine who the better debater is via who links to the more specific ROB (ex: aff reads a ROB of combatting antiblackness. neg reads better debater. I determine who the better debater is via who has the best method of combatting antiblackness). Furthermore, the "anything else is arbitrary" applies to "vote for the better debater as well" - as a judge I can arbitrarily/subjectively decide you're the worse debater and drop you. Don't read this in front of me if you want good speaks.

I don't like util and I think it's racist. But if those args aren't made in round, I will use util if both debaters tell me to, but your speaks will not be happy.

Theory

Everything I said earlier in this paradigm is still true, but here are some more specifics.

I don't think fairness exists. Debate is inherently an unfair activity that prioritizes whiteness and maleness and many other normative identities. Fairness is not the voter you should go for in front of me, I will rarely vote on it. Education is the much better choice, accessibility is even better.

Debate is not a game. It has real impacts on people.

If you are reading T I need a TVA

I don't think tabroom checks violence in round

Ks

I love Ks. I am familiar with fem, setcol, and antiblackness. That being said, I am not doing work for you just because I read from a certain lit base when I did debate.

Do not read afropess in front of me if you are not black! I am more than happy to give you an L20

I do not understand psychoanalysis so if you want to read it in front of me, it is best to not spread through it and clearly explain what exactly it is you are arguing. I have sat through many psychoanalysis lectures at debate camp and have taken a course in it in college and I still really do not get it lol

Links of omission are not links

Phil

Again, I have sat through many phil lectures for many different philosophers at debate camp and don't get it. Probably not the move in front of me unless you are willing to not spread and explain everything like I am 5 years old :)

Conclusion

At the end of the day you should read what you want (as long as it is not discriminatory). However, if you read something that I have outlined as confusing to me in this paradigm, I need you to go much slower and explain what exactly it is I am voting for. 9/10 times I will vote for the person with the most coherent ballot story. Have fun & stay safe!

I did speech and debate in high school, 3 years of LD and 1 year in PF. I'm alright with any kind of argument you want to read (theory, k's, etc) just explain what you're reading well and make sure you can communicate your advocacy. I'm also okay with speed, but if you are planning on speaking really fast, please email me your case. My email address is msavransky01@gmail.com.

I'm a flow judge and prefer tech > truth but your arguments obviously still have to be true for me to vote for them.

How To Win My Ballot

Arguments should be extended in the summary and final focus speeches, if an argument is brought up in the 2nd rebuttal and final focus but not the summary, I won't vote on it.

Weigh your arguments against those of your opponents, that's one of the most important things for me in the round! In your speeches, you should be explaining why voting for your side has a bigger impact than that of your opponents using different criteria like magnitude, scope, timeframe, probability, and reversibility. This is especially important in your final focus and summary speeches.

Your final two speeches should look somewhat like my ballot, explain the main arguments that the round comes down to and why they should be the key voting points. Say why those arguments flow your away and weigh them against the arguments your opponents.

Don't go for too many arguments in the final speeches, you shouldn't be talking about everything discussed in the debate, only the most important things. Otherwise, the debate tends to get messy as there ends up being a lot of extended arguments that have little interaction with each other.

Cards should be explained through out every speech, when you extend a card, you should not only be saying the name of the author but also the warrant of the card and the implication of it. Also, you should be weighing your cards against those read by your opponents i.e say why your evidence is better quality, why there is more of it, and so forth. When two teams have competing cards, this is what helps me decide which one to believe and side with.

All I'm all, just extend your arguments and cards in every speech, weigh the most important arguments against each other in the final speeches and you'll definitely win the round/get great speaks.

Thanks for reading and I look forward to judging you !

I'm a parent judge, but have been in the circuit for a while.

Please add me to the email chain: betsy.wangensteen@gmail.com.

Prefs shortcut:

Traditional: It would be in your best interest to run your lay case.

Cps/plans. Simple advocacies and policy like args are good if explained slowly and clearly.

Ks are fine as long as they are topical and you don't spread. Not preferred though.

Phil: I'm familiar with common philosophers, and phil cases, if cogent, are OK.

Anything non topical: strike. I will not vote on non topical args. Sorry.

I appreciate clear voters in the final speech.

Generally I try to vote tech>truth, but sometimes I will pick up persuasive speeches and logic. Please don't read disclosure theory. Be polite in cross. Don't be too aggressive, it's a competitive activity but we're all here to have fun and learn.

I am generally not stingy with speaks, if you're kind to your opponent and present yourself well it will be reflected in your speaks.

Good luck!

Updates for Kentucky:

I have never used this online system so forgive me if I don't know what's going on with the technology.

If there's something wrong in terms of technology I'll be very lenient so don't worry about that.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If I'm judging you in LD, sorry in advance, I'm a PFer. With that being said, I just want to be entertained, so if you have the most fun running K's, theory, or tricks do so, I'll vote off anything if it's explained properly. If you take "I'll vote off anything" as me being clueless, you're probably right. Otherwise, I have nothing else to say to you but to have a good and clean debate.

Now into PF land (I'm a first-year out, 1 year of policy and 3 of PF in high school):

The crux of what I said above still holds true; I want to have fun and I want you to have fun too.

Some overarching things

- Please time everything yourself, I'll try to time everything, but sometimes I forget to press the button and am pretty lackadaisical on that front as a whole

- Don't speak to your partner during their speech or crossfire. They already have so much going on, another voice is just distracting and tends to produce worse results. Even if they're forgetting something important, I think it's better to let your partner be self-sufficient so they can learn for later debates.

- While eye contact is nice, don't bore holes into my skull. I'm probably too busy flowing or writing comments to notice anyways

Onto more speech by speech things

CASE:

- Clear link stories and quantified impacts make me a happy camper.

- I enjoy unique arguments, but I know that it's harder writing up really obscure cases, so don't worry about running stock arguments.

- Speak clearly. I can handle any speed below legitimate spreading so don't worry too much about that. If I can't understand you, I'll audibly say something once. If you don't heed that, then it's on you.

Rebuttal:

-SIGNPOST! I can generally figure out where you are when you speak, but I don't want to have to do that work.

- As much as I find card dumping hilarious, I don't think it's particularly effective so please don't just string off a hundred cards in a row.

- I like there to be some weighing in Rebuttal, even if it is just 15 seconds at the end of the speech.

- Rebuttal is for Rebutting. If you are just reiterating your case for no purpose other than reiterating your case, kudos to you for using your time, but it's really not necessary. This is not to say don't defend your case in the second rebuttal, but if you're not actually engaging in with the arguments your opponents have put down I don't know what you're doing.

Summary:

- Some people like to treat this as a second rebuttal, but it really should be boiling down the round to a few key issues.

- EXTEND YOUR OFFENSE! I don't know how you plan to win a round without offense, but if it's not mentioned in summary, I'm not letting it through to Final Focus.

- Don't give me a one-off sentence with just a claim. Try to do some explanation behind the argument.

- WEIGH! Just do it.

Final Focus:

- OFFENSE! Tell me why you are winning the round. Make it easy for me to write the RFD in your favor.

- WEIGH!

Some other things:

(Copied from Aadharsh Pannirselvam)

In general, don't lose sight of the fact that debate is a game, and that novice year(s) are supposed to be about learning first, fun second, and W's third.

(Now my own words)

I love humor. Debate is stuffy enough as it is, making me laugh will reflect well on your speaker points. I love meme cases, but if you want to run one, make sure your opponents are on board, debate is still supposed to be an educational activity and I don't want to see one team being deprived of that educational experience.

I'm known to inflate speaker points. If you got below a 28.5 then something really didn't go well.

If you want to run policy-esque K's or other unorthodox arguments, then I'm probably your best judge to do that on. However, if you are running theory or a K, then again, I would want you to at least warn your opponents as to what you are planning to do. I will legitimately vote off of anything, but that being said, you need to clearly explain things no matter what argument you try to extend.

Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth

^Make of this what you will

Bonus speaks for accurate and sensical application of chi-squared analysis.

If both teams want me to simulate a non-flow judge for whatever reason I can do that.

I plead the fifth

conwayxu93@gmail.com