Most important thing first: He who wins the framework, wins the round. He who wins the framework wins the round. He who wins the framework, wins the round. Ok? Yes, you can argue against the contrary if you want.

No spreading. I will put my pen down and stop listening. I feel no ethical or professional obligation to strain myself to understand someone trying so little to be understood.

Philosophy and framework debate matter before all. I have a masters in philosophy. Impact doesn't really matter, if philosophically you can't prove that the impact would be a good thing.

I pay attention during cross examination. Concessions made there are binding.

I've done this for some time, but I am traditional and have no patience for progressive LD tricks designed to avoid a debate. This doesn't mean no critique, but it does mean that your critique had better demonstrate deep understanding of the deeper philosophic issues at play or I'll just dismiss it as sophistry. Theory? Again, fine if you really demonstrate a deep understanding of the philosophy. I feel likewise about cleverly redefining words in the resolution. I'm fine with a fine-tuned definition of words and their meanings but you had better have a really good reason for redefining a word away from its commonsense, everyday use. Again, you could have that reason.

While I'm not a lay judge, if a lay judge couldn't understand you, we have problems. It's up to you to be clear, not up to me to demonstrate I can listen. The real Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas debated before farmers with less than an eight grade education in Freeport and Peoria IL. Let them be your guides.

I competed in Lincoln-Douglas for three years in high school, and Public Forum for one. I've been coaching and judging LD and PF since then.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Disclosure

I don't want to be on the email chain/speech drop/whatever. Debate is a speaking activity, not an essay writing contest. I will judge what you say, not what's written in your case. The only exception is if there is an in-round dispute over what was actually said in a case/card.

Timing

You are welcome to time yourself but I will be timing you as well. Once my timer starts, it will not stop until the time for a given speech has elapsed. You may do whatever you like with that time, but I will not pause the round for tech issues. Tech issues happen and you need to be prepared for them.

Speed

I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Flex Prep

No. There is designated CX time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep, but not clarification.

LARP - Please don't. Discussion of policy implications is necessary for some topics, but if your case is 15 seconds of "util is truetil" and 5:45 of a hyperspecific plan with a chain of 5 vague links ending in two different extinction impacts, I'm not going to be a fan. Realistically speaking, your links are speculative, your impacts won't happen, and despite debaters telling me that extinction is inevitable for 15+ years, it still hasn't happened. Please debate the topic rather than making up your own (unless you warrant why you can do that, in which case, see pre-fiat kritiks). If there is no action in the resolution, you can't run a plan. If there is no actor, don't a-spec. If you want to debate policy, do policy debate.

Evidence Ethics

I will intervene on evidence ethics if I determine that a card is cut in such a way as to contradict or blatantly misrepresent what an author says, even if not argument is made about this in the round. I have no patience for debaters who lie about evidence. Good evidence is not hard to find, there's no need to make it up and doing so simply makes debate worse for everyone.

Arguments

Role of the Ballot: A role of the ballot argument will only influence how I vote on pre-fiat, not post-fiat argumentation. It is not, therefore, a replacement for a framework, unless your entire case is pre-fiat, in which case see "pre-fiat kritiks". A role of the ballot must have a warrant. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression" is a statement not an argument. You will need to explain why that is the role of the ballot and why it is preferable to "better debater". Please make the warrant specific to debate. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression because oppression is bad" doesn't tell me why it is specifically the role of this ballot to fight oppression. I have a low threshold for voting against roles of the ballot with no warrants. I will default to a "better debater" role of the ballot.

Theory: Please reserve theory for genuinely abusive arguments or positions which leave one side no ground. I am willing to vote on RVIs if they are made, but I will not vote on theory unless it is specifically impacted to "Vote against my opponent for this violation". I will always use a reasonability standard. Running theory is asking me as the judge in intervene in the round, and I will only do so if I deem it appropriate.

Pre-fiat Kritiks: I am very slow to pull the trigger on most pre-fiat Ks. I generally consider them attempts to exclude the aff from the round or else shut down discourse by focusing the debate on issues of identity or discourse rather than ideas, especially because most pre-fiat Ks are performative but not performed. Ensure you have a role of the ballot which warrants why my vote will have any impact on the world. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the affirmative", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Post-fiat Kritiks: Run anything you want. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the resolution", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Topicality: Fine. Just make sure you specify what the impact of topicality on the round is.

Politics Disadvantages: Please don't. If you absolutely must, you need to prove A: The resolution will occur now. B: The affirmative must defend a specific implementation of the topic. C:The affirmative must defend a specific actor for the topic. Without those three interps, I will not vote on a politics DA.

Narratives: Fine, as long as you preface with a framework which explains why and how narratives impact the round and tell me how to evaluate it.

Conditionality: I'm permissive but skeptical of conditional argumentation. A conditional argument cannot be kicked if there are turns on it, and I will not vote on contradictory arguments, even if they are conditional. So don't run a cap K and an econ disad. You can't kick out of discourse impacts. Performance is important here.

Word PICs: I don't like word PICs. I'll vote on them if they aren't effectively responded to, but I don't like them. I believe that they drastically decrease clash and cut affirmative ground by taking away unique affirmative offense.

Presumption - I do not presume neg. I'm willing to vote on presumption if the aff or neg gives me arguments for why aff or neg should be presumed, but neither side has presumption inherently. Both aff and neg need offense - in the absence of offense, I revert to possibility of offense.

Pessimistic Ks - Generally not a fan. I find it difficult to understand why they should motivate me to vote for one side over another, even if the argument is true. I have a fairly low threshold to vote on "psychoanalysis is unscientific nonsense" arguments because....well, they're kinda true.

Ideal Theory - If you want to run an argument about "ideal theory" (eg Curry 14) please understand what ideal theory is in the context of philosophy. It has nothing to do with theory in debate terms, nor is it just a philosophy which is idealistic. If you do not specify I will assume that you mean that ideal theory is full-compliance theory.

Disclosure - I will not vote on disclosure arguments.

Framework - Please have an actual warrant for your framework. If your case reads "My standard is util, contention 1" I will evaluate it, but have a very low threshold to vote against it, like any claim without a warrant. I will not evaluate pre-fiat framework warrants; eg, "Util is preferable because it gives equal ground to both sides". Read the philosophy and make an actual argument. See the section on theory - there are no theory-based framework warrants I consider reasonable.

Speaker Points

Since I've gotten some questions about this..

I judge on a 5 point scale, from 25-30.

25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said or other glaring rhetorical issues.

26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.

27.5 is average. Speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but nevertheless had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity or other areas of rhetoric.

28.5 is above average. Speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. Speaker was compelling, used rhetorical devices well.

30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.

Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally unresponded to, but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.

While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.

Please please please cut cards with complete, grammatically correct sentences. If I have to try to assemble a bunch of disconnected sentence fragments into a coherent idea, your speaker points will not be good.

Judging style

If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be framework and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.

Public Forum Paradigm

Frameworks

I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.

Topicality

I will evaluate topicality arguments, though only with the impact "ignore the argument", never "drop the team".

Theory

Yes, I understand theory. No, I don't want to hear theory in a PF round. No, I will not vote on a theory argument.

Counterplans

No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.

Kritiks

No. Kritiks only function under a truth-testing interpretation of the con burden, I only use comparative worlds in Public Forum.

Burden Interpretations

The pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof. Because of limited time and largely non-technical nature of Public Forum, I consider myself more empowered to intervene against arguments I perceive as unfair or contrary to the rules or spirit of Public Forum debate than I might be while judging LD or Policy.

I'm currently a junior at Columbus High and I'm now a 3rd year PF debater. I've debated on the GA and national circuits, and have judged middle school debate on many occasions. ***Pre-flow prior to round to make things easier for tab and everyone in round, please.***

Speaking Preferences, etc.: I am completely fine with speed, as long as you're not going at an unreasonably fast pace to confuse your opponents or me. Additionally, if you are making an important point you should slow down to ensure I get it all down. If you make any discriminatory or degrading comments at all during round I will give you extremely low speaks and report the incident to your coach immediately.

Speeches and Arguments: I vote off of the flow. This being said, weighing, fully flushed out extensions, and frontlining are extremely important for you if you don't want me to personally interfere (which you probably don't want). If you expect me to extend a two-second response to one of their arguments, I'm not going to. It's extremely important that you respond to key arguments in full (and weigh!!!!!) in order for me to flow that point/argument to your side as opposed to keeping it on theirs by default. When you're giving a speech, it's very helpful if you signpost so I know where your response needs to go on my flow. Signposting ensures that I get everything written down and you get as many points as possible; it also just makes you seem like a better speaker when you're more organized. Moreover, voters in summary are beneficial for everyone in round; it makes my life easier when I'm deciding who won, it makes your life easier when you're organizing your speech, and it makes your opponents' life easier when they give their summary and final focus.

Evidence: Your evidence should be easily accessible at all times during the round in case your opponents or I call for it. The cards you use in round must be cited and not misrepresented. Misrepresentation of a card is inherently lying and making up evidence, which is ultimately unacceptable. Logical responses can be beneficial as long as they’re warranted and coherent, but it’s always good to have a carded response to more effectively disprove your opponent's argument.

If you have any questions, you can either ask me before round starts or email me (lilly.e.barnes@gmail.com).

Email: jameshbrock@gmail.com

Handshaking: Even before current viral concerns, I wasn't a fan of hand shaking. If you feel the need for post round physical contact, I will either accept a light fist bump or a full hug of no less than 5 seconds in duration. Alternatively, you can just wait for my decision.

Overview: I am the debate coach at Houston County High School a suburban (closer to rural than urban) school 2 hours south of Atlanta. We don't travel outside of the state much. I am a big advocate of policy debate, but, the vast majority of tournaments we attend no longer offer the event. So, we have switched to PF/LD debate.

I flow. If I am not flowing, there is a problem.

Speed okay. If I am not flowing, there is a problem. The most likely reason I would not be flowing is, that the sound coming out of your mouth is not words. If this happens, I will most likely close my laptop or put down my pen until I can recognize the sounds you are making.

Disclosure Theory: I am a small school coach. My teams are not required to post their cases online. I don't like it when teams lose debates to rules those teams didn't know were "rules". If disclosure is mandated by the tournament's invitation, I will listen. I also, will not attend that tournament. So, just don't run it. Inclusion o/w your fairness arguments.

PF: I judge on an offence/defense paradigm. Logic is good, evidence is better. I'm the guy who will vote on first strike good or dedev. Tech over truth, but I will not give a low point win in PF, and try to stay true to the speaking roots of PF. F/W is the most important part of the debate for me. It is a gateway issue that provides the lens through which to view my decision. I have done a moderate amount of research, but I probably haven't read that article. I may be doing it wrong, but I like logic when judging a PF round. I don't think you have time to develop DAs or Ks, but have no other objection to their existence. Jeff Miller says to answer these questions if judging PF... - do you expect everything in the final focus to also be in the summary? Yes. At least tangentially. The first final focus of the round needs to be able to predict the direction of the the final speech. If it's not in the Summary it gives an unfair advantage to the second speaker. - Do second speaking teams have to respond to the first rebuttal? No, but its a good idea. It makes for a better debate and I will award speaker points will be awarded for doing this. - Do first speaking teams have to extend defense in the first summary? If you want to extend defense in the final focus. - Do you flow/judge off crossfire? Cross is binding, but it needs to be made in the speech to count on the ballot. That being said, at this tournament, damaging crossfire questions have provided major links and changed the momentum of debates. - Do teams have to have more than one contention? No. - does framework have to be read in the constructives? Responsive F/w is allowed but not advisable in rebuttal only.

LD: For me, this is policy light. I understand it, but I try not to be influenced by a lack of policy jargon in the round. IE I will accept an argument that says "The actor could enact both the affirmative action and the negative action." as a permutation without the word perm being used in the round. I tend to view values and value criterion as a framework debate that influences the mechanisms for weighing impacts. I am a little lenient on 1ar line by line debate, but coverage should be sufficient to allow the nr to do their job. I will protect the nr from new 2ar argument to a fault. I will not vote on morally repugnant arguments like "extinction good" or "rocks are more important than people".

tl;dr: Spend a lot of time on F/W. Impact your arguments.

Policy Debate: (Having this in here is a little ridiculous. Its kinda like, "back in my day we had inherency debates. No one talks about inherent barriers anymore...)

Procedural:
I am human, and I have made mistakes judging rounds. But, I reserve the right to dock speaker points for arguing after the round.
I have few problems with speed. If you are unclear, I will say clear or loud once and then put my pen down or close my laptop. I love 1NC's and 2ACs that number their arguments.
I want the debaters to make my decision as easy as possible. My RFD should be very very similar to the first 3 sentences of the 2AR or 2NR.
After a harm is established, I presume it is better to do something rather than nothing. So in a round devoid of offence, I vote affirmative

The K:
As a debater and a younger coach, I did not understand nor enjoy the kritik. As the neg we may have run it as the 7th off case argument, and as the aff we responded to the argument with framework and theory. As I've grown as a coach I've started to understand the educational benefits of high school students reading advanced philosophy. That being said, In order to vote negative on the kritik, I need a very, very clear link, and reason to reject the aff. I dislike one-off-K, and standard Ks masked with a new name. I do, however, enjoy listening to critical affirmatives related to the topic. I am often persuaded by PIK's, and vague alts bad theory.

Don't assume that I have read the literature. I have not.

Non-traditional debate: We are a small and very diverse squad, and I (to some extent) understand that struggle. I have coached a fem rage team, and loved it.

Theory:
I have no particular aversion to theoretical objections. As an observation, I do not vote on them often. I need a clear reason to reject the other team. I will occasionally vote neg on Topicality, but you have to commit. I think cheaty CPs are bad for debate, and enjoy voting on ridiculous CP is ridiculous theory. I still need some good I/L to Education to reject the team.


Parliamentary debate:
I enjoy this format. I will adopt a policy maker F/W unless otherwise instructed.

I am a traditional judge.

Do not spread.

Civility is essential.

I value clear communication. Sign posts and voters are excellent tools.

I value clash. So listen to your opponent and tell me why they are wrong and your side is better.

Give weight to the most important arguments and tell me why they are the most important.

Write the reason for decision for me.

hey! I'm tech> truth- I prefer to vote on like true arguments (this excludes things like comparative analysis of economics- I'm more talking about things like "police do not have qualified immunity" that I wouldn't like to see in the round), but will vote on almost anything.

A: I will not vote on shitty impact turns like "oppression (of any kind for any reason) good". I will drop you, give you the minimum amount of speaker points available and tune you completely out and talk to your coach. This is shitty.

B: Please read my whole paradigm: I don't want to have to give a whole speech on my preferences before the round; it's a waste of time and I would rather just go ahead with the round.

C: I really don't like miscut cards/ evidence (it's wrong to do) and will lower your speaks because of it if you aren't already losing on it. (I will be checking evidence if it's called out/ if i feel fishy about it)

LAYERS

1. Theory

2. Topicality

3. K

4. Case

5. DA's, CP, etc.

THEORY STUFF

- Not a fan of friv theory, but not all theory is friv theory. if you run that shell, it's a perfcon, but unless your opponent points it out I'll vote on it, but won't really be happy abt it.

- Drop the arg is NOT AN RVI: when you tell me to/ win drop the arg, I'll stop evaluating theory and go to the next layer of the debate. If you say it's an RVI, I will not vote on it as an RVI. I'll just go to the second layer of the debate.

- If you collapse to a different layer in the 2n/ 2a I'll kick theory with you but PLEASE TELL ME TO DO SO (also really strategic move)

- Y’all: no 2nr/ 2ar theory unless you justify it earlier in the round. This is nasty please I am begging you.

- I'll evaluate the round however it goes, but if you're feeling "don't evaluate the round after the 1n/2nr/1ar", it's up to your opponent to say otherwise, not me.

-I HATE TRICKS it's not debate. Please don't run this in front of me.

TOPICALITY

- please god run this if the aff isn't topical*: I DISLIKE AFFS THAT PRETEND TO BE TOPICAL(YES I'M TALKING ABOUT THE SUBS AFF)

- I don't really buy that the neg has to be topical unless it's a cp, but prove me wrong.

- If you are neg and the aff violates t-plural, you can absorb that as part of your advocacy and I'll buy it.

*tell me why non t affs are harmful!! don't just assert that it's non t.

K's

- I really love k debate, feel free to run this in front of me- these are the rounds I like to judge.

- I’m fine with k debate on a lay circuit: I do like to hear good educational k's (setcol, securitization, orientalism, etc) because those truly open up a space for discussion. BUT PLEASE BE CAUTIOUS OF YOUR AUDIENCE. if the person you’re hitting is super new to debate then please don’t run like psyco or baudrillard if you’re just doing it bc they can’t answer it(i mean the justification should already be in the framework but...). THAT IS BAD, and I’ll most likely dock your speaks by .5 every time I feel you’re being a jerk just to win.

- on that note, as long as you can adapt to make the k educational, then huray!

- K affs are good, but I would like for them to be topicialish, but even if they aren't I'm still down.

- Perms are great AFF

CASE

- If you are creative with your case I will increase your speaks.

- Phil is good and I really love this style of debate and will be really happy if you run it but please know I'm decently well versed in philosophy and will be sad if you mess it up.

- Don't have a lot of specifics here.

- plans are cool too.

CPS, DA, ETC

- I don't care what you do here, just make sure you're doing a good job on why the cp is competitive

- Perms are great

-PICS =???????????????? but go wild if you think you can win that on both the theory and actual argument itself.

MISC

- since we are doing debate online for the most part I do want there to be chains.

- no I don't disclose speaks

- I don't flow cx.

-I'm cool with flex prep, just ask.

- TRIGGER WARNINGS ARE NECESSARY if you are running things that could be potentially harmful (narratives mainly, but you know what is considered violent/ needs a tw). Your words have meaning and weight to them, so be cautious of what you say and how it may impact others.

- (this again should be given but) I also will dock your speaks if you are a jerk to your opponent (or me??) during a speech or just say something way out of line.

- negs don't get perms: pointing out they are defending a singular (noun) and absorbing that as part of your advocacy is not a perm.

- Don't clip cards please I will 100% allow your opponent to stake the round on it and rightfully so.

- you are a jerk if you out spread someone who is obviously new/ not as experienced.

FOR PREFS

1: phil/ K debate

2: "LARP"

3: Theory

4- whatever: whatever else there is

strike: tricks and jerks

yeah. please don't bring me food.

emmadebate01@gmail.com

^ questions (put the subject line “debate question”) and chains (the file share thing sucks) (+3 speaker points if you make the subject funny)).

Congressional Debate:

I have judged and/or been parliamentarian at local, regional and national tournaments, including Isidore Newman, Durham Academy, the Barkley Forum and and Harvard. My students have found success at both the national and state levels.

POs- I default to you. Remember, your tone as PO has a big influence on tone of the chamber. Be efficient, clear and consistent and have fun.

As far as the round and debate within the round, consistency is important to me. The way you speak and vote on one piece of legislation should most indeed influence your position on similar limitation unless you tell me otherwise. Debate and discourse does not exist in a vacuum.

Acting/characterization is fine as long as there is a reason and has a positive impact.

Finding a balance of logos, ethos and pathos is important. Difficult to accomplish in three minutes? Absolutely. The balance is what gets my attention.

I'll be honest. I don't like when debate jargon leaks into the chamber. SQUO, affirmative/negative, counterplan, link/turn, etc. This event is it's own unique event with norms.

Additionally, Student Congress is not Extemp-lite. If you are trying for three points in a speech, how do I know what to focus on? If everything is equally important then nothing is important. Take a stance, go for the impact and make the balance between logic and emotional to persuade. Include previous debate points, elucidate your point of view and have fun.

I am very familiar with PF and LD. I debated 3 years of LD.

Traditional or No?: I am familiar with progressive LD. I am okay with plans and Ks. Be fair, but I can follow whatever.

Speed: Slow or Fast. I don’t have a preference as long as I can understand you.

Value/VC: This is the key to winning the round. You must win on a Value level. These are how you analyze and advocate for various points and impacts with in the round. If neither team wins, I as a judge tend to look to contention level debate.

Extra: Sign Post and Road maps are appreciated. I do not flow cross! So bring it up in your speeches. Keep your time and I will too. Average speaks are about 28ish, unless tournament provides a rubric. Ask questions before round about any other preferences.

I am partially deaf, please speak concisely and audibly if you are speaking with speed. If contention level clash comes to a standstill I will vote off framework. If you clearly win framework and impacts then you will easily get my vote. Disrespect towards myself or your opponent will end up in a loss of speaker points and will not be tolerated.

OVW

I'm a freshman at the University of Michigan studying Math, I did LD 17-18 and Policy 18-20 so I'm still new at this, if you think I messed up please tell me why you thought so. I have no topic knowledge.

I use whatever pronouns you want.

put me on the chain: nicolas.kamel.debate@gmail.com

I will auto vote down racism/sexism/homophobia/etc. good args. I will stop the round for racism/sexism/homophobia. You will get zero speaks and I'll talk to your coach.

Tech over truth- ill read ev if you tell me to, but that makes me more willing to be interventionist

I probably default to reasonability more than others, theory is asking me as the judge to intervene, the only non-interventionist way would be to be reasonable. Still tech over truth but keep that in mind.

LD

Any speed is fine

Having done both policy and ld, I realize how bad lds co-option of policy is. Policy is a dying horse for a reason - lets not kill LD too please. Plans are probably not a thing, no way that policy action affirms ought, neg only gets fiat if aff fiats a plan, Ks are fine but I need to know what the alt does, see policy ideas on both. I am more willing to be interventionist about this stuff.

I am familiar with most common LD frameworks, and have read a substantive amount of philosophy so I probably know what you're talking about. This is a double edged sword: if you lie I will know.

Your coaches may not have explained this to you or you may have not heard of this... we are doing email chains, I want to see your evidence during the round... your opponents should be able to see your evidence during the round, you dont have to send analytics, just cards, so have a card doc ready for the round.

Have fws or else I vote neg on presumption.

Please dont read theory unless abuse happens. RVIs are maybe a thing but liek, do you really wanna spend the debate talking about a flimsy theory arg?

See Lucas Baileys paradigm, hes an ld judge I agree with on most stuff. If you dont know, ask me before the round.

Policy

Aff

Its affs burden to prove t, inherency, and solvency, not negs burden to prove otherwise.

Probably go for one advantage, it makes it easier for me to write the ballot for you

Read or don't read a plan i don't care, but like, please talk about the topic (or don't see thoughts on fw).

FW

do or dont read a plan i dont care but know this:

Procedural fairness is prob an impact. I think if we didn't care about the competitive nature of debate parents and teachers would not want anything to do with it. I dont think convincing me that its an internal link to education is the right strat, just tell me why education outweighs, which it definitely can.

small schools da flows neg lol

its a lot easier for me to vote aff on fw if the aff does something/talks about the topic

I need case/neg position lists to vote for either side

tva doesnt have to do the aff/solve it 100%, thats neg ground. tell me why the tva means you can't read whatever philosophy you are reading

DA

U/Q: the date of the cards is important to me, but not as important as to some judges. If you can find a warrant in your card that shows why yours still matters, ill consider it over the date.

link: please explain these well, or else I can't assign high risk

Impact: I love non nuke war impacts; spices things up.

Other:

Thumpers are great, just explain why that instance has something to do with the aff

If you read an obscure DA, make sure I understand it, if your school found a weird cool new politics da, the 2nr needs to be really good about the story.

CP

I am way more receptive to cp theory than most judges. The counterplan is probably cheating lol. If the cp has not historically functioned as the neg has put it or it is actually bad for debate, the aff should call them out. Do not be afraid to go for states bad against states. That being said, the impact is probably reject the arg. Please dont word pic unless the language is legitimately abusive. Analytic cps are something I am weary about, I don't know what that means though.

Ill judge kick unless you tell me not to, judge kick is condo. Condo prob good but dont overdo it

K

!!!I am a believer that you should not read a K you don't understand, I hate when people stick a K in the 1nc and then in cx they can't explain it. Please know your ev and the theory behind it. (Don't read cap without understanding the labor theory of value, don't read security without understanding cosmo, don't read agamben without understanding the state of exception, etc.)!!!

I am getting more and more weary of ks of reps where the alt is reject discourse, etc. on that note, the pik needs to be explained very well for me to vote on it, on a truth level, i dont get how you can k the affs impacts and then do the aff.

I am getting tired of K teams reading essays with little to no clarity and not sending the analytics in the speech doc. I am not one to be like "i think they said that ill grant it to them" when the 2nr is "they dropped link 7 of 12". I will give the other team leeway when answering spread through analytics.

Please dear god dont spread through your prewritten blocks that use words no one knows the meaning of. Using big K words(libidinal economy, ontology, juissance, resentiment, subjectivity, hyperreal, anything deleuze, etc.) will make me angry, especially if you're saying them just to confuse your opponent. Don't be that person. I will know and your speaks will suffer.

Link:

If reading something nebulous, you need to explain the link so that I may understand it. On the other hand, aff should cx the k for understanding before its cxed for argumentation.

Don't spread through 8 links in the rebuttal, it will be hard to flow and i'll understand little, choose good ones and extend well.

Impact: do what you want just be clear and understandable, see thoughts on link, if the k is of reps, i dont get how using those words causes post-fiat violence if fiat is illusory

Alt: Again, I'd like you to be clear, and have material change. I am very receptive to vagueness bad theory.

Framing: I like real world impacts, if aff wants to go for policymaking best for change, that's good, if aff wants to go for weigh the plan for education, that's good to. Vice versa for the neg. BUT, fairness is probably an impact, see above.

T

do what you want, but its a lot easier to vote for an interp with 20 affs than 1.

History: 4iSh yEArs oF eXPeriENce iN LD

Impacts*: warrant them properly; provide framing/calc

Speed: clarity over speed, but if you're more than half decent at spreading and planned to spread, then just do it (slow down on tags, theory, and stats); i cant hear well tho, so i will say clear twice, then stop flowing

Weighing: just do it, like make a comparative statement in your rebuttals

Theory: i never run them, but if they're valid, i will vote on them (dont let them stray too far from the substance of the actual debate )

Ks: same as Theory

Cards/ Evidence: i'll only ask to read cards if i find them to directly conflict with each other and neither side warrants their evidence (or if i'm confused on what your card actually says)

General:

i'm still learning and i dont judge often, so explain thoroughly on non-traditional arguments (if u dont i may ask for clarification)

pls dont shake my hand, i dont like it (a good game of rock, paper, scissors at the conclusion of the round is appreciated tho)

if u have any other questions, just ask :))

Email: jaekyungshimm4@gmail.com (add me to the chain)

I was the debate captain at Lassiter for 2018-2019 and 2019-2020. I was a traditional LD debator and occasionally competed in impromptu. I value strong rhetoric, robust research, and organized speeches.

Keep your cases topical. If you're running complex phil, break it down. The winning framework is the lens I judge under, and the case that better fulfills that lens wins the round (so if you and your opponent's framework is basically the same, you should explain why your contentions better fulfill the framework rather than arguing over which near identical framework is better. If the frameworks are polar opposites, the clash here will probably determine the round). I don't flow cross but I'll listen and consider it for speaks. If you're going to spread, please offer to email your case and cards to your opponent. I don't want to be on the email chain. If I I can't hear it, it's not on the flow.

Good luck, and have fun!

I have debated throughout high school in Varsity Lincoln-Douglas.

I have no preferences. Most of my experience has been traditional (local tournaments, NSDA Nats), but I can follow progressive debate.

Please be on time for the round or even early.

Good luck!

Update for judging: Been out of debate for a while now, learning the topic lit as I go. This means be clearer on args for evidence or stuff like acronyms. Don't make the mistake of thinking I know what you know. That being said, if you're gonna spread start slower than normal and don't max yourself out.

Note for Online: Try and use a good mic if you can, and slow down on analytics. Send an email chain anyways (jaypatel26687@gmail.com)

I've done both national circuit and traditional debate, so I'm cool with either style. That being said, I do like circuit debate more. Be accommodating plz and don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. because that's bad and I will talk to your coach.

I'm cool with anything, run what you want and make arguments that you want to make. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible and on that note, I won't do work for you. If the argument is important, address it as such, if [x] is critical, tell me why. Impact and warrant out arguments, far too many debaters aren't doing this. AND PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WEIGH BETWEEN ARGS. Other than that, if you have specific questions ask me in round and I'd be more than happy to answer them.

Quick list of what debate I'm good at judging:

1 - LARP/Trad

2 - K (like the generics (i.e cap, biopower, fem, etc...))

3 - Theory/T (Run it if you want, but just know the more frivolous it is, the more I'll lower my threshold for responses)

4 - K (the less known ones are fine, but you're gonna have to explain the warrants and links a lot more and I mean A LOT more, if I can't understand the K or its implications in round, I won't vote on it. I don't want to discourage you from it, but be wary.)

5 - Trix (I've run them and I know what they are and can evaluate them, I just don't like to)

How to get high speaks:

Be clear, be funny (work in a good South Park reference and I'll add a point)

"If you are clearly better than your opponent and it is obvious that you are winning the round, please, dear lord, do not use all of your speech time just because you have the time- win the round and sit down so we can have a discussion and make it more educational than just you repeating conceded arguments for 13 minutes." ~ Stephen Scopa

How to get low speaks:

Be a dick

The Long Version (written while I had absolutely many, many better things to do)

Trad

- Unless you have some weird framework links/implications 99% of trad rounds end with util v util frameworks where far too much time is spent. If you realize you have the same or even similar framework as your opponent, it's fine to drop a framework. I feel like people don't really know this, but it saves time for you.

- Substance > V/VC Debate

LARP

- CPs, ADV/DAs, Plans, PICs, etc. this is my bread and butter and what I used to do a lot of while I debated.

- These rounds are won with good evidence AND good analysis, one will not cover for the other, but that being said Evidence > Analytics

- WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH

- Be smart in your rebuttals, proper time allocation and a good collapse are key

- I'll listen to impact turns, use them well

Kritiks

- I'll likely have some familiarity with the lit base (refer to the examples above) but don't assume I know everything. It's your job to make things clear for me. If I can't understand it, I won't vote on it

- Contextualize the links to the aff, generic stuff like "state bad" isn't horrible, but just put the effort in and find a specific link

- ROB v FW weighing is super important here, win this you'll probably win the round

Theory/T

- Defaults: Competing interps, drop the debater, rvis, fairness and education are voters

- The more frivolous the shell, the lower my bar for responses (imo just use a good reasonability dump and the shell should lose every time)

- Send counter interps/interps, and slow down for standard names

- Do some standard weighing please

- Paragraph theory is lame :(

Trix

- Ehhhh..... I don't want to judge this, but I will if I have to

- Make sure all your stuff is delineated and just admit to what you're doing (it's easier on all of us) instead of being shifty is cross

- Extensions are gonna have to be really good, explain the implication of x spike in the speech and make sure you're slow enough that I can flow it

I am a debate coach in Georgia. I also competed in LD and PF. Take that for whatever you think it means.

• LD - Value/Value Criterion - this is what separates us from the animals (or at least the policy debaters). It is the unique feature of LD Debate. Have a good value and criterion and link your arguments back to it.
• PF - I side on the traditional side of PF. Don't throw a lot of jargon at me or simply read cards... this isn't Policy Jr., compete in PF for the debate animal it is. Remember debate, especially PF, is meant to persuade - use all the tools in your rhetorical toolbox: Logos, Ethos, and Pathos. I want to see CLEAR evidence clash.
• Speed - I like speed but not spreading as if it is policy. Speak as fast as is necessary but keep it intelligible. There aren't a lot of jobs for speed readers after high school (auctioneers and pharmaceutical disclaimer commercials) so make sure you are using speed for a purpose. I can keep up with the amount of speed you decide to read at, however if I feel that your opponent is at a disadvantage and cannot understand you then I will put my pen down and stop flowing and that will signal you to slow down.
• Know your case, like you actually did the research and wrote the case and researched the arguments from the other side. If you present it, I expect you to know it from every angle - I want you to know the research behind the statistic and the whole article, not just the blurb on the card.
• Casing - Mostly traditional but I am game for kritiks, counterplans - but perform them well, KNOW them, I won't do the links for you. I am a student of Toulmin - claim-evidence-warrant/impacts. I don't make the links and don't just throw evidence cards at me with no analysis.
• I like clash. Argue the cases presented, mix it up, have some fun, but remember that debate is civil discourse - don't take it personal, being the loudest speaker won't win the round, being rude to your opponent won't win you the round.
• Debating is a performance in the art of persuasion and your job is to convince me, your judge (not your opponent!!) - use the art of persuasion to win the round: eye contact, vocal variations, appropriate gestures, and know your case well enough that you don't have to read every single word hunched over a computer screen. Keep your logical fallacies for your next round. Rhetoric is an art.
• Technology Woes - I will not stop the clock because your laptop just died or you can't find your case - not my problem, fix it or don't but we are going to move on.
• Ethics - Debate is a great game when everyone plays by the rules. Play by the rules - don't give me a reason to doubt your veracity.
• Win is decided by the flow (remember if you don't LINK it, it isn't on the flow), who made the most successful arguments and Speaker Points are awarded to the best speaker - I end up with some low point wins. I am fairly generous on speaker points compared to some judges. I disclose winner but not speaker points.
• Enjoy yourself. Debate is the best sport in the world - win or lose - learn something from each round, don't gloat, don't disparage other teams, judges, or coaches, and don't try to convince me after the round is over. Leave it in the round and realize you may have just made a friend that you will compete against and talk to for the rest of your life. Don't be so caught up in winning that you forget to have some fun - in the round, between rounds, on the bus, and in practice.
• Questions? - if you have a question ask me.

RAP Paradigm:

Clash. Most importantly, I value clash rather than distracters or debate "theory." For all forms of debate, clash is essential; beyond initial presentation of cases, "canned" or pre-prepared speeches are unhelpful.

Evidence. I prioritize proof. Therefore, I value evidence over unsubstantiated opinion or theory, and I especially value evidence from quality sources. Be sure that (i) your evidence is from a quality source, (ii) your evidence actually says what you claim it does, and (iii) you are not omitting conditions, limitations, or contrary conclusions within your evidence.

Delivery. I debated back in the day when delivery mattered. Persuasion is still key, so if you are monotone, turn your back, or never bother with eye contact, your speaker points will likely suffer accordingly. You may speak quickly, but you must be clear, particularly with contentions. Eye contact and a well-organized, well-documented case are much appreciated. Always bear in mind that you’re trying to persuade the judge(s), not your opponent(s) or your computer, and focus accordingly.

Weighing arguments. I don’t weigh all arguments equally. You can spread if you want, but the decision will go to the team that carries the majority of the most-substantive issues with greater impacts. I appreciate policy arguments (vs. theory), especially if they relate to law (e.g., the Constitution), economics, international trade (e.g., the WTO), international relations (e.g., the UN or international law), or government policy.

Organization. This is essential. Off-time roadmaps are okay. I try to flow carefully. Please structure your case with numbered/lettered points and sub-points. When refuting arguments, please cross-refer to your opponent(s) case structure (preferably by number/letter) and be very organized for me to keep track.

Resolutions. Please debate the resolutions. Thought has gone into these and their specific wording. Regardless of the form of debate, I prefer that students debate the resolution, and I am not a fan of “Kritiks,” “Alts,” or the like. Whatever the rubric or euphemism, if they relate specifically to the topic, okay, but if they are generic or primarily distractive, I may disregard them. In any event, they are no excuse for failing to deal with the current resolution, for failing to clash with the other side’s specific arguments, or for failing to organize your own points with a clear structure.

Ridiculous rulemaking. Please spare me any “observation” or “framework” that attempts to narrow the resolution or to impose all of the burden on your opponent(s) (e.g., “Unless the other side carries every issue, I win the debate”).

Other pet peeves. These include: not standing during speeches, answering for your partner, claiming that you proved something without reading evidence, claiming evidence says something it doesn’t, rudeness, speaking faster than you can organize thoughts, failing to clash, forgetting that debate is ultimately about persuasion, debating during prep time, etc. Avoid hyperbole: not every issue leads to “global thermonuclear war”.

Feedback. Some students find my feedback very helpful. Even if you don’t, it’s not a time for arguing against the decision or for being disrespectful, which is counterproductive with me.

My background. I was a Policy debater who also competed in Congress, Extemp, and OO. I’ve coached PF. I am an international business attorney and former law school professor, with a background in Economics and experience working on Capitol Hill. I also teach and tutor ELA, History, and SAT (Reading/Writing); words matter.

The above thoughts apply to all forms of debate. I judge a fair amount, primarily PF and L-D. Below are some thoughts specific to those types of debate:

PF—

--I prefer line-by-line refutation. I am not a fan of dropping or conceding arguments. I do not appreciate attempts to reduce the debate to “voters,” ignoring other arguments. This is particularly inappropriate when done during your side’s first two-minute speech.

--No “scripted” speeches after the initial presentations of cases. Clash is key.

--Framework is optional, not essential. It may not be used to narrow the resolution.

--Even though you are not required to present a plan, that can’t be used as a knee-jerk response to all arguments or questions concerning Solvency or Topicality.

--Remember that “There is no presumption or burden of proof in Public Forum Debate”.

L-D—

--I am not a fan of abstract philosophy. Any philosophical presentation must be tied specifically to the resolution and not presented in a generic vacuum.

--I don’t necessarily weigh framework over contentions.

--Your value and criterion should work with your contentions. Ideally, in discussing the relative merits of each side’s framework, explain specifically why your choice is more relevant rather than relying on a circular “chicken and egg” analysis (e.g., “My value comes before her value”).

Hey! I'm Yasmin! I'm a senior at Northview. My pronouns are she/her. I had a bid to the TOC in my senior year and have been in multiple bid rounds and elims of national circuit tournaments. Because I competed in both the national and Georgia circuits for LD, I'm good with a circuit or traditional round (with a preference for circuit). If you plan to have a circuit round and your opponent is lay, please be accessible, send speech docs, and actually answer CX questions.

Email: Yasmin1117@gmail.com

I think that sending speech docs is a good norm for debate even in traditional rounds. Add me to the email chain if you set up one.

Also, feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions! Facebook Messenger (yasmin.shalim.1) is the best place to reach me before and after rounds.

Top Level:

Tech > truth in most instances. Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, or xenophobic in any way. I will intervene if I notice xenophobia and/or discomfort in the round.

Things I will automatically drop people for:

1) Saying any slurs or serious insults

2) Not abiding by people's requests in cases of accessibility e.g. reading spikes/analytics without spaces and proper delineation when explicitly told to do so

3) Purposeful misgendering - if you make a mistake, quickly correct yourself

4) Making arguments like racism, sexism, etc. good

Ks:

While I strove to be a flex debater, this was my favorite and preferred style of debate in senior year. Some of the lit bases I’ve read the most are: imperialism, fem kill joy, anti-humanism, cap, Grove, and cybernetics. Just because I read these Ks does not mean I will auto-vote for you if you read them. Make sure you understand the lit and can give a 2nr on them.

Even if the lit base is not mentioned above, feel free to run any K, but err on the side of robust explanation and analysis. Also feel free to read non-t k affs and include performances, but just be clear about what the ballot means and how offense operates in the round. Even though I read a lot of semi-topical affs, I'm not pedagogically inclined to vote for or against t-framework, so I'll vote solely based on the flow.

Framework:

I spent a lot of my junior year debating framework, so feel free to read whichever lit base in round. However, make sure you clearly explaining a framing mechanism through which impacts should be evaluated. Even if you’re winning offense, if it’s not relevant under the framework for the round, you will not win the debate. That means if you're going to larp, justify consequentialism or util.

Defaults: Epistemic Confidence > Epistemic Modesty & Truth Testing > Comparative Worlds - These are only if no paradigm issues are read in the round. Both sides can just as easily be won in front of me.

Theory/T:

I'll evaluate anything even if it's frivolous insofar as you're winning the flow. However, if a shell is ridiculous on a truth level e.g. “Must be from [X] state”, I’ll have a lower threshold for responses. That said, I won't hack against shells and gut check unless they’re xenophobic in any way.

I default to competing interps, drop the debater, no RVIs, and norm-setting if no other paradigm issues are read, but reasonability, drop the arg, RVIs, and in round abuse can just as easily be won in front of me.

Please weigh standards and voters because I don’t want to have to intervene.

Shell and paragraph formats are both fine, but be clear and a little slower on the interp/voting issue, especially if you're spreading unsent analytics.

Tricks:

I understand the strategic value of these arguments and go for them occasionally, so I will vote on them. However, don’t be sketchy. If your opponent asks you to list out all the a prioris/tricks in the doc, please do. Also, make the doc’s formatting accessible. Have spaces between spikes. Number spikes, and if a spike has multiple warrants, label each warrant.

Example:

1) Affirming is harder...

a) Time skew...

b) NC reactivity advantage...

If your opponent calls you out on inaccessibility regarding spikes, especially if they have a note on the Wiki (like I do) or let you know before round, I will not vote on the spikes.

However, I'll vote a prioris, skep, presumption, permissibility, condo logic, paradoxes, etc. if you win truth testing or a weighing mechanism in which they’re relevant. If the debate ends up being a tricks blipstorm, please weigh!

On the other, I think the norm of using tricks to skirt discussions about serious issues, especially anti-blackness and other forms of xenophobia, is extremely problematic, so be cautious if this is your strat versus serious Ks. If I hear stuff like "racism doesn't exist under my index", I'll tank your speaks. If it gets even more problematic and offensive, I won't hesitate to drop you.

LARP:

Read all the plan texts, CPs, DAs, impact turns, etc. you want, but please weigh and use impact calc. There's nothing worse than impacts being thrown at you but no way to evaluate which ones matter most absent intervention.

I don’t err aff or neg on issues such as conditionality and PICs, consult, process, etc. CPs bad. I will vote for whoever wins the flow.

Traditional:

You must win your value and value criterion or framework before I evaluate your contentions. I know there is a norm of reading definitions in constructive cases. However, unless your definitions have a direct impact on your strategy, there is no reason for you to read them in my opinion. Instead, add more contentions so that the debate is more nuanced.

Misc:

I disclose on the Wiki with open source, cites, and round reports, and I think that it can be a good norm in a lot of cases, especially as a small schooler who used the Wiki to become more progressive at debate. However, I understand that not disclosing is a preference of many debaters, and I respect that. Overall, this means that I will vote on disclosure theory if it's won, but if people have reasons for why they don't disclose, please consider them and don't police people for their actions.

For online debate, I think it's a good norm to record all speeches as you're giving them because Wi-Fi issues are fairly common.

You can use flex prep (asking your opponent questions during prep), but I'd prefer if you didn't use CX for prep.

I will disclose speaker points if asked.

I’m a fourth year PF debater, so while I can handle speed (about a 7 or 8 on a 10 point scale) I truly believe that PF rounds should be able to be judged easily by anyone and that spreading is a tactic that has no place in PF. So PLEASE make sure that you are understandable. Impacts are necessary, especially in your last speeches. If you don’t give me a reason, I can’t weight that point for you. I reserve my right to check your cards if the evidence appears questionable. If you are caught lying about evidence, I will downvote you automatically. I appreciate signposting and roadmaps as I will be flowing but state this within your time limits. I’m not a fan of off time roadmaps. Make sure to keep your own time (ESPECIALLY PREP).

Please send all constructive speeches (1ac/1nc) to the valdostadocs.ld@gmail.com prior to giving the constructive speech.

EMAIL: ishitakvaish@gmail.com

Good luck debating! Remember to relax and enjoy the tournament. Debate can be stressful and cause anxiety, so don’t forget it is an education and enjoyable activity. I have debated throughout high school in Varsity Lincoln-Douglas. I am a traditional debater. 2nd year at Georgia Tech - Go Jackets!

LD

Framework: This is so important - it needs to be extended in every speech because it ultimately tells me how to evaluate the impacts in this round.

Contention-Level Preferences: I will vote for Kritiks, topicality, and counter plans. However, I have a strong evidence standard and expect to see well cut evidence in round if you plan to read any of these. I may also call to see cards at the end of a round to evaluate the round.

Cross-Ex: I do not listen during cross or voted based on cross. If something comes up in cross-ex that you want on my flow, you need to bring it up during the speech. Cross-Ex is your time to ask each other, but be polite or I will dock speaker points.

Speed/Spreading: Do not spread. If I cannot understand you, then I won’t have everything on my flow due to the lack of clarity in your speech. Clarity always trumps speed.

Stand while making speeches. You can sit or stand during cross. Do not speak rudely to me or to your opponents - it will affect speaker points.

Policy:

I have judged both LD and Public Forum before, but I am relatively new to judging policy. Please talk clearly and avoid spreading if possible. When you send out speech docs, they should match your speech. If you cut a card half way through, feel free to say "cut card" and move on to the next. I will not flow cross-ex, so if there is anything important said in cross-ex, then take the time to point it out in the following speech. Finally, if I cannot understand you, I will yell clear, type in the chat, raise my hand, etc. If I still cannot understand, I will stop flowing and judge the round based on what I flowed. Please time yourself. My timer will be the final say, but having your own timer is highly suggested to help pace yourself. Please give a road map before every speech. If you have any questions, please let me know!