Email is forvirenra@gmail.com. I will clear 3 times before I stop flowing. No clarification questions regarding what was/wasn't read before CX - start CX and ask any questions you need. Send marked doc after CX and take prep if you need time to mark it. All of these rules apply online as well. The burden is on you to record your speeches. I will only record if I believe that a team has clipped.

About me:

I'm Reyna (she/her) debated LD for 3 years and graduated from Northwood High School (Irvine, CA) in 2019. I qualified to the TOC my junior and senior year, receiving bids and speaker awards in the process. I have been an active coach and judge for 5 years, having (at different points in time) worked at The Debate Intensive, Debate Drills, and Peninsula High School. I have also privately coached students from various high schools across the country: Northwood, Lynbrook, Southlake Carroll, and LAMP. My students have cleared at NDCA/TOC and other major bid-distributing tournaments, receiving bids and speaker awards in the process.

I am transgender. This should not affect how you debate in front of me. I debated almost exclusively on the west coast. This should affect how you debate in front of me.

What I read in high school + coach my students to read (aka the kinds of debates I enjoy seeing):

Aff - big stick util, soft left structural violence, fringe topical plans

Neg - topic da+advantage cp, politics/elections+states, cap, afropessimism, security, topicality

Paradigm:

1. Non-negotiable:

- Will not vote on anything that took place outside the debate that is unverifiable.

- You must ask questions relevant to the debate in CX. No "How's your day?"

- Anything evidence ethics related: clipping, reading falsified evidence, reading evidence not accessible publicly, anything inauthentic or deliberately intended to deceive. If someone makes an evidence ethics claim, the round will be decided on the claim, and I will stop the round if I am the only judge. Automatic L 25 to the loser of the claim, W 30 to the winner. The only time I will intervene without a claim is if I notice clipping: I will make a decision on clipping, but I will let the debate continue because I think practicing speeches in a competitive setting is still valuable. In an elim, my decision will hinge on evidence ethics regardless of what happens in the rest of the debate. Some other notes for elims: if a claim is withdrawn, I won't consider it. If a claim is made as a theory argument, I will only evaluate the violation. If the claim is made as a theory argument and doesn't make it into the 2NR/2AR, I will treat it as a withdrawn claim.

- Nothing blatantly designed to attack or harm someone in the room. Nothing "_____ist" or "______phobic." Use the right pronouns or gender neutral pronouns if no pronoun is given (or anything neutral, e.g. "the other team" or "the 1AR"). Automatic L 20 otherwise.

2. Hard defaults: (it will be very difficult to change my mind)

- Competing interps for T

- Theory is a reason to reject the arg except condo. I also hate seeing aff teams go for condo

- Affs must advocate for a shift from the squo

- Counterplans must at least be functionally competitive

- ROB = vote for the better debater. This means if you argue "the role of the ballot is rejecting X" and I vote for you, I've done so because you made better arguments than the other team.

3. Soft defaults: (it will be an uphill battle to change my mind but not impossible)

- Textual + functional vs functional alone

- Plantext in a vacuum

- Affs get the case against the K

- Yes judge kick and judge choice

- Affs should defend a shift from the status quo as determined by words in the resolution. This typically entails government action but is up for debate.

- Fairness > skills

4. Other stuff:

- I like impact turns that aren't spark / wipeout

- Don't spread through blocks. Being persuasive will increase your odds of winning

- Explain what your interpretation of textual and functional competition is

- I read evidence probably more than most judges. If an argument is contested, its risk = (quality of team A evidence and spin) - (quality of team B evidence and spin).

UCLA MSW '22
Georgetown University BS. Latin American Studies '17
Bellarmine College Prep '13
Constraints: Loyola

I'm a former policy and public forum debater (2009-2013). Since college, I've worked as a researcher on Latin American financial crime, then as a counselor and social worker. At this time, I am not actively involved in the debate community or the topic, so please assume a minimal level of familiarity.

Notes for online debate: I'm a pretty slow flower to begin with, and that has only gotten worse online. I would really appreciate going 10-15% slower than top speed, and to be honest most people are usually trying for a speed beyond which they're actually capable anyway.

Notes for lay debate: I'm very comfortable judging a lay round, and if there are lay judges on the panel I would strongly prefer that you accommodate them and make this an enjoyable and coherent experience for everyone. I'll reward your speaker points for doing so.

General notes, in order of importance:

I usually evaluate on tech over truth, but I also believe strongly that debaters who control the framing, weighing, and decisionmaking criteria should be rewarded over the debater who technically "covered" every argument on the flow without telling me why that matters. It's not enough for a debater to drop an argument, I should also understand why that argument is important for how I evaluate the debate.

The strength of your internal link is so much more important to me than your terminal impact. I am usually quite willing to vote on presumption if neither team has done any work convincing me why their highly contrived extinction impact is connected in any meaningful way to their case.

From Debnil Sur: "I care more about link centered debate than impact, so focus on uniqueness and link framing over terrible turns case arguments. I don't think you need evidence to make an argument -- I think many bad advantages can be reduced to zero through smart analytics, and I shower debaters who do this with high speaker points. But, the better their evidence is, the more likely you'll need your own."

I'm also generally pretty friendly to arguments that high-probability or systemic impacts are more important than high-magnitude impacts that rely on a Rube-Goldberg machine of unlikely events to get there. Even if you don't have cards on a specific impact, smart analytics here will go a long way.

On Ks: I would consider myself relatively well-versed in the postmodern literature. I deeply enjoy framework debates, actually, and I tend to be relatively friendly to role-of-the-ballot claims that don't assume fiat in either direction. That said, I would much rather listen to no K debate at all than listen to K debate that poorly understands the theory at hand or fundamentally misinterprets the author's scholarly intent (i.e. most non-Black people who read Wilderson in the year 2023).

I will almost certainly make my decision off what I actually heard in the round and not your speech doc, and if you're not clear enough to be legible I will consider the argument to be too poorly communicated to flow.

Pronouns: she/her ♀️

Email: nalan0815@gmail.com,

Please also include: damiendebate47@gmail.com

I debated policy debate for 3 years in high school 2008-2011 and have judged for 10+ years now.

I REALLY like to see impact calculus - "Even if..." statements are excellent! Remember: magitude⚠️, timeframe⏳️, probability ⚖️. I only ever give high speaker points to those that remember to do this. This should also help you remember to extend your impacts, and compare them with your opponent's as reasons for a judge to prefer your side.

• However, I don't like when both sides keep extending arguments/cards that say opposite things without also giving reasons to prefer one over the other. Tell me how the arguments interact, how they're talking about something different, etc.
• Be sure to extend arguments (especially your T voters) even if they're uncontested - because that gives me material for the reason for decision. If it's going to be in your last speech, it better be in the speech before it (tech > truth here). Otherwise, I give weight to the debater that points it out and runs theory to block it from coming up again or applying.

------------------------- Miscellaneous ----------------------------

Prep and CX: I do not count emailing /flashdriving as prep time unless it takes ~2+ minutes. Tag-team cross-ex is ok as long as both teams agree to it and you're not talking over your partner. Please keep track of your speech and prep time.

Full disclosure: Beyond the basic K's like Cap, Security, Biopow, Fem, etc., I'm not familiar with unique K's, and especially where FrameWork tends to be a mess, you might need a little more explanation on K solvency for me or I might get lost.

I often read along to the 1AC and 1NC to catch card-clipping, even checking the marked copies.

Diana Alvarez

she/her

dianadebate@gmail.com

Please put me on the email chain.

I am excited to be your judge and I am here to listen to your arguments. As long as they not discriminate or exclude others, I will consider them whether you are reading a K-Aff or have 5 Disadvantages.

I am a former HS policy debater, I judged and coached before. I am familiar with the structure but not the current topic. Please explain your arguments well and remain respectful towards everyone.

For more specific questions, please email me or ask me before the round.

Framework is important to me. I would like to know through what lens I should evaluate your arguments. Why is your framework better than your opponent’s framework?

Coppell '19. UT Dallas '23.

Pronouns - he/him or they/them. I don't care.

Add me to the email chain - debate@vishvak.io - make sure you use this email.

I like music so pls play something cool (if we're online recommend me a cool EDM song). +0.1 if you have good music.

If you generate at least 1/8th of a speech using OpenAI and win the debate I will give you at minimum a 29. I will request proof of this as well. https://openai.com/api/

Short Version

"Do what you do and do it well and you will be fine." – Bernie <3

e-debate - 70% speed, clear when I call clear, don't require cameras, let me know if you have tech issues.

If you're ever uncomfortable in a debate or feel that the space is unsafe, please let me know in some way (private chat, email, saying it in the round, etc) and I will do what needs to be done.

My favorite judges were the ones who listened to all arguments and evaluated them equally without intervention. I try to be that judge. I am here to evaluate the arguments you present to me and provide useful criticism. For me to do that, a team should read good quality evidence, make complete arguments, and answer arguments from the flow. You should tell me how to evaluate the debate in your speeches.

Do your thing and do it well. I will adapt to you.

What I wrote below are my thoughts on debate - I will vote for who wins the debate, even if arguments go against my beliefs.

Also - post-round me. It makes me a better judge and you get more out of the RFD. I've made a couple of terrible decisions before, so please call me out if you disagree with the decision.

Hot Takes/Meta Level Things. These are my only hard rules.

-no vaping. L 20 the second I see it.

-I don't vote on false arguments - If you're just objectively wrong about something (a T violation they didn't violate, saying racism good, etc) I won't vote on it.

-I don't vote on evidence cut from private, unverifiable sources (emailing authors, cutting lectures from camp, etc). I'm fine with ev from things like podcasts, but every piece of evidence needs to be published in some form, by qualified authors.

-Stop cutting twitter threads. This also goes for medium articles from random unqualified people.

-Not a super big fan of debate coach evidence but it is what it is. You should not read evidence from a current or former coach of yours. You also should not read cards that were specifically published to be read in debate rounds.

-Inserting re-highlights of cards is good. If you think you have an indict you can do so, and give me an explanation of what the re-highlight means. If the explanation does not make an argument it does not get flowed. If any part of the article is different, read the new version out loud.

-Tell me what to do - I don't like to intervene so giving me impact framing or telling me how to evaluate a debate will get you far. My ideal RFD would be "I voted aff/neg in this debate because *2 to 3 lines from the 2nr/2ar*"

-Read complete 1NC arguments. 6 well-researched and highlighted off-case will get you much further than 12 off-case missing internal links or terminal impacts. If you sandbag to the block the 1AR will get quite a bit of leeway.

-Ev quality matters - Read 1 or 2 good cards, not 10 bad 1 line UQ cards.

-Sass/shade is funny. Don't be rude.

-I will protect the 1AR and 2NR like they are 2 newborn puppies.

-Never say the word RVI in a policy round.

-There's a difference between new 2AR spin and new 2AR arguments.

Policy v Policy Debates

-Evidence comparison and quality are very very important in these debates. Doing that will get you much further than spamming cards with little to no warrants and accompanying explanation.

-30 speaks if you read 8 minutes of impact turns and defense without repeating yourself and win the round.

-There should be at least 6 cards that talk about the aff/plan in the 1AC.

-I am increasingly finding theory arguments (outside of condo or aspec) to be a reason to reject the argument and not the team. Please tell me why it is a reason to reject the team if you go for it.

Topicality

-Very technical and well carded T debates are my favorite kind of T debates. The best definition cards are contextual to the resolution and are exclusive, not inclusive into a group.

-Interpretations must have an intent to define the phrases being debated. Bad cards here will hurt you quite a bit.

-Impact this out the same way you'd impact out disads or FW against a K aff.

-Reasonability is about how reasonable the counter interp is.

Disads

-I hate bad politics DAs. For the love of god please make complete arguments.

-Specific impact calculus and evidence comparison will get much further than 4 1-line uniqueness cards.

-Don't call midterms "mids" or politics "tix," -1 speaks.

Counterplans

-Conditionality is good. I have voted on conditionality bad before. No evidence, combining, amending, or adding to CPs will make me more likely to vote aff on conditionality. Zidao gives the best condo 2ARs.

-If there is no evidence for a CP smart 2AC analytics can beat it. The 1AR will get leeway to answer 2NC sandbagging.

-Judge kick is good because of conditionality. I will do it if the 2NR asks me to. If the 2AR has any objection I might change my mind.

-Counterplan text amendments or changes of the actor in the 2NC are probably not legitimate - especially if it's because you messed up and used the wrong actor.

K debates

-Argument development and engagement on the line-by-line will get you very far.

-The best K debaters give very well-organized and easy-to-flow speeches, do good line by line, and tell me what arguments matter the most. To do this, limit the overview and do as much quality line by line as possible.

-Examples are great for these debates.

-If you want to win I need to know the method and what the aff/K does by the end of the debate. This doesn't mean I need a 3-minute explanation, but I need to know what I vote for and why what I vote for is a good thing.

-I need to understand both competing "ideas of debate," ie what both teams think debate should be like.

-In these debates, you must tell me how to vote. Judge instruction is very important and will make you much happier with the way I decide the round.

-Affs/Ks should be in some way related to the topic/the aff.

-I reward a well-thought-out and executed performance.

K affs

-Make sure you know what you are talking about. If you read a poem/play music, it should be relevant after the 1AC.

-If your strategy is impact turns to the 2NR, go for it, but there needs to be analysis contextual to the negative disads.

-I prefer you to have a relation to the topic and that you answer questions in CX.

-Also, fairness is probably an internal link (or is it? you tell me), and Antonio 95 is bad.

-I said this earlier but I will say it again. Tell me what the aff does. I need to know what I am voting for and why that is good. Presumption arguments are a much easier sell if you cannot do this properly.

Framework

-I think that Framework is about competing models of debate between what the aff justifies and what the negative thinks is best. This means that if you go for framework as a way to limit out content from debate you will not win (ex. "vote us up because we remove K affs from the debate space").

-The negative's model of debate should be able to access similar education and subject formation that the aff is able to access ie. you need to tell me why policy education is able to create good subject formation and education, or how clash is key to education about "x" scholarship.

-I've found myself voting on framework impacts that aren't fairness more recently.

-A lot of the time I vote negative in these debates because the aff doesn't answer the TVA properly, doesn't engage limits offense, or isn't doing enough analysis on the impact level.

-Make a TVA with a solvency advocate. TVA's need substantive answers outside of "doesn't solve the aff." You need to explain to me how the TVA resolves the impact turns to framework and what affs under your model would look like.

Kritiks

-These can be some of the best and worst arguments in a debate round. Good K debaters know the argument they are reading well and come prepared with robust defenses of the arguments they make. In these debates, I am able to look at my flow and understand the thesis of the argument after the round.

-The more specific the link and the more time is devoted to a comprehensive alternative explanation = the more likely I am to vote for you.

-Saying this for the third time. I need to know what I am voting for and why that is good. If you have a different vision for debate I need to know what it is and why it is better.

-K Framework is very important and should probably have a card if it's more complicated than "Endorse the best subject formations."

-Affs need to develop more substantive arguments about fairness/state engagement. Framework makes or breaks 70% of K debates - a 20 second generic 2AC isn't enough. Prioritize it and be responsive to arguments from both sides.

-If you're reading high theory/pomo arguments contextualization, evidence comparison, and explanations matter a lot more to me.

-1ARs spend too much time on fairness when it's either a wash or obviously being won by one side. Explain what happens if you get to weigh your aff and stop spending 3 minutes on 1 line arguments from the 2NC about fairness because it won't ever be in the 2NR. TLDR - answer arguments but don't spend 30 seconds on each fairness subpoint when 5 will do.

-Examples can win you the round so give them to me - they're underutilized by a lot of K teams and it shows me you all don't research your arguments or know how your structural claims actually impact people's lives.

-Your 2NR needs to have an explanation of how the alt resolves all of the links and impacts you go for. That means a 2NR with little explanation of the alt needs to be winning links and impact framing claims decisively to win the round.

Misc

Make me laugh. I'm on the discord and use Reddit and stuff so I know memes. If you make a meme reference or something I'll be happy. If you make a really good joke or meme reference from the discord maybe +.1 speaks.

I'll give you a smiley face on the ballot for making fun of any current or former Coppell debaters (specifically Rohin Balkundi, Het Desai, or Shreyas Rajagopal), or anyone from the discord. If it makes me laugh, +.1 speaks.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LD

-Email me if you have questions about my philosophy - TLDR is that I'd prefer a more "progressive" round, but the LD-specific things I've written are short/vague and I'd be happy to elaborate.

-If I'm judging LD, read my policy paradigm. That should sum up most things.

-Bad arguments make me unhappy. Your speaks will reflect that. That said, if you can't beat bad theory arguments it's not my problem (seriously why does nobody go for reasonability). You can answer most of these arguments with 5 words.

-Ask yourself "Can I read this argument in a policy round?" The answer will tell you how seriously I will take the argument.

-I'm not here to police you or your arguments, but some LD shenanigans are too much.

-Trix are for kids. I will not vote for tricks I can't understand or explain back to you. ps - condo logic is a terrible argument.

-If you have me in the back the best way to do things is to debate like it's a policy round or explaining the random LD things like phil very well.

-no RVI.

Random Thoughts -

1) I feel like I have a higher expectation of argument development from the negative due to my policy background. It's something I'm trying to be more mindful of. I would appreciate it if both debaters "went for" fewer arguments and focused on developing the arguments they are winning.

2) Whoever decided that "must read conditional advocacies in the 1N" is a real argument should be banned from debate.

3) I get that it's online, but asking "what was the response to x?" during 1AR/2NR/2AR prep is really annoying and I don't expect answers from either side.

4) If you have disclosed "race war spec" or something like that at any point I'm docking speaks. It's an incredibly anti-black and reductionist way to answer an otherwise bad argument. Just answer the spec argument normally instead of going out of your way and putting it on the wiki.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PF

Read Shabbir Bohri's Paradigm.

I've been coaching and judging for 15+ years. So there isn't much I haven't seen or heard. I'm most persuaded by good debating. Please do not be rude or condescending. Please be clear enough to understand. Use your evidence wisely and whereas big impacts are good, realistic impacts are better. The point of debate, for me, is education and communication. Show me you learned something and that you can communicate in an intelligent, well thought out, cohesive manner. People can write out a hundred paragraphs about what they want but at the end of the day I've coached enough champions to tell you that's what it all boils down to. Most importantly, have fun! Love to see students progress and become the natural born leaders we know you all are! And to give some unsolicited advice from a seasoned coach, don't give up. It's may be cliche but somethings are said over and over for a reason. Keep trying, be consistent and you'll be successful! Good luck everyone!

I am a parent and have recently started judging(only since this year).

I want contestants to be courteous and respectable. Its ok to be aggressive but not rude.

I want both sides to present with clear arguments with valid supporting evidence. Keep it simple. If I don't understand the argument, it will become hard to me to vote for it. Explain everything thoroughly and focus more on content and evidence.

i dont usually disclose the results immediately
Have fun at your rounds!

Occupation: Firmware director at Roku

Dougherty Valley High School judge

I have judged LD at 3 lay tournaments.

I deduct speaker points from thirty in increments of 0.2 based on multiple filler words, pauses (more or fewer deductions depending on length), bad enunciation, unprofessionalism, etc. Please do not spread, and talk at a moderate speed.

At the end of the debate, the winner must have done these better than their opponents: refuted opponent's arguments, defended their own case using evidence and logic, conducted a good cross-examination (will weight pretty heavily!), answered questions well during opponent's cross-examination, evaluated framework, and weighed impacts. I also will know exactly what to look for if you provide voting issues (why I should vote for you) in the last speech.

I try to take notes as much as I can, but I am relatively new to judging debate and won't rely 100% on my notes. I write down the framework and main points with refutations as well.

From 1-10 in importance:

"Appearance/Clothing" is 3

"Use of Evidence" is 8 (if attacked by the opponent in refutation, importance increases)

"Real World Impacts" is 9 (weigh against opponent's impacts under framework)

"Cross Examination" is 7 (delivering and answering both)

"Debate Skill over Truthful Arguments" is 6 (If the opponent doesn't attack a claim/argument for being improbable, I will not consider it as improbable unless it's not supported by evidence at all and it's 100% conjecture, and etc.)

Im a lay judge with some experience miniature tournament like James Logan . I will buy into logical argumentation, and speaker points aren't necessarily how you talk rather what you mean and how you present your case. Remember, give me the logic in your arguments and explain the links and make sure your arguments make sense. I will write down notes but not fully flow, to the best of my abilities.

It is your job as a debater to slow down and make sure I understand your points, plus you will be awarded speaker points if you do this.

Weighing is important: If you don't tell why an argument is better than another, then I am forced to decide and practically intervene in order to make a decision, and that's a risk which can be avoided. Take this a step further and weigh between different types of weighing to make sure the round is even more clear. In short, write the RFDS for me.

Lastly, as a brief note don't be intimidated if your opponent is vastly a better speaker than you are. Again, debate is distinct because it is about arguments. If you can tell me why your arguments 1. Make sense 2. Are comparatively better than your opponents you will win.

Have fun and enjoy!

Aight this’ll probably change throughout the course of my like judging career but yeah, here we go for now.

edit for grapevine: pls don't go at ur top speed, school is already scrambling my brain and its the first tournament of the year. 70-90% is good but above that I'm def gonna miss arguments

ADD ME TO THE CHAIN: sbraithwaite@guilford.edu

***If you're addressing me call me X. I will doc your speaks by 0.5 if you call me anything else but judge or X***

I’m X, aka Newark Science SB (she/they), i’ve done LD debate since I was a freshman and policy debate a couple of times since I was a junior. I qualled twice to the TOC (2019 & 2020) and took two tourneys my junior year, Byram Hills and Ridge, and got to bid rounds of policy tournaments with 3 different partners. I almost exclusively read identity-based arguments from the time I was a sophomore until my senior year. My literature base consists of Alexis P. Gumbs, Saidiya Hartman, Nadia Brown, Lisa Young, etc. This should tell you a little bit about my stance towards Ks

A few paradigm issues (aka TLDR):

1. Ks/K affs/Performance/Non-T>K Theory>T>Theory>Policy>Tricks

2. YOUR 2NR/2AR SHOULD BE WRITING MY BALLOT FOR ME- The best way to get high speaks/my ballot is for my RFD to sound damn near like those 2 speeches. closing the debate is reallllly important, especially in close rounds. I won't do the work for you.

Things I default to-

1. Truth > Tech: Techy arguments make it so that important conversations about race, sex, positionality, etc. get drown out by things that don’t matter like a debater dropping subpoint A8 of impact 35. By truth I mean, big picture debate, not claims that are literally true. Ex: The aff says that black women should sacrifice themselves to save the entire world. The neg should engage with this idea, it’s clearly a bad one. The way tech is used against K debaters is unable to hold them accountable for the ways in which they add to a violent debate space. That brings me to my second point.

2. Debate is not a game. Debate has material impacts for those who engage in it, especially POC. Please be mindful that debate is sometimes some debater’s only option when it comes to funding college or having a platform to speak freely. Also it’s just not unreasonable to consider how it can be a game for some and not for others. You have a high threshold to prove to me why it is (hint: maybe find better, more strategic T shells, friend)

3. Word PICs against K affs are not a good look whatsoever. Unless they do something OVERTLY wrong, like saying the N-word without being black, etc. don’t read it infront of me. It’s violent and abstracts from infinite violence against the group of people they’re talking about. So you’re telling me changing the ‘e’ to an ‘x’ in women will change discourse about black women in gender studies? Yeah aight. Anyways, it’s a form of infinite policing and promotes a bad model of debate. But if you feel like there’s a legit reason to read a PIC go for it! I exclusively read PIKs in the latter half of my senior year.

4. Util framing is kinda ridiculous and anti-black. Not saying I won’t evaluate it, but if your opponent warrants why it is, given that the claim is literally just true, you’re gonna be held at a higher threshold to prove why it’s not. Just saying.

Now the fun stuff:

Ks/Ks affs/Performance: This is what I LIVE for. But only if you know what you’re talking about. If you’re just doing just to do it or for my ballot and execute it poorly, I won’t hack for you. K debate takes work, dedication and reading. If you think that you can override all three layers, read some K off the Wake backfiles and get my ballot, it’s gon be a sad day for you.

Theory/Tricks: Friv theory belongs with tricks, don’t like it, it’s violent, will not even flow it. Disclosure theory is fine EXCEPT when you are debating a black person or you are one. 1. Niggas don’t have to disclose to you 2. Disclose to niggas. Besides that, theory can be really creative and fun and actually substantive/responsive.

T: Traumatizing, mentally exhausting and often times whiney. Fairness isn’t a voter, read it and I will not flow it as an impact. T is often used against black debaters to get out of hard convos. Also like if we being REAL right now, I think theres probably like one or two completely untopical affs per year. Y’all like to run T against K affs to silence their relation to the topic because it’s “too hard to engage with”. Boo-Hoo for you. Ask your coach how to engage. It’s what they’re paid for.

***EDIT AS OF 1/1/2021: I do like a good T debate but please please please don’t read from some K aff block. make it nuanced. make it relevant. make it meaningful.

Policy: This is lowkey an unknown for me if i’m being honest. Never debated in a policy way, it’s towards the bottom because I don’t trust myself to judge policy, but if you do, hey, go off.

*Speaker points for me aren’t based off of aesthetics of debate norms, but big picture debate. Meaning if I vote you up on T USFG or something like it, it’ll be a low point win.

anthonyrbrown85@gmail.com for the chain

*Please show up to the round pre-flowed and ready to go. If you get to the room before me or are second flight, flip and get the email chain started so we don't delay the rounds.*

Background

Currently the head coach at Southlake Carroll. The majority of my experience is in Public Forum but I’ve spent time either competing or judging every event.

General

You would probably classify me as a flay judge. The easiest way to win my ballot is through comparative weighing. Explain why your links are clearer and stronger and how your impacts are more important than those of your opponents.

Speed is fine but if I miss something that is crucial to your case because you can’t speak fast and clearly at the same time then that’ll be your fault. If you really want to avoid this issue then I would send a speech doc if you plan on going more than 225 wpm.

I do not flow cross so if anything important was said mention it in a speech.

I would classify myself as tech over truth but let’s not get too crazy.

Speaking

Typical speaks are between 27-30. I don’t give many 30s but it’s not impossible to get a 30 from me.

I would much rather you sacrifice your speed for clarity. If you can’t get to everything that you need to say then it would probably be best to prioritize your impacts and do a great job weighing.

Any comments that are intended (or unintended in certain circumstances) to be discriminatory in any form will immediately result in the lowest possible speaker points.

PF Specific

I’m probably not evaluating your K or theory argument at a non-bid tournament. If you’re feeling brave then you can go for it but unless the literature is solid and it is very well run, I’m going to feel like you’re trying to strat out of the debate by utilizing a style that is not yet a norm and your opponents likely did not plan for. If we're at a bid tournament or state, go for it.

Don’t just extend card names and dates without at least briefly reminding me what that card said. Occasionally I write down the content of the card but not the author so if you just extend an author it won’t do you any good.

I have a super high threshold for IVIs. If there's some sort of debate based abuse run a proper shell.

LD Specific (This is not my primary event so I would make sure I check this)

Cheatsheet (1 is most comfortable, 5 is lowest)

Policy: 1

Theory: 2

Topical Ks: 2

Phil: 4

Non-Topical Ks: 4

Tricks: 5

I’ll understand your LARP arguments. I’ll be able to follow your spreading. I can evaluate most K’s but am most comfortable with topical K’s. I will understand your theory arguments but typically don't go for RVIs. I would over-explain if you don’t fall into those categories and adjust if possible.

I am a debate coach whose decisions are incredibly flow based. I am a great judge for technical, mechanical line-by-line debate where I can crisply hear every syllable of every single word. My background is in policy debate, but I have primarily coached/judged LD for the past 5+ years.

Debating can overcome any of these shortcut numbers, but historically:

1- kritiks, policy debate, k affs, plans, not plans, counterplans, disads, t, theory, pics, performance, politics da, trad

2/3- phil

3-6- tricks

5- disclosure/wiki theory (this does not mean you should purposefully lie/not disclose because I am judging)

6/strike- spreading analytics at card text speed, t-framework/usfg, t-nebel

Some defaults:

There is zero risk that I will win a gold medal in the 100m dash at the 2028 LA Summer Olympics (yes zero risk)

Debaters must explicitly provide judge kick as an option in the speech act (no judge kick)

Judge instruction is axiomatic (please do a lot)

Hello, most of my debate career was spent as a critical debater but I can follow and don’t mind traditional policy debate. My judging preferences are really simple just do what you do best and if you win on the flow you win the debate. Spreading is ok be sure to slow down on taglines and the arguments you really want me to evaluate at the end of the round. Don’t feel pressured to debate a certain way just be yourself and be respectful.

Updated 9/6/24 for UK

Hi everyone, I'm Holden (They/He)!

University of North Texas '23, and '25 (Go Mean Green!)

If you are a senior graduating this year, UNT has debate scholarships and a program with resources! If you are interested in looking into the team please contact me via my email listed below and we can talk about the program and what it can offer you! If you are committed to UNT, please conflict me!

I would appreciate it if you put me on the email chain: bukowskyhd@yahoo.com

Most of this can be applied to any debate event, but if there are event specific things then I will flag them, but they are mostly at the bottom.

*Note for policy debate (HS and college): I have noticed that arguments involving non-utilitarian decision calculus have become increasingly more common in the meta (I.E. Kant). I am amenable to these arguments, and have read up on most common debate applicable philosophy, and have judged numerous philosophy-based debates in LD. However, I find that their execution amounts to non-arguments and conjecture about 75% of the time when there is little to no argument development, this is your warning.

*Notes and thoughts for the livng wage topic, LD: Great topic to debate in front of me for if you care about providing descriptions of how the economics of a living wage interact with whatever policy, k, or phil argument you go for. Link turns to k's need to be more than "the plan is good because it reduces wage inequality" and links to k's need to be more than "they think about the economy, that's bad." Topicality thoughts are pretty middle road, more open to T - bare plurals than in previous topics, but also be able to contextualize why whatever grammar standard you are apply is applicable to the topic. Unconvinced about T - living wage as a subsets argument, and unconvinced about T - workers to exclude certain parts of an economic sector.

The TLDR:

Debate is about you, not me. I think intervention is bad (until a certain point, those exceptions will be made obvious), and that letting the debaters handle my adjudication of the round as much as possible is best. I've been described as "grumpy," and described as an individual "that would vote on anything," I think both of these things are true in a vacuum and often translate in the way that I perceive arguments. However, my adherence to the flow often overrides my desire to frown and drop my head whilst hearing a terrible argument. In that train of thought, I try to be as close to a "no feelings flow bot" when adjudicating debates, which means go for whatever you want as long as it has a warrant and isn't something I flat out refuse to vote on (see rest of paradigm). I enjoy debates over substance surrounding the topic, it's simulated effects, it's adherence to philosophical principles, and it's critical assumptions, much more than hypertechnical theory debates that aren't based on things that the plan does. Bad arguments most certainly exist, and I greatly dislike them, but the onus is on debaters for disproving those bad arguments. I have voted for every type of argument under the sun at this point, and nothing you do will likely surprise me, but let me be clear when I encourage you to do what you interpret as necessary to win you the debate in terms of argumentive strategy.

I take the safety of the debaters in round very seriously. If there is ever an issue, and it seems like I am not noticing, please let me know in some manner (whether that be through a private email, a sign of some kind, etc.). I try to be as cognizant as possible of the things happening in round, but I am a human being and a terrible reader of facial expressions at that so there might be moments where I am not picking up on something. Misgendering is included in this, I take misgendering very seriously and have developed the following procedure for adjudicating cases where this does happen: you get one chance with your speaks being docked that one time, more than once and you have lost my ballot even if an argument has not been made related to this. I am extremely persuaded by misgendering bad shells. Respect people's pronouns and personhood.

Tech > Truth

Yes speed, yes clarity, yes spreading, will likely keep up but will clear you twice and then give up after that.

Debate influences/important coaches who I value immensely: Colin Quinn.

Trigger warnings - they're good broadly, you should probably give individuals time to prepare themselves if you delve into discussions of graphic violence. For me, that includes in depth discussion of anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide.

I flow on my laptop, and consider myself a pretty good flow when people are clear, probably a 8-8.5/10. Just be clear, number your arguments, and slow down on analytics please.

Cheating, including evidence ethics and clipping, is bad. I have seen clipping become much more common and I will vote you down if I feel you have done so even without "recorded" evidence or a challenge from another debater.

For your pref sheets (policy):

Clash debates - 1

K v K debates - 1

Policy throwdowns - 1/2 (I can judge and am fairly confident in these debates but have less experience in this compared to others and need a bit more hand holding)

For your pref sheets (LD):

Clash debates of any kind (Policy v K, K aff v framework, phil v k, etc.) - 1

K - 1

Policy - 1

Phil - 1

T/Theory - 1/2

Tricks - 4

Trad - 5/Strike

I'm serious about these rankings, I value execution over content and am comfortable judging any type of debate done well.

The Long Version:

Who the hell is this person, why did my coach/I pref them?

Hello! My name is Holden, this year will mark my 9th year in debate. I am currently a communication studies graduate student at the University of North Texas, where I also got my bachelors in psychology and philosophy. During my time as a competitor, I did policy, LD, and NFA-LD. My exposure to the circuit really began my sophomore year of high school, but nothing of true note really occurred during my high school career. College had me qualify for the NFA-LD national tournament twice, I got to octas twice, broke at majors, got gavels, round robin invites. I now coach and judge exclusively, where I have coached teams that have qualified to the NDT, qualified to outrounds of just about every bid tournament, gotten several speaker awards, have accrued 30+ bids, and made it to elimination rounds and have been the top speaker of the TOC.

I judge a lot, and by that I mean a lot. Currently at 600+ debates judged since I graduated high school in 2020. I think this is because judging is a skill, and one that gets better the more you do it, and you get worse when you haven't done it in a while. I genuinely enjoy judging debates because of several reasons, whether that be my enjoyment of debate, the money, or because I enjoy the opportunity to help aid in the growth of debaters through feedback.

I do a lot of research, academically, debate wise, and for fun. Most of my research is in the kritikal side of things, mostly because I coach a bunch of K debaters. However, I often engage in policy research, and enjoy cutting those cards immensely. In addition, I have coached students who have gone for every argument type under the sun.

Please call me Holden, or judge (Holden is preferable, but if you vibe with judge then go for it). I hate anything more formal than that because it makes me uncomfortable (Mr. Bukowsky, sir, etc.)

Conflicts: Jack C. Hays High School (my alma mater), and the University of North Texas. I currently consult for Westlake (TX). Independently, I coach Barrington AC, Clear Springs EG, Clear Springs MS, East Chapel Hill AX, Jasper SG, Jordan FJ, Jordan KV, Plano West AR, Plano West RC, Riverside Independent JD and Vestavia Hills MH.

Previously, I have been affiliated with Jordan (TX) institutionally, and with American Heritage Broward CW, Bellevue/Washington Independent WL, Cypress Woods MM, Greenhill EX, and McNeil AS.

What does Holden think of debate?

It's a competitive game with pedagogical implications. I love debate immensely, and I take my role in it seriously. It is my job to evaluate arguments as presented, and intervene as little as possible. I'm not ideological on how I evaluate debates because I don't think it's my place to determine the validity of including arguments in debate (barring some exceptions). I think the previous sentence means that you should please do what you are most comfortable with to the best of your ability. There are only two concrete rules in debate - 1. there must be a winner and a loser, and those are decided by me, and 2. speech times are set in stone. Any preference that I have should not matter if you are doing your job, if I have to default to something then you did something incorrect.

To summarize the way that I think about judging, I think Yao Yao Chen does it best, "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck. I strive to judge in the most open-minded, faor, and diligent way I can, and I aim to be as thorough and transparent as possible in my decisions. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve judging that matches the effort you put into this activity. Anything short of that is anti-educational and a disappointment."

I’ve been told I take a while to come to a decision. This is true, but not for the reason you might think. Normally, I know how I’m voting approximately 30 seconds to 1 minute after the debate. However, I like to be thorough and make sure that I give the debate the time and effort that it deserves, and as such try to have all of my thoughts together. Believe me, I consider myself somewhat comprehensible most times, I find it reassuring to myself to make sure that all my thoughts about the arguments in debate are in order. This is also why I tend to give longer decisions, because I think there are often questions about argument X on Y sheet which are easily resolved by having those addressed in the rfd. As such, I try to approach each decision from a technical standpoint and how each argument a. interacts with the rest of the debate, b. how large of an impact that argument has, c. think through any defense to that argument, and d. if that argument is the round winner or outweighs the offense of the opposing side.

If it means anything, I think most of my debate takes are in camp "2N who had to be a 2A for a while as well so I think mostly about negative strategy but also think that the aff has the right to counter-terrorism against negative terrorism."

What does Holden like?

I like good debates. If you execute your arguments in a technically impressive manner, I will be pleased.

I like debates that require little intervention, please make my job easier for me via judge instruction, I hate thinking.

I like well researched arguments with clear connections to the topic/the affirmative.

I like when email chains are sent out before the start time so that 1AC's can begin at start time, don't delay the round any more than it has to be please.

I like good case debating, this includes a deep love for impact turns.

I like it when people make themselves easy to flow, this includes labeling your arguments (whether giving your arguments names, or doing organizational strategies like "1, 2, 3" or "a point, b point, c point, etc."), I find it harder to vote for teams that make it difficult for me to know who is responding to what and what those responses are so making sure I can flow you is key.

I like debaters that collapse in final speeches, it gives room for analysis, explanation, and weighing which all make me very happy.

I like it when I am given a framing mechanism to help filter offense. This can takes place via a standard, role of the ballot/judge, framework, fairness v education, a meta-ethic, impact calculus, or anything, I don't care. I just need an evaluative lens to determine how to parse through impact calculus.

What does Holden dislike?

I dislike everything that is the opposite of the above.

I dislike when people make problematic arguments.

I dislike unclear spreading.

I dislike messy debates with no work done to resolve them.

I dislike when people say "my time will start in 3, 2, 1."

I dislike when people ask if they can take prep, it's your prep time, I don't care just tell me you're taking it.

I dislike when debaters posture too much. I don't care, and it annoys me. Debate the debate, especially since half the time when debaters posture it's about the wrong thing. There is a difference between being firm, and being performative.

I dislike when debaters are exclusionary to novice debaters. I define this as running completely overcomplicated strategies that are then deployed with little to no explanation. I am fine with "trial by fire" but think that you shouldn't throw them in the volcano. You know what this means. Not abiding by this will get your speaks tanked.

I dislike when evidence exchange takes too long, this includes when it takes forever for someone to press send on an email, when someone forgets to hit reply all (it's 2024 and y'all have been using technology for how long????). If you think email chains aren't vibe then please use a speechdrop to save all of us the headache.

I dislike topicality where the interpretation card is written by someone in debate, and especially when it's not about the specific terms of art in the topic.

I dislike 1AR restarts.

How has Holden voted?

Since I started judging in 2020, I have judged exactly 620 debate rounds. Of those, I have voted aff approximately 52.23% of the time.

My speaks for the 2023-2024 season have averaged to be around 28.588, and across all of the seasons I have judged they are at 28.525.

I have been a part of 197 panels, where I have sat approximately 12.69% of the time.

What will Holden never vote on?

Arguments that involve the appearance of a debater (shoes theory, formal clothing theory, etc.).

Arguments that say that oppression (in any form) is good.

Arguments that contradict what was said in CX.

Claims without warrants, these are not arguments.

Specific Arguments:

Policy Arguments

Contrary to my reputation, I love CP/DA debates and have an immense amount of experience on the policy side of the argumentative spectrum. I do good amounts of research on the policy side of topics often, and coach teams that go for these arguments predominantly. I love a good DA + case 2NR, and will reward well done executions of these strategies because I think they're great. One of my favorite 2NR's to give while I was debating was DA + circumvention, and I think that these debates are great and really reward good research quality.

Counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive with germane net benefits, I think that most counterplans probably lose to permutations that make arguments about these issues and I greatly enjoy competition debates. Limited intrinsic permutations are probably justified against counterplans that don't say a word about the topic.

I am amenable to all counterplans, and think they're theoretically legitimate (for the most part). I think that half the counterplans people read are not competitive though.

Impact turn debates are amazing, give me more of them please and thank you.

I reward well cut evidence, if you cite a card as part of your warrant for your argument and it's not very good/unwarranted then that minimizes your strength of link/size of impact to that argument. I do read evidence a lot in these debates because I think that often acts as a tie breaker between the spin of two debaters.

Judge instruction is essential to my ballot. Explain how I should frame a piece of evidence, what comes first and why, I think that telling me what to do and how to decipher the dozens of arguments in rounds makes your life and my job much easier and positively correlates to how much you will like my decision.

I enjoy well researched and topic specific process counterplans. They're great, especially when the evidence for them is topic specific and has a good solvency advocate.

I default no judge kick unless you make an argument for it.

Explain what the permutation looks like in the first responsive speech, just saying perm do both is a meaningless argument and I am not filling in the gaps for you.

For affs, I think that I prefer well developed and robust internal links into 2-3 impacts much more than the shot gun 7 impact strategy.

Explanation of how the DA turns case matters a lot to me, adjust your block/2NR accordingly.

Thoughts on conditionality are in the theory section.

K's

Say it with me everyone, Holden does not hack for the kritik. In fact, I've become much more grouchy about K debate lately. Aff's aren't defending anything, neg teams are shotgunning 2NR's without developing offense in comparison to the 1AR and the 2AR, and everyone is making me feel more and more tired. Call me old, but I think that K teams get too lost in the sauce, don't do enough argumentative interaction, and lose debates because they can't keep up technically. I think this is all magnified when the 2NR does not say a word about the aff at all.

This is where most of my research and judging is nowadays. I will be probably know what you're reading, have cut cards for whatever literature you are reading, and have a good amount of rounds judging and going for the K. I've been in debate for 8 years now, and have coached teams with a litany of literature interests, so feel free to read anything you want, just be able to explain it.

Aff teams against the K should go for framework, extinction outweighs, and the alt fails more.

Framework only matters as much as you make it matter. I think both sides of the debate are doing no argument resolution/establishing the implications of what it means to win framework. Does that mean that only consequences of the implementation of the plan matter, and I exclude the links to the plans epistemology? Does that mean that if the neg wins a link, the aff loses because I evaluate epistemology first? Questions like these often go unresolved, and I think teams often debate at each other via block reading without being comparative at all. Middle ground interps are often not as strategic as you think, and you are better off just going for you link you lose, or plan focus. To sum this up, make framework matter if you think it matters, and don't be afraid to just double down about your interp.

My ideal K 1NC will have 2-3 links to the aff (one of which is a link to the action of the aff), an alternative, and some kind of framing mechanism.

I have found that most 2NR's have trouble articulating what the alternative does, and how it interacts with the alts and the links. If you are unable to explain to me what the alternative does, your chance of getting my ballot goes down. Example from both sides of the debate help contextualize the offense y'all are going for in relation to the alternative, the links, and the permutation. Please explain the permutation in the first responsive speech.

I've found that most K teams are bad at debating the impact turn (heg/cap good), this is to say that I think that if you are against the K, I am very much willing to vote on the impact turn given that it is not morally repugnant (see above).

I appreciate innovation of K debate, if you introduce an interesting new argument instead of recyclying the same 1NC you've been running for several seasons I will be extremely thankful. At least update your cards every one in a while.

Please do not run a K just because you think I'll like it, bad K debates have seen some of the worst speaks I've ever given (for example, if you're reading an argument related to Settler Colonialism yet can't answer the 6 moves to innocence).

K tricks are cool if they have a warrant, floating piks need to be hinted at in the 1NC so they can be floating.

For the nerds that wanna know, the literature bases that I know pretty well are: Afro-pessimism, Baudrillard, Beller, Deleuze and Guattari, Grove, Halberstam, Hardt and Negri, Marxism, Psychoanalysis, Reps K's, Scranton/Eco-Pessimism, Security, Settler Colonialism, and Weheliye.

The literature bases that I know somewhat/am reading up on are: Abolition, Accelerationism (Fisher, CCRU people, etc.), Agamben, Bataille, Cybernetics, Disability Literature, Moten and Harney, Puar, and Queer pessimism.

A note on non-black engagement with afro-pessimism: I will watch your execution of this argument like a hawk if you decide to go for it. Particular authors make particular claims about the adoption of afro-pessimist advocacy by non-black individuals, while other authors make different claims, be mindful of this when you are cutting your evidence/constructing your 1NC. While my thoughts on this are more neutral than they once were, that does not mean you can do whatever. If you are reading this K as a non-black person, this becomes the round. If you are disingenious to the literature at all, your speaks are tanked and the ballot may be given away as well depending on how annoyed I am. This is your first and last warning.

K-Aff's

These are fine, cool even. They should defend something, and that something should provide a solvency mechanism for their impact claims. Having your aff discuss the resolution makes your framework answers become much more persuasive, and makes me happier to vote for you, especially since I am becoming increasingly convinced that there should be some stasis for debate.

For those negating these affs, the case debate is the weakest part of the debate from both sides. I think if the negative develops a really good piece of offense by the end of the debate then everything else just becomes so much easier for you to win. I will, in fact, vote for heg good, cap good, and other impact turns, and quite enjoy judging these debates.

Presumption is underrated if people understand how to go for it, unfortunately most people just don't know how. Most aff's don't do anything or have a cogent explanation of what their aff does to solve things and their ballot key warrant is bad, you should probably utilize that.

Marxism will be forever underrated versus K affs, aff's whose only responses are "doesn't explain the aff" and "X explains capitalism" will almost always lose to a decent 2NR on the cap k. This is your suggestion to update your answers to challenge the alternative on some level.

Innovation is immensely appreciated by both sides of this debate. I swear I've judged the exact same 2-4 affs about twenty times each and the 1NC's just never change. If your take on a literature base or negative strategy is interesting, innovative, and is something I haven't heard this year you will most definitely get higher speaks.

Performance based arguments are good/acceptable, I have experience coaching and running these arguments myself. However, I find that most times when ran that the performance is not really extended into the speeches after this, obviously there are some limitations but I think that it does give me leeway for leveraging your inevitable application of the performance to other areas of the debate.

T-Framework/T-USFG

It may be my old age getting to me, but I am becoming increasingly convinced that fairness is a viable impact option for the 2NR to go for. I think it probably has important implications for the ballot in terms of framing the resolution of affirmative and negative impact arguments, and those framing questions are often mishandled by the affirmative. However, I think that to make me enjoy this in debates negative teams need to avoid vacuous and cyclical lines of argumentation that often plague fairness 2NR's and instead

In my heart of hearts, I probably am aff leaning on this question, but my voting record has increasingly become negative leaning. I think this is because affirmatives have become quite bad at answering the negative arguments in a convincing, warranted, and strategic manner.

Framework isn't capital T true, but also isn't an automatic act of violence. I think I'm somewhat neutral on the question of how one should debate about the resolution, but I am of the belief that the resolution should at least center the debate in some way. What that means to you, though, is up to you.

Often, framework debates take place mostly at the impact level, with the internal link level to those impacts never being questioned. This is where I think both teams should take advantage of, and produces better debates about what debate should look like.

I have voted on straight up impact turns before, I've voted on counter-interps, and I've also voted on fairness as an impact. The onus is on the debaters to explain and flesh out their arguments in a manner that answers the 1AR/2NR. Reading off your blocks and not engaging specific warrants of DA's to your model often lead to me questioning what I'm voting for because there is no engagement in either side in the debate.

Counter-interpretations seem to be more persuasive to me, and are often underutilized. Counter-interpretations that have a decent explanation of what their model of debate looks like, and what debates under that model feature. Doing all of the above does wonder.

In terms of my thoughts about impacts to framework, my normal takes are clash > fairness > advocacy skills.

"Fairness is good because debate is a game and and we all have intrinsic motivation to compete" >>>> "fairness is an impact because it constrains your ability to evaluate your arguments so hack against them," if the latter is more in line with what your expalantion of fairness is then 9 times out of 10 you are going to lose.

Topicality (Theory is it's Own Monster)

I love T debates, they're absolutely some of my favorite rounds to adjudicate. They've certainly gotten stales and have devolved to some model of T subsets one way or another. However, I will still evaluate and vote on any topicality violation. Interps based on words/phrases of the resolution make me much happier than a lot of the LD "let's read this one card from a debate coach over and over and see where it gets us" approach.

Semantics and precision matter, this is not in a "bare plurals/grammar means it is read this" way but a "this is what this word means in the context of the topic" way.

My normal defaults:

- Competing interps

- Drop the debater

- No RVI's

Reasonability is about your counter-interp, not your aff. People need to relearn how to go for this because it's a lost art in the age of endless theory debates.

Arbitrary counter-interpretations that are not carded or based on evidence are given significantly less weight than counter-interps that define words in the resolution. "Your interp plus my aff" is a bad argument, and you are better served going for a more substantive argument.

Slow down a bit in these debates, I consider myself a decent flow but T is a monster in terms of the constant short arguments that arise in these debates so please give me typing time.

You should probably make a larger impact argument about why topicality matters "voters" if you will. Some standards are impacts on their own (precision mainly) but outside of that I have trouble understanding why limits explosion is bad sans some external argument about why making debate harder is bad.

Weigh internal links to similar pieces of offense, please and thank you.

Theory

I have judged numerous theory debates, more than the average judge for sure, and certainly more than I would care to admit. You'll most likely be fine in these debates in front of me, I ask that you don't blitz through analytics and would prefer you make good in-depth weighing arguments regarding your internal links to your offense. I find that a well-explained abuse story (whether that be potential or in-round) makes me conceptually more persuaded by your impact arguments.

Conditionality is good if you win that it is. i think conditionality is good as a general ideology, but your defense of it should be robust if you plan on abusing the usage of conditionality vehemently. I've noticed a trend among judges recently just blatantly refusing to vote on conditionality through some arbitrary threshold that they think is egrigious, or because they think conditionality is universally good. I am not one of those judges.If you wanna read 6 different counterplans, go ahead, but just dismissing theoretical arguments about conditionality like it's an afterthought will not garner you any sympathy from me. I evaluate conditionality the same no matter the type of event, but my threshold of annoyance for it being introduced varies by number of off and the event you are in. For example, I will be much less annoyed if condo is read in an LD round with 3+ conditional advocacies than I will be if condo is read in a college policy round with 1 conditional advocacy.

Sure, go for whatever shell you want, I'll flow it barring these exceptions:

- Shells abiut the appearance and clothing of anoher debater.

- Disclosure in the case in which a debater has said they can't disclose certain positions for safety reasons, please don't do this

- Reading "no i meets"

- Arguments that a debater may not be able to answer a new argument in the next speech (for example, if the 1AR concedes no new 2AR arguments, and the 2NR reads a new shell, I will always give the 2AR the ability to answer that new shell)

Independent Voters

These seem to be transforming into tricks honestly. I am unconvinced why these are reasons to reject the team most of the time. Words like "accessibility," "safety," and "violence" all have very precise definitions of what they mean in an academic and legal context and I think that they should not be thrown around with little to no care. Make them arguments/offense for you on the flow that they were on, not reasons to reject the team.

I will, however, abandon the flow and vote down that do engage in actively violent practices. I explained this above, but just be a decent human being. Don't be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

Evidence Ethics

I would much prefer these debates not occur. Nor would I really prefer to adjudicate a evidence rules issue as a theory shell. If you stake the round I will use the rules of the tournament or whatever organization it associates itself with. Debater that loses the challenge gets a 25, winner gets a 28.5.

For HS-LD:

Tricks

I have realized that I need more explanation when people are going for arguments based on getting into the weeds of logic (think the philosophy logic, IE if p, then q). I took logic but did not pay near enough attention nor care enough to have a deep understanding or desire to understand what you're talking about. This means slow down just a tiny bit and tone down the jargon so my head doesn't hurt as much.

My thoughts about tricks can be summarized as "God please do not if you don't have to, but if you aren't the one to initiate it you can go ham."

I can judge these debates, have judged numerous amounts of them in the past, and have coached/do coach debaters that have gone for these arguments, I would really just rather not deal with them. There's little to no innovation, and I am tired of the same arguments being recycled over and over again. If you throw random a prioris in the 1A/1N do not expect me to be very happy about the debate or your strategy. If I had to choose, carded and well developed tricks > "resolved means firmly determined and you know I am."

Slow down on the underviews, overviews, and impact calc sections of your framework (you know what I'm talking about), Yes I am flowing them but it doesn't help when you're blitzing through independent theory argumetns like they're card text. Going at like 70% of your normal speed in these situation is greatly appreciated.

Be straight up about the implication and warrant for tricks, if you're shifty about them in cross then I will be shifty about whether I feel like evaluating them or whether I'm tanking your speaks. This extends to disclosure practices, you know what this means.

Tricks versus identity-based kritikal affirmatives are bad and violent. Stop it.

Phil

I love phil debates. I coach plenty of debaters who go for phil arguments, and find that their interactions are really great. However, I find that debate has trended towards a shotgun approach to justifying X argument about how our mind works in favor of analytical syllogisms that are often spammy, underwarranted, and make little to no sense. I prefer carded syllogisms that identify a problem with ethics/metaphysics and explain how their framework resolves that via pieces of evidence.

The implication/impact of the parts of your syllogism should be clear from the speech they are introduced in, I dislike late breaking debates because you decided to hide what X argument meant in relation to the debate.

In phil v phil debates, there needs to be a larger emphasis on explanation between competing ethics. These debates are often extremely dense and messy, or extremely informational and engaging, and I would prefer that they be the latter rather than the formr. Explanation, clear engagement, and delineated weighing is how to get my ballot in these debates.

Hijacks are cool, but once again please explain because they're often just 10 seconds long with no actual warrants.

Slow down a bit as well, especially in rebuttals, these debates are often fast and blippy and I can only flow so fast

For those that are wondering, I'm pretty well read in most continental philosophy, social contract theorists, and most of the common names in debate. This includes the usual Kant, Hobbes, Pragmatism, Spinoza, and Deleuze as well as some pretty out of left field characters like Leibniz and Berkeley.

I have read some of the work regarding Rawls, Plato, Aquinas, Virtue Ethics, ILaw, Particularism, and Constitutitionality as well.

I know I have it listed as a phil literature base, but I conceptually have trouble with people reading Deleuze as an ethical framework, especially since the literature doesn't prescribe moral claims but is a question of metaphysics/politics, proceed with caution.

Defaults:

- Comparative worlds > truth testing

- Permissibility negates > affirms

- Presumption negates > affirms

- Epistemic confidence > modesty

Trad/Lay Debate

I mean, sure, why not. I can judge this, and debated on a rather traditional LD circuit in high school. However, I often find these debates to be boring, and most definitely not my cup of tea. If you think that you can change my mind, please go ahead, but I think that given the people that pref me most of the time I think it's in your best interest to pref me low or strike me, for your sake and mine.

NFA-LD:

Everything above applies.

Don't think I'm a K hack. I know my background may suggest otherwise but ideologically I have a high threshold for execution and will punish you for it if you fail to meet it. Seriously, I've voted against kritikal arguments more than I've voted for them. If you are not comfortable going for the K then please do not unless you absolutely want to, please do not adapt to me. I promise I'll be so down for a good disad and case 2NR or something similar.

"It's against NFA-LD rules" is not an argument or impact claim and if it is then it's an internal link to fairness. Only rules violation I will not roll my eyes at are ethics challenges.

Yes non-T affs, yes t - framework, yes cap good.heg good, no to terrible theory arguments like "must delineate stock issues."

Why are we obsessed with bad T arguments that do not have an intent to define words in the topic in the context of the topic? Come on y'all, act like we've been here.

Speaks:

An addendum to how I dish out speaks , any additional speaker points you get via challenges cannot get you above a 29.7, the other .3 is something you have to work for.

For speaker points challenges, those that know them can utilize them, this will be edited after TFA.

I don't consider myself super stingey or a speaks fairy, though I think I've gotten stingier compared to the rest of the pool.

I don't evaluate "give me X amount of speaks" arguments, if you want it so bad then perform well or use the methods I have outlined to boost your speaks.

Here's a general scale I use, it's adjusted to the tournament as best as possible -

29.5+ - Great round, you should be in late elims or win the tournament

29.1-29.4 - Great round, you should be in mid to late elims

28.6-29 - Good round, you should break or make the bubble at least

28.1-28.5 - About the middle of the pool

27.6-28 - You got some stuff to work on

27-27.5 - You got a lot of stuff to work on

Anything below a 27: You did something really horrible and I will be having a word with tab and your coach about it

If you have any more questions for me that I may have not answered on this page, please ask me before the round starts.

For email link chains: albertcardenas17@gmail.com

Debated 4 years in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate league

Worked for LAMDL for nearly a decade, shout out to UDLs

General

- I don't appreciate being post rounded. If you don't agree with my RFD after multiple attempts of providing a sensible explanation, that's on you. I will tell you to be a better debater, gg. If you'd like, I'm open to exchanging emails so as to not stall future rounds.

- If you run a critical affirmative with multiple methods and theories that don't blend well together or create a performative contradiction, then expect some less than celebratory speaks.

- If neither the aff or neg have any clashing impacts in the round, then you're forcing me to vote aff because aff is a 'good idea'.

- If you're aff and you read multiple perms against a K and say "extend the perm/s" in the 2AC without further context, I'm going to be lost.

- I'm open to any argument so much as you can defend it and make a persuasive case to me. But really, just do what you do best. If you want to run a policy affirmative with heg good and nuclear war advantages, great! If you wanna run a critical affirmative that argues the topic is anti-black, heteronormative, colonialist, anthropoecentirc, capitalist, etc., that's cool too! Just have a fun debate!

- I'm pretty generous with speaker points, but that doesn't mean you don't have to earn them.

- If I feel I have to evaluate a piece of evidence, I'll call for it when the round ends.

- I don't count sending speech docs as prep time.

- I'm not typically persuaded by critical language critiques. Unless the neg has a very good impact analysis and comparison of what using certain phrases or words looks like compared to the aff's impacts, then it's not going to contribute to my decision calculus. However, I'll listen to your argument and flow it like I would any other.

For LD: I have a policy background, but these days I judge more LD rounds than I do policy. I'll pretty much treat your round as I would a policy round. The only thing I'll say is

1. Be clear - really slow your spreading down, especially your analytics

2. I don't like cheap tricks, but they do often win rounds if it is not contested by the opponent. However, just because I don't like it, this doesn't mean I won't vote for it.

Aff/Case Stuff
I believe the case is important. That being said, if you don't have an impact, then why should i care about voting affirmative? Also, if you have nuclear scenarios in your affirmative, please don't just say "nuclear war is going to occur" and expect me to consider it as an argument. If you say exactly that, then you have a claim without a warrant. You have evidence, and you need to be able to explain those internal links. As for critical affirmatives, i believe the case should be able to respond to any or at least most off cases the negative presents which is to say it should have built-in answers. For example, if you have an affirmative that discusses anti-blackness, then your case should potentially be able to respond to many offs like FW, T, Cap, Anthro, Settlerism, or any other incantation of high theory, etc. Just make you use your case to its fullest is all i'm saying.

DAs
They're cool; the more specific of a link you have the better the round will go for you. Although, I might consider a DA that's obviously generic if the Aff doesn't respond properly. As for politics DA's, you better explain those internal links.

CPs
These are cool too; I've voted for CPs before and i'll probably vote on them again. I usually don't however, because they're used as a time skew and/or lack any substantive explanation.

T
Alright, so these arguments I'm not so thrilled about generally because when I see T being ran it's ran with generic blocks that don't really say anything, but just makes the neg sound like they're whining. So what if the aff is untopical? Why should I care if they explode the limits of the resolution? Why is this key to education? Why does that negatively impact the round? These are things that I hold a high threshold for and these are things that need to be explained in a way that will make me vote for you. But, I'm open to hearing it and considering it if you can run it persuasively. PLEASE slow down on your analytics a tiny bit.

Presumption

Yeah, I'll consider it.

FW
I'm down for a FW round. I like seeing a lot of clash between the typical standards offered by the neg vs those of critical affirmatives. So, do some comparison and impact analysis like what fairness means for the neg and what the terminal impact is for them and what fairness means for the affirmative and what the terminal impact might be for them. Compare impacts, weigh them against each other and convince me who has the better interpretation of debate. Also, if you're running FW don't just rely on overwhelming the affirmative with evidence. Remember, quality outweighs quantity and at the end of the round and that's what gets my ballot. Take the time to explain your evidence.


K
I love these arguments; I suppose my preference of style might favor you if you enjoy deploying Ks. My understanding of the philosophies and theories of authors read in debate travel beyond the bounds of this activity, but just make sure you are explaining your criticism coherently because I won't do the work for you, nor will I reward butchered arguments. So, to reiterate, if you read Baudrillard and you're talking about the seduction of the object or some other, explain it in a coherent manner. I don't care if you're running Bataille and you're trying to be unintelligible. Just remember, I have to understand what you're communicating to me (unless not knowing is a reason to vote you up lol) in order to evaluate your arguments. A good K debater will find killer links against the case and will use the case against itself to win the round.

*I personally shift back and forth on args focused on author indictments. For instance, I will agree on criticisms of high theory authors such as Heidegger, DnG, or Nietzsche. However, when I see these arguments deployed, it often sounds like the team that runs them is whining. SO, I will side with these ivory tower authors if you can convince me that even if Nietzsche is white and has never been oppressed, self-overcoming or whatever is probably a good idea and that not doing the aff is life affirming or whatever.

Performance
I love the creativity of these arguments, so if you run these go for it. However, don't just perform for the sake of performing or because 'it's cool'. Always use your performance as a way of turning your opponent's offensive arguments. Tell me how to evaluate the performance in contrast to the neg.

Let's have a good round.

I have coached LD at Strake Jesuit in Houston, Tx since 2009. I judge a lot and do a decent amount of topic research. Mostly on the national/toc circuit but also locally. Feel free to ask questions before the round. Add me to email chains. Jchriscastillo@gmail.com.

I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. The best debaters will 1. Focus on argument explanation over argument quantity. 2. Provide clear judge instruction.

I do not flow off the doc.

Evidence:

1. I rarely read evidence after debates.
2. Evidence should be highlighted so it's grammatically coherent and makes a complete argument.
3. Smart analytics can beat bad evidence
4. Compare and talk about evidence, don't just read more cards

Theory:

1. I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types.
2. I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness.
3. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.

Non-T/Planless affs: I'm good with these. I'm most compelled by affirmatives that 1. Can explain what the role of the neg is 2. Explain why the ballot is key.

Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".

Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity. I do not disclose speaks.

Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. I will not vote on "evaluate after X speech" arguments.

Did nat circuit pf for 4 years, also did circuit LD for a little.

For LD: Mostly debated theory, never interacted much with phil/K lit, but I'm willing to vote on it, just need it explained a little more.

For Pf: answer offense in 2nd rebuttal, defense is sticky, down to vote for theory in pf, please weigh

"Adapt to me or get off my lawn."

- Luis Sandoval (Meadows Debate)

Update for NPDI

It's been a long time since I debated/judged/coached on the circuit. I can't follow spreading like I used to. Please slow down a tad (especially if I look visibly confused) and explain stuff thoroughly.

Prefs cheat sheet:

1: fast, technical debate. good K debate (not pomo).

2: policy/LARP. good T debate.

3: phil. theory. lay/trad debate.

4: K (pomo).

S: tricks.

Background:

• Andrea, she/they. La Reina HS & Yale. Earth & Planetary Science major.
• Include me on the email chain andrea.nicole.chow@gmail.com
• I have debated and coached for 10 years now - 7 of which were circuit LD & policy in SoCal and 3 years of lay parli in New Haven. Also dabbled in speech & slam poetry - so I have a soft spot for performance... take from that what you will...
• I was coached by Leo Kim. I understand debate very similarly to him, but not exactly the same. Anything not answered in my paradigm can be answered in his.
• I was a K debater and am most familiar with set col & fem. That being said, this is not an invitation to pull out your team's spicy Baudrillard backfile from 2016 and go stupid. I think K's need to have some alt or offense or something or at least have an outstanding defense of why they don't need one. I would rather judge a good LARP round than a bad anything else.

Miscellaneous notes:

• Ways to improve your speaks: emailing me a picture of your flow after the round (and it's a good flow) (tell me you are planning I do this so I can look at your flows before submitting my ballot), telling me to read a specific piece of evidence (and it's good evidence), making puns or jokes (and they're funny)
• NON-CIRCUIT DEBATERS: I don't care what the CA debate handbook says. If your best/only argument against a counterplan is "the rulebook says that's not allowed," then maybe you should be reading a different aff.
• If your opponent asks you not to spread, you better not spread!!!
• If your opponent reads tricks, you can respond by saying "silly rabbit, Trix are for kids" and that will be a sufficient response for me.
• Include trigger warnings for graphic depictions of identity-based violence and anything to do with sexual assault or suicide. For example, reading set col pain narratives cause you're thirsty for a ballot is kind of hard to listen to. When you read these positions, ask yourself - how are you showing up for these communities outside of the round? Are you kind to other marginalized debaters? Do you donate to mutual aid funds with your resources? What books and sources do you read to learn more about the arguments, even when it doesn't benefit your case? The consequence of ignoring this is an L-25. If you are confused, ask before the round.
• If you are a circuit/varsity debater, and you are debating a traditional/novice debater, and you do some ridiculous behavior, act rude and condescending, spread them out, read 6 off, use tons of jargon, push them to disclose, etc., you will also receive an L-25. I have no qualms about judge intervention in this respect. I'm so sick of watching these types of rounds. You probably don't deserve to win anyway if you have to revert to these strategies; it's so embarrassing. Practice kindness.
• Please let me know if I can make any accommodations to make the round safer or more accessible for you.
• I flow primarily from your mouth and then from the speech doc, so slow down on tags + analytics.
• Explain everything to me like I am very, very stupid... because I am

FOR LD:

I'm a good judge for you if:

• You want a judge who will attempt to understand the debate to the best of their ability and try to adjudicate fairly.
• You read a critical affirmative.
• You mostly go for critical arguments.
• Your positions are creative and entertaining.
• You like fast, technical debate.
• You display a ton of personality in your debates.
• You are great at the topicality debate.
• You read well-researched disadvantage or counterplan strategies.
• You have a superior defense of impact turns.

I'm a decent judge for you if:

• You read an affirmative.
• You negate the affirmative.
• You default to generic negative strategies.
• You have a decent defense of your affirmative.

I'm not a great judge for you if:

• You assume I am following along with the speech doc as you go.
• You assume that I know anything about any mumbo-jumbo critique, so you don't have to explain it thoroughly.
• You're bad at debating the critique.
• You don't warrant your arguments.
• You expect high speaker points in every debate unless you radically change my understanding of the debate.
• You don't demonstrate a mastery of the arguments you've read.
• You like satire.
• You go for tricks.
• You think of human suffering as a tool to help you win the ballot.

I'm an AWFUL judge for you if:

• You unapologetically defend sexist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, etc., arguments.
• You think death is good.
• You ask your opponent to delete things from the speech doc. The highest speaker points you will receive are 28. I've only ever seen this problem in LD.
• Your best strategy against a team is theory. Distinct from topicality. Also have only encountered this in LD.
• You like racing through arguments as fast as humanely possible.
• You speak unclearly.
• Your strategy relies on making your opponents uncomfortable.
• You're disrespectful to your opponents.
• Your strategy relies on having someone who enjoys LD.

People who were heavily influential in shaping my understanding of debate (and therefore probably have very similar paradigms to me) in order from most to least:

Leo Kim

Ben Crossan

Kate Totz

Alanna Cronk

Katie Raphaelson

Andrew Overing

Please put me on the chain - qtcc@cs.toronto.edu

About me: I went to Harker for high school, went to Boston University to get undergraduate degrees in computer engineering and philosophy, and now I'm a PhD student in Computer Science at the University of Toronto.

My debate background: I did LD at Harker for like ~5 years (mostly going for policy arguments, and occasionally K things), and have been an assistant coach for Harker since 2020. I've judged at like 5 or 6 tournaments a year on average as a coach. I used to cut a lot of cards, but now I really only do at tournaments.

Biggest thing: Ivery rarely evaluate theory. See more thoughts below.

Rules that are set in stone

- Arguments that are blatantly sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. and clearly made in bad faith means an instant loss, 0 speaks, and an uncomfortable conversation with your coach. If it's clear the debate is being made violent the debate ends. If you have a question about an argument, ask before the round.

- if you feel uncomfortable participating in the debate (your opp. triggered you, accidentally misgendered you, etc) feel free to discretely email or talk to me if you're uncomfortable making it an issue in the debate and we'll all work to make the debate a more productive space

- If your opponent is speaking too quickly or unclearly for you to flow, you have a right to call clear.

- I won't flow arguments made after the timer ends.

- I'll evaluate evidence ethics and other cheating challenges per tournament rules.

General

I have now not been a debater for a while, and I coach and do argument preparation less than when I was an undergraduate. Keep in mind I might not be up-do-date on all the newest trends, but I should be able to follow along just fine.

I don't think judging from a tabla rasa perspective is either possible nor desirable. The way I make determinations about what is true and false, in the real world and in debate, comes from a Bayesian perspective where I have shifting confidence in the truth of things given my knowledge and exposure to them. Generally, overcoming these priors requires presenting evidence to the contrary proportional to how far away from my current position, and my confidence in that position is. I find that this makes me a bit of an evidence hack in the sense that I frequently look at evidence presented even when not asked to to assess how strongly my priors should be shifted vis a vis a given argument.

Examples:

I have a high certainty that the Pyramids of Giza are in Egypt. To win that they are actually in China would require outrageously strong argumentation or evidence because it is a position very far outside my belief.

I have low confidence that act utilitarianism is true. To win that Kantian ethics or Hobbesian ethics are correct would only require a minimum viable argument to the contrary.

I have a moderate amount of confidence that there is alien life somewhere in the universe. Winning that they are in our galaxy/sort of nearby would require some evidence, but would not be challenging because it is close to my existing beliefs. Winning the government is concealing terrestrial-alien contact would require a great deal of very strong evidence. Winning there are Alien shape-shifters walking on Earth among us would be virtually impossible.

Broadly, I find my beliefs arepretty aligned with common sense, but I intentionally shoot for epistemic humility (I have low confidence about things I am not an expert in) so it is very unlikely I will totally zap an argument you have evidence for because I vaguely thought it might be incorrect.

About argumentation/debate things: Arguments that are dropped are given a "full weight" of access to change my priors, but not all arguments pass the threshold needed to do that. Saying "The Pyramids of Giza are in Colombia because I think I read it in a book once" is an argument, but does not swing my prior much so if the other side drops it that does not automatically mean I think the Pyramids are in Colombia. My beliefs are changed more aggressively by a] arguments that are explained in-depth and b] by arguments that cite highly qualified authors working closely in the field in which you are arguing.

About the Kritik: I have a moderate amount of confidence that the world is too complex to be totally explained by one social or political philosophy. I have a small amount of confidence in the idea that debate should soley be about the desirability of the plan. I have high confidence that the plan and Aff should be counted at least somewhat in my determination of the resolutional question. I think psychoanalysis is pretty silly. I am highly confident that reading framework/topicality is not violent. Generally, I find it to be the onus of Affirmatives reading explicitly non-topical affirmatives to explain in great detail why I should vote Aff beyond the Aff just being true.

Topicality

I have a moderate amount of confidence that evaluating the plan text in a vacuum is the best way to determine if the plan is topical, and arguments that attempt to argue a thing the plan's solvency claims they do is not in the resolution are better made as solvency arguments. I require a relatively high degree of certainty that the Negative is correct before I will vote on topicality. I usually need definitions that define the words in the resolution, and clearly and strongly exclude the Affirmative, to feel comfortable voting Neg on T. I have a moderate amount of confidence that predictability is more important than "pragmatic" concerns like limits, ground, etc.

Theory

- I have very strong opinions about theory that you cannot change my mind about (you can think of these as "unchangable priors") I have and will give decisions that where I throw out a theory argument most people are fine with. Generally, if you find yourself wanting to go for theory against a counterplan (process cps bad, delay cps bad, etc.) you are better off winning they do not compete somehow.

- T starts as drop the debater, but never an RVI, theory is always drop the argument, and never an RVI. Exception is disclosure theory, which is drop the debater.

- Arguments I will evaluate: non-resolutional actor fiat (like I-Fiat or States), disclosure unless there has clearly been no good faith attempt to get it. Unlikely I vote on stuff like "must have complete round reports" or whatever, but if their disclosure practices are truly terrible and you can explain why this is probably ok. Misdisclosure/intentional trickery in particular is easy to win if you can prove it. Topicality arguments that define words in the resolution, judge kick.

- Arguments I will never evaluate: Any non-resolutional theory argument not listed above. This includes: "object fiat", solvency advocates, PICS bad, conditionality, no neg fiat, new affs bad, any form of spec argument without a card supporting it. I literally do not flow these, and will say as such as part of my RFD. Do not bother making them.

Miscellaneous

- Regarding re-highlighting - to point out flaws in evidence inserting is fine, to make an offensive argument read it.

she/they, lay-uh, not lee-uh

leah.clarkvilla@gmail.com

[Judge Info]

A) I've competed and coached high school and college policy debate since 2008.

B) I've taught new novice students and instructed K-12 teachers about Parli, PuFo, LD, and Policy

C) I am an educator and curriculum developer, so that is how I view my role as a judge and approach feedback in debate. I type my RFDs, please ask your coaches (if you have an experienced coach) to explain strategic concepts I referenced. Otherwise you can email me.

D) I am very aware of the differences in strategy and structure when comparing Policy Debate and Lincoln-Douglas debate.

d)) which means I can tell when evidence from one format of debate [ex: policy -> ld] is merely read in a different format of debate for strategic choices rather than educational engagement.

heads up: i can tell when you are (sp)reading policy cards at me, vs communicating persuasive and functionally strategic arguments. please read and write your speeches, don't just read blocks of evidence without doing the persuasive work of storytelling impacts.

Parts of an Argument:

Claim - your argument

Warrant - analytical reasoning or evidence

Impact - why the judge should care, why it's important

Impact Calculus:

Probability - how likely is it the impact will happen

Magnitude - how large is the harm/who will be negatively affected

Timeframe - when this impact will occur

Reversibility - can the harms be undone

prewritten analytics should be included in the doc. we are online. transparency, clarity, and communication is integral in debate. if you are unclear and i miss an argument, then i missed your argument because you were unclear

for policy and/or ld:

1) AFFs should present solutions, pass a Plan, or try to solve something

2) K AFFs that do not present a plan text must: 1. Be resolutional - 1ac should generally mention or talk about the topic even if you're not defending it, 2. Prove the 1AC/AFF is a prereq to policy, why does the AFF come before policy, why does policy fail without the aff? 3. Provide sufficient defense to TVAs - if NEG proves the AFF (or solvency for AFF's harms) can happen with a plan text, I am very persuaded by TVAs. K teams must have a strong defense to this.

3) Link to the squo/"Truth Claims" as an impact is not enough. These are generic and I am less persuaded by generic truth claims arguments without sufficient impacts

4) Critique of the resolution > Critique of the squo

5) NEG K alts do not have to solve the entirety of the AFF, but must prove a disadvantage or explain why a rejection of the AFF is better than the alt, or the squo solves.

6) Debate is a [policy or LD] game, if it is a survival strategy I need more warrants and impacts other than "the aff/alt is a survival strategy" with no explanation of how you are winning in-round impacts

7) Framing is FUNctional, the team that gives me the best guide on how/why I should vote for X typically wins the round. What's the ROB, ROJ, the purpose of this round, impact calc, how should I evaluate the debate?

8) Edu is important. Persuasive communication is part of edu. when the debate is messy or close I tend to evaluate the round in terms of 1. who did the better debating, 2. who best explained arguments and impacts and made me more clearly understand the debate, 3. who understood their evidence/case the most.

9) Dropped arguments are not always necessarily true - I will vote on dropped arguments if it was impacted out and explained why it's a voter, but not if the only warrant is "they conceded _____it so it's a voter"

10) I flow arguments, not authors. It will be helpful to clarify which authors are important by summarizing/impacting their arguments instead of name dropping them without context or explanation.

"There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, 'Fool me once, shame on... shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again."

My Golden Rule: When you have the option to choose a more specific strategy vs a more generic strategy, always choose the more specific strategy. also, PLEASE GO SLOW! i am physically disabled and need time to flow. i am just as capable as any other judge cognitively. do not pref me if you are not willing to be flexible. i am familiar with cx and ld but not public forum at all. please no ld tricks - i will not have a clue what you are doing, i have a policy background :)

tl;dr: below

- dont be sexist, racist, transphobic, ableist, etc

- Please call me Cass..

- please go slow, i have a physical disability that impacts my hands

- If I yell clear three times during your speech, I will stop flowing your speech since I cannot understand what you're saying. That's on you.

- I prefer judging strategies that have specific links to the Aff.

- I am unable to evaluate any out of round links, as I cannot determine whether they are true or not.

- I am not the best judge for complex debates like baudy, however, I do have extensive experience in antiblackness, natives, afropess, cap.

- I will vote on conditionality bad/perf con if it is extended and won in the 2ar

- I am a sucker for soft left impacts.

- i dont like piks if you dont run it well.

- I love a good case debate.

- If you're running 8 off and 4 of them are just 1 card DAs or CPs that have no solvency cards with just a CP text, I'm not a huge fan. I understand the strategic advantage this can give the Neg, but these debates just get boring and non-sensical. These debates just aren't fun to judge since the Aff answers these stupid one card DAs or CP w/o a solvency card with very few answers, then the block just blows it up. I think it skews the debate unfairly and heavily in favor of the Neg. In these debates, I will not hesitate to vote Aff on condo if it is well extended into the 2ar. Also, I will be very lenient on the 1ar reading new answers/cards in their speech.

- This is an educational activity and the judge is a norm setter. At the same time, debate is a competitive game. (edu is a terminal impact)

- Have fun and be respectful to your opponents. Racism, xenophobia, transphobia, queerphobia, and sexism WILL NOT be tolerated. If this happens in a round, I will stop it immediately, vote you down, and report you to Tabroom and your coach.

- Add me on the email chain and keep analytics in your doc since online debate is a bit more difficult to judge, especially because it cuts out a lot. cassidy.condray@gmail.com

- Bonus points if you have a card doc ready for me if/before I ask for it. I like to read cards b/c I consider myself a truth>tech judge.

In 2017,2018,2019, I competed in the Oklahoma 6A State Championship, placed 2nd, 3rd, and 4th all years.

Please add me on the email chain: cassidy.condray@gmail.com

Critiques: I like them. i did in high school on ks and k affs, won many rounds, etc, etc In the past, I have voted for various types of critiques. I think they should have an alternative or they are just non-unique impacts. I think there should be a discussion of how the alternative interacts with the Aff advantages and solvency. Impact framing is important in these debates. The links the Aff are very important---the more specific the better. Some K lit bases I'm decently familiar with: Capitalism, Security, Anti-blackness, Natives, Reps (various types), Fem IR, Anthro, Nietzsche, and Queer theory. Some K lit bases I don't know very much about: Baudrillard, Bataille, Deleuze.

Congrats! You have made it this far. Remember, DO NOT PREF ME IF YOU CANNOT ADAPT TO MY SPREADING PREF! Have a great day.

The preferences below are a reflection of the way I debated in high school and the way I coach students, not the way I evaluate debates 100% of the time. Most of them can be changed through persuasive argumentation. I’m just going to vote for whoever wins the round.

Email: mconrad@ihs.immaculateheart.org

General Philosophy

Debate should be fun and I want to see you have fun and excel at what you do best. Please don't adjust your debating too much to me. I regularly vote for arguments and strategies I passionately disagree with and vice versa. No matter what strategy you defend, act as if my prior knowledge of it is close to 0. Even if you're right, I will judge and hold you accountable for warranting your arguments as if my knowledge was in fact 0. I treat judging as a serious obligation and no matter what you do, I'll give you my full attention and effort!

------

Non-Negotiables

1) Disclose. Full text is a bare minimum to win in front of me.

2) I will not vote on any argument about events outside the debate (I consider disclosure pertinent to the debate). Death good, arguments about your opponents appearance/clothing, and facially offensive actions end the round. I am not comfortable using my ballot as a moral judgement on students.

3) Fair Play. Miscut evidence, clipping, reading ahead, outside communication, evidence fabrication, etc are cheating. Accusations without proof mean you lose. “Evidence ethics” ends the round.

4) I won't vote on arguments I can't understand in the speech they're first made.

5) Show up to round on time. Prep ends when the doc is sent. Flow clarification is prep/CX. Marked docs should be sent immediately after the speech. If your opponent did not mark any cards in their speech, but did not read certain portions of the speech doc (i.e., skipped certain cards entirely), you must start prep before receiving a marked doc. If, however, your opponent marked cards, you may wait until you receive a marked doc to begin prep. The reason I have different policies for these circumstances is that the former is just flow clarification, whereas the latter actually affects the way you answer arguments.

-------

Preferences

1) I don't want to judge rounds about heinous tricks. I enjoy judging Phil debates but think they benefit from more explanation and less tricks.

2) In general, I lean neg on CP theory. Creative counterplans are underutilized. Creative perms are too. Judge kick makes sense to me, but is not my default. I'm not opposed to voting on condo, but err heavily neg, and I don't find hail-mary condo 2ARs fun to judge. To make it a viable 2AR, condo should be more than a sentence in the 1AR.

3) "Not defending implementation" doesn't make sense to me.

4) I err neg in K Aff vs. T debates, but my judging record in these debates is fairly even. Thoughts:

Aff: I think affirmatives have a burden of "affirming" something - I’m easily persuaded that pure pessimism is neg ground and presumption is winnable if the aff doesn't do anything (I don't know why this is almost never the 2nr). When answering T, counter-define words and have a debatable counterinterp ("discussion of the topic", "only our aff", etc. don't count - they wouldn't make sense in any other T debate). An effective strategy against framework should explain what your model of debate looks like, not just why your aff is important.

Neg: Listen to the 1AR - when I vote aff, it’s usually because of technical drops. Neg usually under-develop the TVA, but I find having one less important than a lot of judges do.

5) A kritik should disagree with and disprove the aff - you should be able to point out specific lines in the aff the K disagrees with. “Pre-fiat” does not mean anything. Answering the case is important. Weighing is important. The K should turn and outweigh the case, even if it’s an indictment of the representations the aff uses rather than the consequences of the plan. The 2NR should incorporate K tricks - they are smart and underutilized.

6) Independent voters don't exist. All arguments need to be tied to a specific framing argument.

7) Tired of hearing the same topicality debates over and over again. If it's just a dressed up version of plans bad (Nebel/T-a/etc) I'm probably not the best judge for it (although I vote for these arguments all the time). I don't think complex grammar debates are the best way to set the limits of the topic.

8) Random paradigmatic things:

- 1AR doesn't get add ons. 2NR doesn't get new uniqueness, links, etc.

- Insert re-highlighting: sure

- "You didn't read a fairness voter" isn't super compelling to me w.r.t. paragraph theory. It seems obvious to me that both sides should have a roughly equal shot at winning, all things equal.

- I will disregard any argument about my "jurisdiction" as a judge.

I value good speeches that use rhetorical devices (ethos, logos, and pathos) paired with good statistical evidence. Speaker points will reflect the quality of speeches. I give speaker points in the range of 25 - 28. I am unexperienced in "flow" debate.

Be culturally component and aware of your privileges when making general statements, truly try to understand someone else's experience before conducting a stereotype.

I am the Director of Debate at Immaculate Heart High School. I am a conflict for any competitors on this list.

General:

1. I will vote on nearly any argument that is well explained and compared to the arguments your opponent has made.

2. Accusing your opponent of an evidence ethics or clipping violation requires you to stake the debate on said allegation. If such an allegation is made, I will stop the debate, determine who I think is in the wrong, and vote against that person and give them the lowest speaker points allowed by the tournament.

3. I won’t vote on arguments that I don’t understand or that I don’t have flowed. I have been involved in circuit LD for almost ten years now and consider myself very good at flowing, so if I missed an argument it is likely because you were incomprehensible.

4. I am a strong proponent of disclosure, and I consider failing to disclose/incorrect disclosure a voting issue, though I am growing weary of nit-picky disclosure arguments that I don’t think are being read in good faith.

5. For online debate, please keep a local recording of your speech so that you can continue your speech and share it with your opponent and me in the event of a disconnect.

6. Weighing arguments are not new even if introduced in the final rebuttal speech. The Affirmative should not be expected to weigh their advantage against five DAs before the Negative has collapsed.

7. You need to use CX to ask which cards were read and which were skipped.

Some thoughts of mine:

1. I dislike arguments about individual debaters' personal identities. Though I have voted for these arguments plenty of times, I think I would vote against them the majority of the time in an evenly matched debate.

2. I am increasingly disinterested in voting for topicality arguments about bare plurals or theory arguments suggesting that either debater should take a stance on some random thing. No topic is infinitely large and voting for these arguments discourages topic research. I do however enjoy substantive topicality debates about meaningful interpretive disagreements regarding terms of art used in the resolution.

3. “Jurisdiction” and “resolvability” standards for theory arguments make little sense to me. Unless you can point out a debate from 2013 that is still in progress because somebody read a case that lacked an explicit weighing mechanism, I will have a very low threshold for responses to these arguments.

4. I dislike critiques that rely exclusively on framework arguments to make the Aff irrelevant. The critique alternative is one of the debate arguments I'm most skeptical of. I think it is best understood as a “counter-idea” that avoids the problematic assumptions identified by the link arguments, but this also means that “alt solves” the case arguments are misguided because the alternative is not something that the Negative typically claims is fiated. If the Negative does claim that the alternative is fiated, then I think they should lose to perm do both shields the link. With that said, I still vote on critiques plenty and will evaluate these debates as per your instructions.

5. Despite what you may have heard, I enjoy philosophy arguments quite a bit and have grown nostalgic for them as LD increasingly becomes indistinct from policy. What I dislike is when debaters try to fashion non-normative philosophy arguments about epistemology, metaphysics, or aesthetics into NCs that purport to justify a prescriptive standard. I find philosophy heavy strategies that concede the entirety of the opposing side’s contention or advantage to be unpersuasive.

6. “Negate” is not a word that has been used in any resolution to date so frameworks that rely on a definition of this word will have close to no impact on my assessment of the debate.

Experience: I am a senior at the University of Iowa where I study political science, international affairs, and philosophy. I was a competitor in public forum for 6 years and was the collegiate national champion in 2018. I have experience and working knowledge with all speech and debate events. I have previously coached in Des Moines, Iowa, and for NSDA China. I am currently unaffiliated with any team, school, or individual competitors.

PF: I value accessibility. Public forum ought to be an event that is able to be understood by any member of the public. Clear, concise communication at a reasonable speed is expected ie conversational. I WILL DROP YOU IF YOU TRY TO SPREAD. Each team will be given one warning on speed in the form of a dropped pen or calling out “Speed.” If spreading/speed persists after the warning I will immediately drop the team with the most violations. (If both teams accumulate one violation in their respective constructive, the next team to violate will be dropped.) I will flow cross-examination if you make important points. I value complex arguments and respectful clash. Being rude in my rounds is a great way to lose speaker points and a round.

Important things:

- If at all possible, I would like to start rounds early. I understand that's not always possible or teams need to prep, so I'm just appreciative if we do start early. No problem if you need to take your time though.

- While in evidence exchange, I expect all students to have their hands on screen and mics unmuted to ensure that time is not used for prep.

- Summaries should SUMMARIZE the round.

- FF should Crystalize not line by line, give me impact calculus and weighing. Impact calc within every speech is most persuasive.

- Summaries and FF should have voters not line by line.

TL;DR, Be respectful, conversational, bring solid evidence and analysis to my rounds and you’ll do fine.

LD/CX: Pretty much anything goes. I absolutely prefer arguments that are directly resolutional (ie not a fan of certain Ks, love me some T and theory though) but if the debate goes a certain way, it is not my place to wrangle it. LARP is chill. On the rare occasion, I may ask you to slow down a little bit or clear you, but that will not be weighed against you. I'm almost always good with speed. I prefer competitors disclose to ensure flow clarity. I will flow cross-examination if you make important points.

Westlake High School (CA) '20, UC Berkeley '24

wlhsdebate@gmail.com

New:

I've become dramatically more tab as my involvement with debate has waned.

A note about philosophy (quoting Whit Jackson): Debate should be fun and I want to see you have fun and excel at what you do best. Please don't adjust your debating too much to me. Everything below that isn't described as a hard and fast rule should be treated as a mild suggestion about quirks in my judging. I regularly vote for arguments and strategies I passionately disagree with and vice versa. No matter what strategy you defend, act as if my prior knowledge of it is close to 0. Even if you're right, I will judge and hold you accountable for warranting your arguments as if my knowledge was in fact 0. I treat judging as a serious obligation and no matter what you do, I'll give you my full attention and effort!

Non-negotiables:

1] Clipping: Debaters' clarity has gone down post-Covid. Please make sure you are saying every word you highlight. I will say CLEAR if I think you're skipping words and will reject the team if I find you have skipped either 2-3 words several times or 5 words at once.

2] Other evidence ethics: miscutting evidence, scrolling ahead, and outside communication are all reasons to reject the team.

3] Disclosure: full-text at a minimum. Please strike me if your disclosure does not meet this standard.

4] Flowing: I will read the highlights in your constructive in real time to check for clipping. I will not read tags or backflow analytics that were not clear / long enough to be flowed the first time around.

Preferences:

1] Please look at me periodically during your speeches. I will react according to how I think you're doing.

• Nod = good
• Raised hands / stretching / bored face = move on
• Confused face = you're messing up

2] Stuff I expect from you

• Slow for plan texts / theory interpretations
• Physically marking cards with line breaks and a verbal announcement of the last word. "Mark the card there" is not good enough
• Argument resolution

3] Random paradigmatic stuff:

• Anything where exact wording matters needs to be at 50% speed (max). Examples: topicality interpretations, advocacy texts (including PDB and PDCP)
• Plan aff "not defending implementation" doesn't make sense to me
• Insert/read re-highlighting: when a team reads evidence, they are responsible for ensuring its quality. If you are re-highlighting, you can do one of two things. 1) Make a developed analytic argument that explains why their card is bad and insert a rehighlighting as proof; or 2) tag the card as "goes neg", read the rehighlighting, and leave it to me to read the evidence at the end of the round. I am worried about the incentive created by allowing several low-quality rehighlightings to be inserted into the debate with no accountability for the rehighlighter.
• 1AR doesn't get add ons. 2NR doesn't get new uniqueness, links, etc. Aff burden to figure out what the alt is and what parts of the aff the K disagrees with (plan especially).
• Independent voters don't exist; everything is tied to some framing mechanism. Pre/post fiat divide is fake. "Is a voting issue" = drop the argument unless DTD is specifically warranted (condo and T aside). A one word "deterrence" voter is not sufficient.
• See the K section below; my thoughts haven't changed too much.

If you're having an issue flowing because of something your opponent is doing (e.g. spreading through three un-numbered analytics, ranting and refusing to do line-by-line, speaking very unclearly, making 6-word "arguments"), please call that out and explain why what they're doing should cause me to strike X arguments off the flow/forgive minor technical drops/err towards your side/whatever remedy you think is reasonable and appropriate. These types of judgments feel less interventionist when I am aware that one side is struggling due to the other side's poor practices.

Old

Short

x is where I am, o is where I think the average judge at a midwest tournament is.

lots of wasted time in round -------------------o---------------------x being literally as fast as you can

quantity ----------------------------------o-------------x--------------- quality

shenanigans ---------------------------------o-x------------------------ clash

states cp cheating -----------------o------------x----------------------- not cheating (more cheating as you fiat out of aff solvency deficits)

no evidence ethics ------------------------------------o----------------x evidence ethics (this means reading all of the words you highlight, unless you're cutting the card)

ld --------------------------o------------x-------------------------------- policy-style

new arguments ---------------------o------------------x---------------- holding the line on the 2nr

off-time "can you tell me what wasn't read" -------------o------------x flow or ask this question in cx

vs sketchy affs, process cp -----------o-------------x------------------- topicality

topic-specific ----------x--------------------------------------------o---- reading the same argument for 4 years

switching sides -----------------x-------------o--------------------------- cheating

fairness ---x---------------------------------------------o----------------- education (fairness>>>research>>>>>>>>>topic specific skills)

People who have influenced my thinking: Scott Phillips, Whit Jackson, Raffi Piliero, David Asafu-Adjaye, Jacob Nails, Paras Kumar, Tej Gedela, Rex Evans, Jonathan Jeong, Danielle Dosch, Scott Wheeler, Asher Towner

The most important thing that I can tell you to do is to make my decision for me. Sometimes it will take me a bit to resolve a debate round. This usually happens when there isn't enough argument resolution on the most decisive issue(s).

If you're having an issue understanding your opponent because they are unclear, or if your opponent makes it hard for you to flow because they are just ranting and aren't doing line-by-line, please call that out and explain why what they're doing should cause me to strike X arguments off the flow/forgive minor technical drops/err towards your side/whatever remedy you think is reasonable and appropriate, rather than expecting me to make that judgment on my own.

I've tried to provide examples for most things I want to see. Feel free to email me or message me on Facebook if you have any questions.

Defaults

Easily changeable: judge kick, conditionality good, plan focus, offense-defense, consequentialism, comparing worlds, epistemic confidence, dropped arguments are true

Harder to change: fairness is a real impact, suffering is bad, T comes before substance when facing a policy aff

Procedures

I dig efficient technical execution and good line-by-line.

Please do argument resolution for me. Ideally you want me to do as little resolution as possible because you might be unhappy if I do it and it's not what you're expecting. Absent your directions, I will create competing comparisons for each side and use what I subjectively think makes more sense.

Please avoid long overviews.

My decisions might take a bit because I like to read evidence (especially if it's on a contested issue).

Form

1] You're going too fast on analytics and tags. This is a problem in 70% of my debates and most people I’ve talked to have the same problem. I won’t backflow or read from the doc except to check for clipping. If your constructives sound good, I will boost your speaks. Please don't scream or have a "spreading voice" if you can help it - it's hard on the ears and will make your voice run out quickly.

2] New arguments warrant new responses and shifting stances in later speeches is bad. Some instances I can think of for these are: announcing the alternative is a floating PIK/explaining a theory of power for the first time in the 2NR, announcing for the first time in the 1AR that the affirmative does not defend implementation/clarifying the plan to spike links to DAs, etc.

3] Analytic arguments need ~15 words to be considered credible. I won't be persuaded when the 1AR says only "drop the debater for deterrence." You can bolster your argumentation with empirical examples and nuance. I don't see substantive issues as absolute, but rather as matters of risk. That means I don't think a DA will have zero risk, but will happily vote on "any solvency deficit to the states counterplan, no matter how small, outweighs the marginal risk of the politics DA."

Evidence

1] Some things I consider cheating:

2] When marking a card, it is insufficient to say “mark the card there” – you must physically mark it in your computer with a few returns or other suitable method and must verbally say what word you are marking the card at.

3] Good evidence is awesome and if you tell me it is I will reward your speaks.

4] I'm way better than most for evidence ethics. Evidence that is strawpersonned, cut from the middle of the paragraph, or modified without any indication in the author qualifications / tag / with brackets, etc are reasons to reject the team. You can stop the round or debate it as a separate off. Accused teams get some time to make their case if the round stops. Accusing teams should be absolutely sure they have a violation (i.e. many say the Balzacq ev is cut from the middle of a paragraph, but there are some editions of his chapter where the paragraph is actually broken in two, so the accused team has a defense).

If evidence is mistagged, I think that it should be rejected. If the tag says the opposite of what the card says, it's a gray area between rejecting the evidence and rejecting the team. This is an example of cheating for which I would reject the team.

Some pieces of evidence that I will disregard if read and award a loss to the reader if their opponent says something: the Searle evidence read in support of skepticism (he just summarizes an argument but doesn't think it's true). I will update this list as I see more strawperson evidence.

5] You clip, you lose. I think clipping happens when five or more words have been represented as read and have not been. If there is an accusation, I will stop the round and consider the evidence (you should have a recording that you've played back in prep time to verify that there has been clipping for your own sake). If you accuse and you're wrong, then you get the loss. If I think someone is clipping, I will scroll along the speech document as they are reading it to check. If I determine that clipping has occurred, I will stop the round after the speech ends and award a loss to that debater. Please don't clip.

Case/CPs/DAs

1] Defaults: judge kick, offense-defense, consequentialism, conditionality good, comparing worlds, epistemic confidence, plan focus (all reversible).

2] I'm relatively unpersuaded by strategies that attempt to overwhelm the other side with quantity. AFFs should attempt to collapse the debate by having a few outs after the 1AR (i.e. conditionality/PICs/uniform 50 states fiat bad, impact turning a DA that doesn't link to a CP, reading an addon that 1NC CPs don't solve).

3] Process counterplans – they're interesting. If debated equally, affs should be able to win with good permutation and theory blocks versus generic process counterplans. Versus a case-specific process counterplan, affs should have substantive answers / should reduce reliance on theory to make the permutation legitimate. I don't think that alternate actor fiat makes sense, but I can be more easily persuaded that a counterplan that competes off aff choice of actor is legitimate (i.e. Courts CP vs Congress aff when the resolution says USFG).

4] Case debate right now = ☹️. Affs should have extensions of each argument each card makes in their 1AC pre-written and modularized to answer 1NC blocks. 2NRs should go for the case page more. Affs are betting that they won't go for it seriously in the 2NR, so they undercover it. 2NRs should call the 1AR's bluff! The number of debates where the 2NR is just too scared to go for an obviously conceded or mishandled case turn is boggling to me.

6] If you're going for extinction outweighs, your terminal impact evidence should say the words! If a card says a few hundred million and the tag says extinction/humanity ending/etc, the other side should point this out.

The K

1] Most people don't understand how the alternative works. Proposing an orientation is fine if you're winning framework (NEG), but I think it's cheating to fiat private action. Affirmatives should win by outweighing the links' impacts. They should point out that the K links don't inherently connect to the terminal impact to their theory of power.

2] If it wasn't clear above, affirmatives should defend and weigh the 1AC. The reason why structural pessimism is so strategic in front of many is that questions of political ontology, etc obviate the entire 1AC much of the time. I don't like seeing the perm versus pessimism. Affs should stick to their guns and strategically collapse to some combination of (extinction outweighs ontology/framework/ontology wrong/psychoanalysis wrong/empirics disprove/pessimism is America-centric/ontology bad/consequentialism).

3] This article.

4] TKOs are TKOs. Affs shouldn't spend much time on them but you should give them lip service (either by pointing out how they were unwarranted in the 2NR or answering them substantively).

Critical Affs

1] My flowing abilities are most tested during the critical affirmative's 1AR. I find policy 2ACs manageable in high school and college, but LD has really pushed K 1ARs to light speed. I'd really rather hear quality over quantity. I'm very sympathetic to 2NRs that say something along the lines of "The 1AR decided to spread through their answers to framework without numbering or developing them. You should disregard small procedural drops that are inevitably blown up in the 2AR because they're sandbagging the actual argument for the last speech which is unfair/bad for clash."

2] I think fairness is an intrinsic good and 2NRs should point out that many AFF decisions are based on competition (i.e. confining to speech times, breaking new, trying to convince judges that they deserve their ballots.)

3] Y'all should really update your 1NCs. They can probably be 1:30 max. Impacts: Fairness > Poscher/Switch-Side Debate > Fun > Topic Education >>>>>> Role-playing.

4] Affs that are explicitly unrelated to the topic don't need a TVA. They can be read on the neg. If the TVA did in fact "solve" them, then it seems like the neg wouldn't have much of a limits claim.

5] Presumption is underrated.

Topicality (vs plan affs)

1] Some arguments I've been unpersuaded by: RVIs, RANT if the neg wins topicality (RANT = reject the argument not the team), extra-T is RANT, plan-in-a-vacuum. I think affirmatives should read RVIs versus tricks debaters, but in every other debate they shouldn't.

2] I think I'm a very good judge for topicality. Some T arguments I've gone for in my career (ranked from best to worst): T-USfg/Framework (All), T-Authoritarian Regimes (JF19), T-Eliminate (ND19/JF20), T-Plural (most topics), T-Bare Plurals. The best T debates happen when both sides can present a good vision of the topic and cut cards supporting their arguments. I'd rather you go for T (assuming you have good evidence) than a generic process counterplan or a K.

3] In a vacuum, I value predictability and precision quite highly.

4] Negative teams should go for T or circumvention and a DA versus small/framing affs. Discursive offense is almost certainly extra-topical.

5] It's fine just to read definition cards and omit the "interpretation" assuming the definition makes it clear what the interp/violation is (example).

Philosophy

I find myself believing that normative justifications are important for philosophy. This means that if you are reading a Heidegger critique of technology, you should read a thesis card that explains what enframing is and why it is bad. If you're reading Afropessimism, you should psychoanalytically justify the structural antagonism and not sandbag explanation of ontology until the 2NR. If you're defending utilitarianism, please actively justify why we should treat pleasure as moral goodness and pain as moral badness, rather than just "governments must aggregate" or other takeouts to the opposing framework. Same for Kant and all other philosophies, whether classical or more modern/postmodern. All this means that I'll be very happy when you weigh your framework justifications versus theirs. ("Our Kant framework outweighs their capitalism role of the ballot since their card just says capitalism is bad and assumes consequentialism which we've proven is unreliable above"). I'm also down to vote on more "tricky" NCs, i.e. "any state action must have the support of 100% of its constituents, otherwise it is immoral," as long as it's justified properly.

Disclosure

1] It's good. You should strike me if you don't disclose at least first three/last three + cites + tags.

2] You can still get me on Full Text Bad, See Open Source Bad, Round Reports, etc, but I won't hack like I will for disclosure.

Miscellaneous

1] Some more arguments I find unpersuasive: not defending implementation, tricks.

2] For something to be a voting issue, it has to have a warrant for why it is a voting issue (exceptions are conditionality bad and topicality). Otherwise, I'll treat VI as RANT unless otherwise justified.

3] Negation theory – negatives can do what they want to disprove the plan assuming they've justified conditionality. I see no problems with a T and critique strategy, nor do I take issue with a 4 off strategy that includes a pessimism argument and a states counterplan. Too many off-case positions is a bad strategy because the quality of individual argumentation will inevitably be low, and the 2AR will get new arguments to respond to your new 2NR development. In these debates, 1ARs should collapse the debate by reading conditionality, impact turning a net benefit that doesn't link to any counterplan, and grouping off-case positions.

4] CX is pretty cool because it basically lets you set up your arguments in your speeches and lets you spend far less time on explanation than you normally would. Don't forget about it folks! Don't just give your opponents your 2AC/1AR, however. I find the best CX strategies to be either open-ended, which can help you poke holes more easily, or to be deliberately misleading to the opponent (into valuable concessions). ("Who goes to war?" for the first, so you can read more specific impact defense that prevents 1AR "clarification" out of what you read, or "Why doesn't technology mitigate the impact of warming?" for the latter, say when you're running a critique of apocalyptic rhetoric versus a climate aff). After 3 minutes is up, finishing an answer = ok, finishing a question = not ok.

Email: rexyman212@gmail.com

Santa Monica High School 2020

Tech>truth but arguments must contain a claim, warrant, and impact—I'm likely to hold the line on underdeveloped arguments and will only vote on arguments I understand as presented in the debate.

Strong impact calculus wins debates whether it's policy, theory, philosophy, kritiks, or topicality. This is often the first place I look when making my decision. You should do comparative impact calculus and answer your opponent's.

Not a fan of most theory arguments--reasonability and reject the argument are often quite persuasive.

Speaks reflect a combination of strategic choices, clarity, quality evidence, and quality arguments.

Email: jfang775@gmail.com

Pronouns: (he/him)

Former national circuit/varsity policy debater 2 years in college, 4 in high school (TOC twice) (2009-2014). Fast or lay debate, read whatever you want.

Some general thoughts: I first and foremost value the strength of internal links. One, strong cohesive narrative about your case, standards, etc. will go much further than having six different questionable "space colonization saves humankind" add-ons in your 2AR.

Kritiks: do your thing. Alts are nice.

Theory: Topicality, conditionality, general theory arguments are good. HOWEVER, please don't spread theory at full speed. I don't know of a single person that can catch blippy theory arguments at 300 wpm. Slowing down will benefit everyone. And be clear. I've seen a tendency for NC's and 1ARs to read theory shells at the same speed as a card with a short tag. Please do not do this. If you're spending prep or CX asking for clarification on warrants for standards, it's likely the judge missed it as well. If I miss your esoteric 2-liner that ends up being 3 minutes of "drop the debater" in the NR, and I don't vote on it, I'm not sorry.

Condo is probably not great for real world education and a potential voting issue in my book. That being said, you need to win it on the flow. For LD, 1AR gets theory. Topicality is a procedural question. If you read a critical aff and impact turn switch-side debate or T, then the above does not apply.

If you have any specific questions, ask. Also check out Tim Alderete's paradigm. Pretty good reflection of my thoughts on theory as well.

Argument Extensions: tag + warrant. You will find more success with: tag + warrant + why your warrant is better than the other team's warrant. Not answering an argument on the line-by-line does not immediately equate to a dropped argument. Embedded clash exists. Do not take this as an excuse to do everything in the overview or egregiously group arguments.

Risk/Impact Calc: Politics disads generally have weak internal links. Extinction level claims...also a bit hard to win with adequate impact defense. I'm more willing than most to vote on zero risk of an impact scenario if you're warranting and engaging in the nuance of the internal link/impact defense debate. Many traditional extinction impacts are stretched and I think pretending that economic recession leads to nuclear war is bad scholarship. BUT you need to win that on the flow. Comparative analysis is the name of the game. My professional job is in risk management, so articulate likelihood versus impact well and we'll be friends.

^^^ all of this being said, huge fan of impact turn debates.

^^^^ that being said, if you try and impact turn racism or sexism or something blatantly offensive, you will lose.

University of Central Florida Alumnus

Four years of LD for Fort Lauderdale HS and former policy debater for UCF.
Pronouns: he/him/his

Email: delondoespolicy@gmail.com

***Avoid graphic explanations of gratuitous anti-black violence and refrain from reading radical Black positions if you are not Black.***

If you're rushing to do prefs here's a rough cheat sheet:

1- K and performance debates
2- framework debates, general topical debates
3- LARP debates and util debates
4- Theory/ Tricks debates

I will evaluate any argument so long as they are not morally repugnant, actively violent, or deeply rooted in foolishness. I can handle speed but due to the online setting, please go slower than you usually do. Also, be sure to properly extend and implicate your arguments in the debate as well, saying "extend X" and moving on doesn't really do much. In short, tell me why your arguments matter and why I should vote on/evaluate them. At the end of the day do what you do best—unless it's tricks and/or frivolous interps— and have fun doing it.

Final update - Aug 2024

Docs: speechdrop.net

Director of the DebateDrills Club Team - here are various policies, incident reporting forms, and roster/ conflict info.

Enloe HS '20 + UPenn '24. 2x LD TOC qual (cleared junior year/ skipped senior year) + 13 bids. Actively coached from 2020-2024. Directing DebateDrills since 2023.

I primarily read policy args + T/theory. I am fairly familiar with but do not particularly care for philosophy, tricks, or the K; however, I will not insert my preferences absent a poorly resolved debate - read what you feel comfortable with.

Debating

Debate is a competitive game that imparts useful life skills, flow clarification is CX, CX isn't prep, speaks are my choice and not yours

Speaks boost for taking less prep and sitting down early if you've clearly won (i.e. dropped condo)

You should disclose properly, and it doesn't take 30 minutes to "make changes" to the aff

Not voting on:

---Args that deny the wrongness of racism/ sexism/ homophobia/ etc (potential auto-loss given severity)

---Death/ suffering good (spark/ wipeout type stuff is fine)

---Ad-homs or args based on out of round actions or a debater's appearance/ location/ etc (except disclosure screenshots)

---Arguments that are "vote for me because I’m x" or "I get [to do] y because I'm x"

---Independent voters that are not labeled as such in the speech they are introduced with a reason why they are

Defaults: fairness and education are voters, drop the debater, competing interps, no RVIs, comparative worlds, util, epistemic confidence, policy presumption, OCIs incoherent, perm theory is drop the arg

Tell me to read ev if you want me to

Judge kick requires winning an argument for it

Read rehighlightings if they make a new/ different argument - insert them if they show x thing is in y context or something was omitted, and explain any insertions

1ARs should probably read theory and 2NRs should probably answer it

Consequences probably matter but perhaps you can convince me otherwise

Tricks tend not to have warrants in the speech they're introduced or in the speech they're extended in

Ks need to prove that the aff is a bad idea, affs probably get to weigh case and extinction probably outweighs

I seem to vote for Ks far more vs phil affs than vs policy affs

K affs need to do something but usually do not - I do not want to adjudicate personal survival strategies or callouts

T framework - fairness and clash/ research > skills/ movements

Things I shouldn’t have to say

---All arguments need to be both originally made with and extended with a coherent warrant

---Won’t vote on arguments that I don’t understand the warrant for in the first speech they're introduced

---Delineate and explain arguments and their implications throughout the debate

Cheating

Clipping: Ending the debate if I catch it. If you have a recording, you can stake the round. Skipping 3+ words multiple times probably constitutes clipping.

Ev Ethics: If I catch a violation, speaks will plummet and the card will be ignored. These constitute a violation such that I'd act or you can stake the round/ make a challenge:

---Card starts/ends in the middle of a sentence or paragraph

---Text has been added to or removed from the original text of the cited article within the start/end of the card

---Card has been cut/highlighted/bracketed to make a claim that the article does not warrant

You can read any of these or any other violation you want as theory. If another part of the article contradicts the argument made in the card, I'd prefer to see a recutting of the article read as an argument.

Experience:

4 years of local/national LD+congress

2nd year of college policy at the University of Wyoming

Put me on the chain: calvin.gilmer@gmail.com

I’ll flow any arguments you make as long as:

1. They’re not disrespectful/problematic/dehumanizing. Please make the debate space one that’s welcome to everyone.

2. They’re structured in some way (warrants, links, impacts).

I enjoy nontraditional/kritikal debate so feel free to utilize it. I am not as deep in the lit as I'd like to be for the majority of K's, so tailor your speeches accordingly. Make sure that you clearly link whatever argument you’re making to your opponent’s position.

Condo is neither good or bad in and of itself, so debate it! I haven't voted on condo bad in the past but that doesn't mean I won't in future rounds given the affirmative can prove that, in the context of the round, the negative has done something terrible. I believe judge kick is a thing, but I won't kick the CP for you if the 2nr doesn't tell me I can/should.

Speak clear enough that I can flow. If I’m flowing you’re good (I know these instructions are hard with online debate, so if there's any major issues with my hearing of the round/arguments I'll speak up. The vast majority of the time it seems like people are 100% fine.)

Speaker points: perform well and you'll get good speaks. If you get higher than a 29 I considered your performance excellent and was impressed.

Things that will definitely tank your speaks:

- Furthering oppression in the debate space (sexism, racism, homophobia...)

- Being condescending to people who are obviously not as experienced as you

- Being condescending

Please don’t behave in an unkind matter…

If you have any questions email me!

Have fun and debate smart!

Add me to the chain: goel.arya24@gmail.com

I competed in LD and Policy for Dougherty Valley for 4 years.

Call me Arya not judge plz.

General Beliefs:

I won't vote on things that happen outside of debate (except for disclosure, need a ss for this ) and won't vote on arguments about a persons appearance.

When I debated, I rlly disliked judges who evaluated arguments as a "wash" bc they were lazy, so I try my hardest to not do this.

Argument preferences: CP + DA >>> by far my fav 2nr, then smartly thought out T args, then Ks and phil.

CP/DA:

Love these arguments and am probably most qualified to judge debates involving these. Here are some general thoughts.

- I'm forgetful, so you'll have to remind me if you want me to judge kick.

- I dont rlly care about condo but try not having more than 2-3

- Love case specific DA's but politics and process cps just work

-

Please weigh. Please. 2nr and 2ar impact calc are not new arguments but the earlier you start weighing the better it is for both me and you.

Judge Instruction is key for close debates and high speaks.

Theory:

Here it is again: I'm not voting on someone's appearance

Defaults: C/I; Drop the arg; No Rvis

-Disclosure is almost mandatory. Most def a hack for disclosure (need a ss) - there is a line though, round report theory or "must use citebox" is frivolous if you opensource with highlighting. The more arbitrary your interp gets, the less likely I care about it.

-I wont vote on args I didn't flow or catch, so if even if your 8 word condo blip is dropped im not going to feel guilty about dropping you. Especially important because online debate is already bad enough without 3 seconds blips.

This doesn't mean you cant read paragraph theory, just that instead of reading 4 3-second blips, spend 15 seconds on one, well warranted arg.

-Counterplan theory other than condo is almost always a question of predictability. The negative should prove that their cp is grounded in the literature and the aff should prove the opposite. Counterplan theory is almost never a drop the debater issue.

Topicality:

Love these arguments when done with lots of good evidence and evidence comparison. So many counterinterps are just cards that say words but don't actually define them, or they're pulled from completely different contexts that make them useless. Thus evidence with intent to define makes me unbelievably happy.

-Not a fan of T args where the only topical aff is the whole res, this means I don't really like Nebel (still will vote on it)

-Semantics and Jurisdiction don't matter a lot in a vacuum but precision can be cool in close debates

-I find myself caring more about strength of internal link than impacts, so please spend a few seconds warranting these outs - for example, in a limits debate, you would do this with a offensive case list.

-A large risk of a limits, probably turns and outweighs everything else.

Kritiks:

In high school, I read a decent bit of literature mostly pertaining to pomo, afropess and set col, but did not personally read these args in debate.

-K affs get perms so you better make those links good.

-People need to go for Heg and cap good more against non t affs

-the smaller the ov and the more the line by line, the happier both me and your speaks get

"I like the security K because I dislike shoddy Affs with poor evidence quality" - Vikram Balasubramanian

- the larger and more complex your theories become, the more you have to warrant them - saying ontology and calling it a day isnt enough.

K-affs:

If you read a performance and forget about it in the 1ar, I'm forgetting to vote for you.

1-off T-fw is viable (and often what I did) but like why? Just read a pik or something else as well

FW is always a question about models of debate, so the 2nr/2ar better explain it to me like I'm a fifth grader

Don't really buy "limits are a prison" type arguments

Movements >= fairness

Philosophy:

I really don't have experience evaluating this kind of stuff, but promise rlly high speaks if you can teach me something about this kind of debate.

-"I defend the resolution but not implementation" and "Ill defend the res as a general principle" aren't real arguments and don't make sense. Either you're defending the whole res, or you read a advocacy text

-Skep is defense unless you win TT.

Default modesty and comp worlds.

-If you give me a headache with tricks I'm nuking your speaks

if your underview is longer than a paragraph I'm going to be grumpy.

Misc:

If you have good disclosure practice lmk and ill bump speaks if i agree.

If the 1nc is all turns and case you start at a 29.5

If I think you're clipping, I'll start following along on the doc. If I catch you clipping, I'll tank your speaks but won't stop the round. I will stop the round if someone accuses (requires recording).

Paradigms of people I (mostly) agree with if you want more info: Kabir, Ansuman, Shikhar, Tristan

Policy Stuff:

I have even less patience for bad theory here than in LD. The only things that rises to DTD are disclosure and condo. That said, Infinite condo seems persuasive to me.

All the stuff above still applies.

Parli Stuff:

I'm comfortable with anything you want to read with the caveat that you warrant your arguments properly and generously - my background is in Ld and policy

You can go as fast as you want - I can keep up as long as you're clear

Due to the nature of Parli topics, I'm a bit more amenable to stupid and friv theory args - you should be able to beat them if you want to win - THAT BEING SAID if thats your main strat - just strike me and save us both

Creative DAs and Cps get xtra speaks - everything else about args applies from above

I debated at Georgetown University for 4 years (2019-2023) and coached there for a year (2023-2024). I'm currently affiliated with Northwestern University.

This paradigm solely contains information on my predispositions and how I'll resolve debates in the absence of contrary instruction. The set of arguments for which I will not vote is vanishingly small.

I like debates where both teams respect each other and demonstrate they have put a lot of time and thought into their arguments, but I am largely agnostic as to the specific form and content that these arguments take. In other words, don't over-adapt.

egreerdebate@gmail.com

Overall Thoughts

-I prefer debates involving arguments about the topic. I think that policy debate should reward research and innovation within the topic area rather than incentivizing teams to recycle generics from year-to-year.

-Effective communication is imperative. Be clear; use numbers, emphasis, and sound bites to differentiate arguments; and focus on telling a cohesive story about why you win the issues that are most important for the debate. Don't be the kind of team that gets annoyed because I didn't think the one-sentence argument made 5 minutes into the final rebuttal was important for my decision.

-I'm not a disciplinarian. I will refuse to evaluate arguments about an opponent's behavior outside the debate. I have a high threshold for voting on procedural questions about an opponent's in-round behavior. Soliciting opportunities to make such arguments (e.g., by asking inflammatory CX questions) is a bad strategy in front of me.

-Ks are fine provided that they clash with core premises of the 1AC. At best, Ks are effective tools for grappling with and challenging the underlying assumptions of taken-for-granted worldviews. At worst, they are cheap shots that teams use to sidestep argumentative engagement.

-I rarely care about terminal impacts. Terminal impact calculus usually begs the question of the other levels of the debate. Relatedly, I consider "extinction outweighs" to be the most overrated argument in debate.

-I give speaker points in a normal distribution with 28.5 at the center.

T (vs. Policy Affs)

-Topicality is a germane criticism. Affirmative teams must take it seriously and answer it like any other argument.

-Community consensus doesn't impact how I view T interps. Popular affs are still subject to the criticism that they are not topical.

-The thing I care about most in T debates is whether an interpretation is well-grounded in topic literature. Given equal debating, the person who is "correct" about what the words mean will usually win. By default, I view limits/ground arguments as a tiebreaker when two interpretations are equally plausible readings of the resolution.

-I haven't taken a grammar class since seventh grade. Please don't throw out random parts of speech with no explanation and expect me to understand.

-Neg teams are better served by speaking in terms of ground rather than limits. I care more about the neg having access to a set of cross-contextual topic generics than the neg having to cut a lot of case negs.

CPs

-Infinite conditionality is good. Persuading me otherwise is an uphill battle.

-Interps like "the neg gets two conditional advocacies" and "we get what we did" don't make sense. Conditionality is a yes/no question.

-I'm heavily aff-leaning on process CPs that do not include a reason why the plan is a bad idea. In other words, if I conclude that the "other issues" perm solves the net benefit, I'm unlikely to be a fan of your CP. If you can present a substantive DA to this perm (i.e., by proving that inclusion of the plan itself is undesirable), then I'm much more likely to vote neg.

-I'm reasonably aff-leaning on theory for CPs that involve fiating non-USFG actors, though I'm much more amenable to the states CP than to other instances of non-USFG fiat.

-I don't judge kick unless the 2NR provides offense for doing so. Debate is about choices, and I won't make yours for you.

DAs

-I won't vote for intrinsicness unless dropped. Answer DAs substantively.

-I don't think anything can be "zero" risk. You're better off talking about risk in relative rather than binary terms.

-I work in electoral politics, so it will be very obvious to me if you extend an elections/politics DA without knowing what you're talking about.

Ks (vs. Policy Affs)

-I have voted for Ks a disproportionate number of the times that they've been in the 2NR in front of me. When I vote neg, it's usually because the neg team invested a lot of time into a framework argument that mooted the aff offense, and the 2AR did not effectively argue that this framework argument was illegitimate.

-That said, I think teams tend to be over-reliant on framework. I would greatly prefer a debate which focuses on the desirability of the 1AC's underlying approach to politics in toto, to a framework debate. Neg teams should present aff-specific link arguments and case turns. Aff teams should present offense in favor of their assumptions.

-I don't find "you link, you lose" and "Ks are cheating" to be intuitively persuasive models of debate, but I will vote for either if executed well in the final rebuttals.

-Aff teams often spend large portions of their speeches making arguments about why the plan is good without investing sufficient time into winning that the plan being good is a relevant question for the debate. Arguments like "extinction outweighs," "perm double bind," and "alt fails" are not super useful when the 2NR is "vote neg because the 1AC as a rhetorical project was unethical." Instead, the 2AR should talk about why I should refuse to evaluate the 1AC solely as a rhetorical project.

-I think it is nearly impossible for the aff to "drop" a "floating PIK" because all aff framework offense is a reason why PIKs are illegitimate. If the aff wins that a plan-focused model of debate is good, then they have adequately answered the PIK because the PIK does not contest the plan's desirability. In contrast, if the neg wins that the plan doesn't matter, then almost all Ks are potentially plan-inclusive.

-Framework determines the threshold for alt solvency. If the desirability of the plan is a relevant consideration to the debate, the neg has a greater burden to produce an alternative approach to the world that would solve the impacts of the aff or solve another set of impacts that outweighs the aff. If the only relevant consideration is the desirability of the aff as a research object/scholarly project, the neg has a greatly reduced burden to explain what the alt means or does; in these instances, I treat "vote neg" as an alternative in itself.

-Fairness matters, but not as an end in itself. Aff teams must defend why fairness is necessary not merely for debate to exist, but for it to be a game worth playing.

K Affs and T/FW

-See the "Ks (vs Policy Affs)" section for thoughts on the fairness debate.

-Critique topicality, not the topic. Flaws in the topic are negative ground and therefore not offense against framework. Arguments such as "nuclear policy is imperialist" are potentially relevant Ks of topical affirmatives, but they are not justifications for reading a non-topical aff.

-I hate arguments that rely on the premise that it's evil to defend or debate about things with which you personally disagree. College students do not have infallible understandings of the world. Debate intrinsically involves confronting the possibility that you could be wrong about your most closely-held beliefs - this is a feature, not a bug, of the activity.

-I prefer it when aff teams defend a specific model of debate. Speak granularly to the role your interp provides for clash/negation. Talk about core points of disagreement under your model and why this disagreement produces better debates.

Tips for Higher Speaker Points

-Read cards where the warrants are highlighted and point out where your opponents have failed to do the same.

-Send docs before ending prep.

-Don't send cards in the body of the email.

-Don't ask flow check questions (including "reasons to reject the team").

-Don't refer to the case pages as "advantage 1" and "advantage 2" when the 1AC provided more descriptive labels, such as "economy advantage."

-Don't read cards written by undergraduates.

-Don't reinsert rehighlighting unless the lines have already been read by the other team.

Debated for Palos Verdes Peninsula High School all four years.

I usually ran very policy arguments, so I tend to lean towards topical Affirmatives.

I never ran K affs or just Ks in general, I dont really like. Always sympathetic to good stock util extinction impacts and cap good.

Disads and Counterplans are no different, I've been out of the high school policy loop for a little bit now so I am not familiar with the topic. Make sure you explain links, the plan text, impacts, all that good stuff clearly.

Impact calc is pretty important to me.

Make sure you extend arguments throughout the debate - I will evaluate how arguments are handled until the end of the round, so don't expect me to manually do all that work for you.

Theory is fine by me, but needs to sound convincing enough.

Theory should have all components in the shell, I tend to not like frivolous theory, unless its absolutely absurd maybe you'll catch me laugh at you. Make sure you make it clear what violating the interp means: for example dropping the debater or a specific argument. I'd vote on it.

I won't really vote on condo unless, of course, its dropped in its entirety.

Topicality is very important as well, with reasonable definitions. I like topicality when it's run well, I'd vote on it.

Also love good framework debates against critical affirmatives.

Anything not responded to is fair game for me to evaluate (as long as its extended).

Keep track of each other's time, I wont care if they use 15 minutes of prep time if you don't call them out on it.

Oh also prep time ends after the cards are sent out.

Email: tobby46@gmail.com

That means add me to the email chain please. Thank you

Currently a coach and PhD student at The University of Kansas.

Add me to the chain plz and thank you DerekHilligoss@gmail.com

for college add rockchalkdebate@gmail.com as well

NSD Flagship Tournament--- Be nice and have fun! If you are mean to little buddies you are capped at 28 points.

TL;DR do what you do and do it well. Don't let my preferences sway you away from doing what you want.

The biggest thing for me is that I value good impact framing/calc. If you aren't explaining why your impacts matter more then your opponents you are leaving it up for me or the other team to decide.

Framework: Go for whatever version of framework you like but I tend to think it should interact with the aff at some level. If you give the 2NC/2NR and make no reference to the aff you will find it harder to win my ballot.

Planless affs: The one note I wanna make outside of FW notes is that you have to be able to answer the "what do you do" question no matter how silly it may seem. If I don't know what the aff does after the 1AC/CX that's gonna put you in a rough spot. I don't think this means you have to do anything but you should have a good justification for why you don't have to.

Theory: condo (probably) to a certain extent is good and counterplans should (probably) have solvency advocates. I have no strong opinions just tell me how to feel.
*new strong opinion* going for condo is not a remedy for being a bad 2A---

Topicality: limits for the sake of limits probably bad?

Counterplans: cool? Do it

Disads: The only thing I wanna note here is highlight your cards better. I don't wanna have to read 30 crappy cards to get the story of the disad and it makes it easier for the aff to win with a few solid cards.

Kritiks: Specific links go a long way. This doesn't mean it has to be exactly about the plan but your application will do better than a generic "law bad" card. Applying your theory to the aff's advantages in a way that takes out solvency will make your lives so much easier.

For the aff FW I think a well developed FW argument about legal/pragmatic engagement will do more for you than fairness/limits impacts.

Random things:

If you are unclear I'll yell clear twice before I stop flowing. I'll make it apparent I'm not flowing to let you know you need to adjust still.

If you clip you will lose.

"reinsert card here"- nope :) read it- this is a communication activity not a robot activity.

I’m a new judge. I won’t count your arguments unless I understand you so don’t talk too fast. I enjoy a clear, concise argument.

Hello,

Experience wise, I did Parli/LD at a college level.

I'm pretty flay

I am ok with speed but don't go super fast, or just let me see your case.

I'll listen to most positions, I'm not too familiar with K-debate so use at your own discretion

Time yourselves

My email is azjarkow@gmail.com

I debated in LD for Marlborough School for 4 years (graduated in 2019). I am now a senior at Brandeis University and have had little involvement with debate since high school.

There aren't any arguments I won't evaluate in a debate, but I'm not the best judge to read especially dense critical arguments or philosophical arguments in front of. That being said, anything you read needs to be well explained to win a debate.

If I'm making a face that looks like I'm confused, then I'm confused.

Slow down when you are reading analytics.

I debated at Coeur d’Alene High school for 3 years and Gonzaga University for 4 years.

My email is mdrjohnson26@gmail.com

I haven’t been heavily involved in debate for a few years as I was working abroad.

Essentially, do whatever you want and I’ll do my best. I try my absolute hardest to pay 100% attention while a debate is happening. This means that I try to make eye contact, listen attentively, and catch all of the arguments the best I can. This also means, however, that I flow on paper. As such, please give me some pen time especially if you have a really important argument you want to get across. **This is 10x more true for theory arguments/T debates - you must slow down.

Also, I really hate interrupting a debate. I don’t yell clear, please just…be clear?

Updates as of Kentucky

1. Line by line is important to me - I understand we're on a time crunch, but I have to know what you're answering. Numbers are great, use them consistently.

2. I like research - I love this aspect of the activity a lot. That said, I think that the way a lot of teams highlight cards is odd. I'm naturally more skeptical of a piece of evidence if you've made 1 sentence from 15 lines of text by highlighting a few words. I also really don't like the size 2 font on cards.

3. Compare your cards! I think every debate I've watched in recent memory could have been improved if no one said "their card is really bad". I'm more persuaded if you first tell me what makes your evidence so persuasive and why the opponent's evidence can't meet that threshold.

4. That said, CX needs to extend beyond just evidence. Asking "where in you card does it say 'x'" for 3 minutes isn't persuasive to me.

5. There is no clarification period. If you are asking a question, that is CX.

Decorum
I don’t like obnoxious people. I have a pretty good sense of humor and I know when being funny crosses a line. I’m also not persuaded when debaters tell others to do harm to themselves or others. It won’t necessarily cost you the debate (unless I’m instructed otherwise) but I will tell you now; it’s a waste of breath that will probably lose you speaker points. I also do not enjoy debates where debaters don't defend the things they have said/read. If you read Irigaray, you have to defend Irigaray. If you try to weasel out of it, I'm either going to think you a) are unprepared/don't understand your evidence b) are a weasel c) are an unprepared weasel.

Theory
I lean neg, but everything is open to debate. This was never my favorite kind of debate and it is definitely not my strength. I don’t consider most things reasons to reject the team unless you tell me and give a good reason. I tend to lean negative on conditionality.

Topicality
Love it. Read it, but be honest with yourself. You and I know both know that T – Sub isn’t the best argument ever, but I’ve won on it and voted on it, so here we are. An important note: I find it easier to vote for/against T when I know what exactly a debate round looks like on average. What are the affs? Are they winnable? What are the DAs? Are they winnable?

Counterplans
Love them. If you’re going to have a super long, complicated text, please read it slowly. I try to write it down the best I can. If you have a lot of planks, you should probably have solvency cards for all the planks.

DAs
Love these too.

Ks
Go for them if they’re your thing. I was a philosophy student, but the K lit most kids read was never my jam. I like a specific link story and I would like to know how the alt solves or why, if it doesn’t, I still shouldn’t vote aff. Something that often confuses me about K debates is that I don’t know what to do with the things I am told, so please impact things clearly and let me know what to do with the information you provide.
I’m not a big fan of the dead-on-the-inside stuff as it all sounds like gobbledygook to me, but if it’s your thing and you want to shine, shine on, friend. I’ll do my best.

K Affs
The more about the topic they are, the happier I am. That said, I don’t hate things that have nothing to do with the topic. Just explain the aff well and try to be as clear as possible. I will say, if all of your cards have paragraph-long tags, it will be harder for me to flow.

Please don’t hesitate to ask me questions before/after the debate. I really love debate and want everyone to do well and get better.

Important Update

**Clarification questions about the speech doc are CX time**

I have completed the cultural competency credential and I am ready to deploy the skills in debate rounds. Remember, your words have power.

Please uphold positivity in the round. I give speaks from 20-30 but I will almost never give 30 speaks. If you are perfect you deserve a 30 but I have almost never seen anyone deserving of a 30.

I think that the best debaters are those who effectively utilize ethos, pathos, and logos in their speeches.

Good luck!

progressive arguments - read at your own risk

Hello, I'm Taman Kanchanapalli! Nice to meet you and I hope I can give you good comments from your round with me in the back!

Email chain: taman.sai.k@gmail.com

Qualifications: Debated for Berkeley Prep and HB Plant High School and earned TOC bids in multiple formats (Policy, LD, and PF). I debated a total of 4 years. I’ve gotten some RR invites, made deep elims of national tournaments, and qualified to NSDA nationals 4 times. I think I can be able to make a coherent decision most of the time, but am no means perfect, and will try my best to adjudicate your round in the most technical fashion possible. Here are some people who have greatly influenced my takes on debate: Kevin Kuswa, Ronak Ahuja, Andrew Overing, John Overing, Daryl Burch, Ignacio Evans, Roberto Fernandez, Isaac Segal, Peregrine Beckett, Kumail Zaidi, and Tajaih Robinson.

Note for e-debating: Try to use a good microphone if possible, and please slow down a bit on analytics or send them in the doc. It’s probably due to static or some internet issue, but I’ve noticed a lot of people cutting out during some speeches, and I think going a tad bit slower can slow that.

At the top:

I think debate’s an educational and competitive space. Due to its competitive nature, I tend to view it as a game that reaps educational benefits as a result of clash. As so, I try to judge through a tech > truth paradigm and try to catch every argument on flow. I don’t necessarily default to anything and can convinced otherwise for every argument. The only exception is racism good, sexism good, homophobia good, and other arguments of that type.

Quick prefs:

K: 1

LARP: 1

Tricks: 2

nonFriv theory: 2

Friv Theory: 3

Normative Phil: 2/3

Tough to understand Phil: 4

Performance: 2/3

Here are my thoughts on specific arguments:

Disads: I really like good and though out topic DAs. I think it’s an important part of topic education and is unique to every topic. My favorite 2NR my senior year was the generic Conventional Weapons/Deterrence DA with a couple extra added in scenarios for escalation. I view the impact and link portions of DAs the most, so please establish solid ones and do weighing on which comes first. The earlier the weighing, the better my frame for evaluating the round. As I did my first 3 years in policy, I am a big fan on the politics DA, but I think the weakest part of this is the link level. Establish this, and be clear on the line by line and warrants of this and you should be good.

Counterplans: My favorite type of these are creative advantages Cps (tend to be multiplank ones) and process CPs. I think a solid CP strat should have a robust solvency advocate and be well applied to the aff. I reward strategic Cps and prowess with very high speaks as it kinda just gets me really happy to see these unfold in a unique manner in the 2NR. I usually default to CP theory, except Consult and delay, as drop the argument, but I can be convinced otherwise very easily by things like dropped paradigm issues. However, I grant the aff leeway with abusive perms against abusive Cps as long as you justify it.

Impact Turns: BIG FAN OF THESE! China War good, Russia War good, Spark, Wipe-out, all are arguments that I think are evidence heavy and end up being my favorite debates to judge. I’ve gone for these a lot and I think the biggest part of the impact turn debate really comes down to the timeframe differential and why the aff is worse than the status quo.

Topicality: I tend to think this is a bit different than theory for me. Having a policy background, I think this is usually a neg exclusive argument, and the unique abusive on T seems to be a gateway issue unlike theory that happens in the round. Obviously this can be changed if you win things like an RVI or Theory > T on the flow, but this is just how I view T usually. I believe a good T 2NR has a lot of standard/impact comparison, weighing, and defense. Basically a combo of robust offense under your model of debate, and terminal defense to your opponent’s.

Theory: This was a nice addition that I got used to as I joined LD. I understand the pedagogical benefits of these, and I LOVE to see a technical theory debate. This is where everything is pure tech of me, I can be convinced of literally anything (semantics > Fairness, E > F, etc.) I can buy even the worst, most frivolous impacts, and will even evaluate things like Clothes theory. Not the biggest fan of these args for obvious reasons, but if you win it on the flow, I will be more than happy to vote for it and reward with good speaks.

Disclosure: I think this is generally a good practice and am a huge fan of open source disclosure. Show me after the round and you get a .3 speaker point boost. I’ve really reaped a huge benefit from the LD open source wiki, and the college wiki during my senior year as a small school debater and believe that it doesn’t make a huge prep out disadvantage. I like disclosure, but if there are structural factors that prevent you from doing so or the disclosure violation is super frivolous, then there’s a good chance I could be voting the other way.

Phil: This is probably the model of debate I’m least familiar with, but I do really like and engage with basic phil. Here are the phil NCs I’m familiar with: Monism, Kant/Lib, Hobbes, Polls, Pragmatism, and the more basic versions of skep (Moral Skep, External World skep, Derrida, etc.). I like these debates on the justification level and nice tricks like hijacks/collapses type arguments. However, I really like robust contentions of offense, for example if your opponent reads Kant and reads like 1 card on Kant negates, if the 1AR has 3 offensive args under Kant and the 2AR ends up being Kant affirms, I would be very very happy and if you win, I would reward you with insanely high speaks. If you are running complex phil, please dumb down the language a bit for me. Whenever I’ve hit debaters running super complex phil, I always had a tough time in cross understanding what they were saying. Remember, if it’s very hard for your opponent to understand, good chance your judge will feel the same.

Ks: I really like good K debates. I was primarily a K debater in high school, except 2nd semester where I decided to run LARP, Tricks, and the K randomly at tournaments based on a random number generator (this was cuz I just wanted to have fun). I would say I’ve pretty well-read in most critical literature. I definitely know the basics of the vast majority of Ks, and know a few particularly well. Here are the ones I know really well: Black studies (the likes of afropess, Warren, Racial capitalism, Hapticality, Black Baudrillard, etc.), Semiocap & Logistical studies (baudrillard, BiFo, M&H, etc.), Marxist cap, Queer Theory (Homonationalism, Queer press, Queer becoming), Bataille, Academy K, Psychoanalysis. Ks I know relatively well: the Util K, Fem, Set col. There are probably a lot of missing Ks, but I would say I generally understand the thesis and format of these and should be able to adjudicate your debates. If you run the K in front of me, make sure you have a good defense of your theory of power, and if you’re debating against the K, please try to engage with it and DO NOT concede the theory of power. I am generally understanding of good K tricks under impact calc as well (Turn case, floating piks, etc.) My favorite K 2NR this year was Barber and Hostage taking. My general 2AR v the K was extinction outweighs and theory of power defense. I heavily dislike bad K debates, please don’t shift to the K just because I’m in the back. Bad K debates really make me big sad.

Tricks: Yeah man, these are funny, and I love judging these debates IF they are good. Bad Tricks debate were there’s no weighing, clash, and there are a prioris and spikes flying all over the place really makes me stress, and I don’t like to be stressing. I actually think Tricks debate has a good amount of clash and weighing involved and the best debaters do this and make my RFD very simple (for example, if condo logic is conceded by the neg, but the aff concedes GSP, and the 2AR doesn’t do weighing on why condo logic outweighs, but the 2NR makes an arg about GSP outweighing because affirming negates, then I can negate). Contestation, LBL, and weighing are crucial to these debates, and I will adjudicate them as such. Good tricks debates also makes my life super easy and prolly just result in high speaks.

Clash debates: I’ve usually judged these types of debates. I think NonT affs bring in a new pedagogical facet into debate. I’ve read a lot of these, but keep in mind, I also went for FW a lot versus these affs. If you defend a nonT aff, please PRESENT and DEFENSE your model of debate. I am not a big fan on args that try to use the space as purely a survival strategies or is good to auto-vote for X people. Affirmatives that defend a model of debate, have strong offensive, and turns against FW are the ones that fair the best in front of me. The only exception to this is if you just straight up go for debate bad, but then you will need to defend your solvency on the aff and prove what the aff uniquely does to “break down debate.” On the neg, Clash is my favorite impact and I think a TVA with a good solvency advocate is really deadly against nonT affs. I personally think fairness is an internal link to clash and education, but I can easily be convinced otherwise. I think SSD is underutilized against specific type affs, and should be explained more in the 2NR rather than for like 20 seconds as I think it’s a great impact filter. I also think presumption is heavily underutilized because half of these affs really don’t do what they say they are doing. A 2NR that defends their impacts, does weighing, and has an impact filter, but also heavily contests the case debate against nonT affs typically fair the best in front of me.

K v K debates: I think these debates are really intellectually informative and I enjoy adjudicating these debates. I think the main part of the neg is beat back the perm and win solid links with impacts against the K aff when you go for this. I’ve gone for Psycho, Academy, Antiblackness, and Cap Ks vs. K affs.

Anything besides TFW/Ks v NonT affs: I really like it when you get innovative and go for like a DA or NC v K affs. I think the biggest part of this is the link level on the DA, since they tend to be not the best, and same with the offense under an NC. But, if you do try this, I think I would reward with high speaks just because it’s quite innovative.

Hi! My name is Charles Karcher. He/him pronouns. My email is ckarcher at chapin dot edu.

I am affiliated with The Chapin School, where I am a history teacher and coach Public Forum.

This is my 10th year involved in debate overall and my 6th year coaching.

Previous affiliations: Fulbright Taiwan, Lake Highland, West Des Moines Valley, Interlake, Durham Academy, Charlotte Latin, Altamont, and Oak Hall.

Conflicts: Chapin, Lake Highland

-----------TOC 24 UPDATES-----------

Not well-read on the topic.

In PF, you should either paraphrase all your cards OR present a policy-esque case with taglines that precede cut cards. I do not want cards that are tagged with "and, [author name]" or, worse, not tagged at all. This formatting is not conducive to good debating and I will not tolerate it. Your speaks will suffer.

All speech materials should be sent as a downloadable file (Word or PDF), not as a Google Doc, Sharepoint, or email text. I will not look at they are in the latter formats.

----------------------------------------

Mid-season updates to be integrated into my paradigm proper soon: 1. (PF) I'm not a fan of teams actively sharing if they are kicking an argument before they kick it. For example, if your opponent asks you about contention n in questioning and you respond "we're kicking that argument." Not a fan of it. 2. (LD) I have found that I am increasingly sympathetic to judge kicking counterplans (even though I was previously dogmatically anti-judge kick), but it should still be argued and justified in the round by the negative team; I do not judge kick by default. 3. Do not steal prep or be rude to your opponents - I have a high bar for these two things and hope that the community collectively raises its bars this season. Your speaks will suffer if you do these things.

-----------

Debate is what you make it, whether that is a game or an educational activity. Ultimately, it is a space for students to grow intellectually and politically. Critical debate is what I spend the most time thinking about. I’m familiar with most authors, but assume that I know nothing. I want to hear about the alt. I have a particular interest in the Frankfurt School and 20th century French authors + the modern theoretical work that has derived from both of these traditions. I have prepped and coached pretty much the full spectrum of K debate authors/literature bases. Policy-style debate is fun. I like good analytics more than bad cards, especially when those cards are from authors that are clearly personally/institutionally biased. Inserted graphs/charts need to be explained and have their own claim, warrant, and impact. Taglines should be detailed and accurately descriptive of the arguments in the card. 2 or 3 conditional positions are acceptable. I am not thrilled with the idea of judge kicking. Theory and tricks debate is the farthest from my interests. Being from Florida, I've been exposed to a good amount of it, but it never stuck with or interested me. Debaters who tend to read these types of arguments should not pref me.

Other important things:

1] If you find yourself debating with me as the judge on a panel with a parent/lay/traditional judge (or judges), please just engage in a traditional round and don't try to get my tech ballot. It is incredibly rude to disregard a parent's ballot and spread in front of them if they are apprehensive about it.

2] Speaks are capped at 27 if you include something in the doc that you assume will be inputted into the round without you reading/describing it. You cannot "insert" something into the debate scot-free. Examples include charts, graphs, images, screenshots, spec details, and solvency mechanisms/details. This is a terrible norm which literally asks me to evaluate a piece of evidence that you didn't read. It's also a question of accessibility.

3] When it comes to speech docs, I conceptualize the debate space as an academic conference at which you are sharing ideas with colleagues (me) and panelists (your opponents). Just as you would not present an unfinished PowerPoint at a conference, please do not present to me a poorly formatted speech doc. I don't care what your preferences of font, spacing, etc. are, but they should be consistent, navigable, and readable. I do ask that you use the Verbatim UniHighlight feature to standardize your doc to yellow highlighting before sending it to me.

-----------

Misc. notes:

• My defaults: ROJ > ROB; ROJ ≠ ROB; ROTB > theory; presume neg; comparative worlds; reps/pre-fiat impacts > everything else; yes RVI; DTD; yes condo; I will categorically never evaluate the round earlier than the end of the 2AR (with the exception of round-stopping issues like evidence evidence allegations or inclusivity concerns).
• I do not, and will not, disclose speaker points.
• Put your analytics in the speech doc!
• Trigger warnings are important
• CX ends when the timer beeps! Time yourself.
• Tell me about inclusivity/accessibility concerns, I will do whatever is in my power to accommodate!

Kris Kaya

kkaya23@stanford.edu

Peninsula ’16

Stanford ’20

Conflicts: Peninsula, Lynbrook, Los Altos PD, Palos Verdes KK

*** Updated for Minneapple 2020

I debated for 4 years at Peninsula HS (CA) from 2012-2016 and debated at the TOC my senior year. I coached Lynbrook from August 2016- February 2018 and have since not been involved in the activity. Given this, I probably don’t know anything about the topic and won’t be knowledgeable about common positions/arguments unless you explain them. I was never a fantastic flower and it's been a while since I've judged so I'd recommend going at around 70% speed to ensure I hear everything. I’ll vote on any argument that is warranted and impacted.

Important Things

1) I'm fine evaluating pretty much everything. I read almost exclusively policy args in high school so that's what I'l be best at evaluating. If I had to give an order it'd be Policy Args >>>> Kritiks > Theory >>> Phil/Tricks

2) I give somewhat low speaks - they're proportional to the extent to which I enjoy judging the round and the extent to which you crush your opponent.

3) I'd prefer if you recorded your speeches as you gave them in case the stream dies in the middle of the round.

4) I think I've become increasingly interventionist in that I believe there's a minimum threshold of coherence for me to accept an argument. Consequently, the less coherent an argument is, the lower the threshold for responding to it is.

5) Especially since everything is online, it will be hard to convince me that you shouldn't lose for not disclosing.

julian kuffour (any)

julianjudging@gmail.com

2013-2017: Competed at Peninsula HS (CA)

I earned 21 bids to the TOC and was a finalist at the NDCA.

Yes I want to be on the email chain, add me: jlebarillec@gmail.com

I am willing to judge, listen to, and vote for anything. Just explain it well. I am not a fan of strategies which are heavily reliant on blippy arguments and frequently find myself holding the bar for answers to poor uneveloped arguments extremely low.

Speed should not be an issue, but be clear.

Clash debates:

Aff — Strategies that impact turn the Negative’s offense in combination with solid defense and/or a counter-interp (good)

Neg — Fairness, debate is a game (good)

skills (less good)

Topicality + Theory: More debating should be done over what debates look like under your model of the topic, less blippy debating at the standards level. Caselists are good and underutilized. I think some Condo is good. I think the Aff should be less scared to extend theory arguments against counterplans that are the most cheaty.

Kritiks: I find the link debate to be the most important here. Most times I vote aff it’s because I don’t know why the plan/Aff is inconsistent with your criticism. Strategies that are dependent on multiple non sequitur link arguments are unlikely to work in front of me.

I think that evidence comparison is extremely important and tends to heavily reward teams who do it more/earlier in the debate.

Elizabeth (she/her), Bergen County Academies '20

Contact: elizabethlee@cmu.edu

See detailed paradigm here.

UPENN UPDATE: I haven't judged VLD or heard spreading in a year. I will probably be fine with most rounds, but if I ask you to slow down, PLEASE DO SO.

===============================================

LD TL;DR

Def read the "I won’t vote on:" section.

I enjoy K's. I don't enjoy blippy phil justifications and theory-heavy AC/NCs.

I will vote on (almost) anything. While I won't increase/decrease your speaks just because you read something I like/dislike, my ability to evaluate def varies with args.

Assume I don't know topic lit.

LD Prefs shortcut

1/2- K, Phil

3/4- Non-T, Theory

4/5- LARP

5/strike - tricks/theory heavy strats

I won’t vote on:

• sexist/homophobic/racist argumentation
• theory interp or violation that involves policing the appearance or clothing of an opponent. If you’re unsure about your interp, ask before the round.
• theory args without voter implications (fairness/education/etc.) by the end of the round. I don't have a default for assigning voters.
• "give me X speaker points"= no

Director of Forensics, Cal State Northridge

Email speech documents to lemuelj@gmail.com

Any other inquires should go to joel.lemuel@csun.edu

He/him pronouns

***********

A. Judging/Coaching History

- Over 19 years of experience judging/coaching competitive debate events; less experience with speech and individual events (5 years)

- Worked with students of all ages: elementary (MSPDP), middle school (MSPDP), high school (policy, LD, public forum), and college (NDT/CEDA, NFA-LD, NPDA, IPDA, CPFL)

B. General Philosophy

1. Do you thing! This activity should center the stylistic proclivities of students, not judges. Full stop. My academic background has taught me reasonable arguments come in a variety of forms, styles, and mediums. I've coached and judged a wide range of styles from very traditional (e.g. topicality, disads, cps, and case), critical (e.g. post-structural/modern/colonial theory), to very non-traditional (e.g. performative/identity/method debate). There are things I like and dislike about every style I've encountered. Do what you do and I'll do my best to keep up.

2. "Inside Baseball" Sucks. These days I mostly judge college policy and high school LD. That means I am unlikely to know most of the acronyms, anecdotes, inside references about other levels of debate and you should probably explain them in MUCH more detail than you would for the average judge.

C. Pedagogical/Competitive Points of Emphasis

1. Importance of Formal Evidence (i.e. "cards"). I once heard a judge tell another competitor, “a card no matter how bad will always beat an analytic no matter how good.” For the sake of civility I will refrain from using this person’s name, but I could not disagree more with this statement. Arguments are claims backed by reasons with support. The nature of appropriate support will depend on the nature of the reason and on the nature of the claim. To the extent that cards are valuable as forms of support in debate it’s because they lend the authority and credibility of an expert to an argument. But there are some arguments where technical expertise is irrelevant. One example might be the field of morality and ethics. If a debater makes a claim about the morality of assisted suicide backed by sound reasoning there is no a priori reason to prefer a card from an ethicist who argues the contrary. People reason in many different ways and arguments that might seem formally or technically valid might be perfectly reasonable in other settings. I generally prefer debates with a good amount of cards because they tend to correlate with research and that is something I think is valuable in and of itself. But all too often teams uses cards as a crutch to supplement the lack of sound reasoning. The takeaway is … If you need to choose between fully explaining yourself and reading a card always choose the former.

2. Burden of Persuasion vs. Burden of Rejoinder One of things that makes policy and LD debate (and perhaps public forum) a fairly unique activity from a policy/legal perspective is our emphasis on the burden of rejoinder. If one competitor says something then the opponent needs to answer it, otherwise the judge treats the argument as gospel. Debaters might think their judges aren't as attentive to the flow as they would like, but ask any litigator if trial judges care in the least whether the other attorney answered their arguments effectively. Emphasizing the burden of rejoinder is a way of respecting the voice and arguments of the students who spend their valuable time competing in this activity. But like everything else in debate there are affordances as well as constraints in emphasizing the burden of rejoinder. Personally, I think our activity has placed so much emphasis on the burden of rejoinder that we have lost almost all emphasis on the burden of persuasion. I can’t count the number of rounds I have participated in (as a debater and as a judge) where the vast majority of the claims made in the debate were absolutely implausible. The average politics disad is so contrived that it's laughable. Teams string together dozens of improbable internal link chains and treat them as if they were a cohesive whole. Truth be told, the probability of the average “big stick” advantage/disad is less than 1% and that’s just real talk. This practice is so ubiquitous because we place such a heavy emphasis on the burden of rejoinder. Fast teams read a disad that was never very probable to begin with and because the 2AC is not fast enough to poke holes in every layer of the disad the judge treats those internal links as conceded (and thus 100% probable). Somehow, through no work of their own the neg’s disad went from being a steaming pile of non-sense to a more or less perfectly reasonable description of reality. I don't think this norm serves our students very well. But it is so ingrained in the training of most debates and coaches (more so the coaches than the debaters actually) that it’s sustained by inertia. The takeaway is… that when i judge, I try (imperfectly to be sure) to balance my expectations that students meet both the burden of rejoinder and the burden of persuasion. Does this require judge intervention? Perhaps, to some degree, but isn't that what it means to “allow ones self to be persuaded?” To be clear, I do not think it is my job to be the sole arbiter of whether a claim was true or false, probable or unlikely, significant or insignificant. I do think about these things constantly though and i think it is both impossible and undesirable for me to ignore those thoughts in the moment of decision. It would behoove anyone I judge to take this into account and actively argue in favor of a particular balance between the burdens or rejoinder and persuasion in a particular round.

3. The Role of the Ballot/Purpose of the Activity/Non-Traditional Debate. The first thing I want to say isn’t actually a part of my philosophy on judging debates as much as it is an observation about debates I have watched and judged. I can’t count the number of rounds I have watched where a debater says something akin to, “Debate is fundamentally X,” or “the role of the ballot is X.” This is not a criticism. These debaters are astute and clearly understand that defining the nature and purpose of the activity is an extremely useful (often essential)tool for winning debates. That said, in truth, debate is both everything and nothing and the role of the ballot is multiple. Asserting the "purpose of debate" or "the role of the ballot" is essentially a meaningless utterance in my opinion. Arguing in favor "a particular purpose of debate” or “a particular role of the ballot” in a given round requires reasons and support. Policy debate could be conceived as a training ground for concerned citizens to learn how to feel and think about particular policies that could be enacted by their government. Policy debate could also be conceived as a space students to voice their dissatisfaction with the actions or inactions of the governments that claim to represent them through various forms of performance. Excellent debaters understand policy debate is a cultural resource filled with potential and possibility. Rather than stubbornly clinging to dogmatic axioms, these debaters take a measured approach that recognizes the affordances and constraints contained within competing visions of "the purpose of debate" or the "role of the ballot” and debate the issue like they would any other. The problem is assessing the affordances and constraints of different visions requires a sober assessment of what it is we do here. Most debaters are content to assert, “the most educational model of debate is X,” or the “most competitive model of debate is Y.” Both of these approaches miss the boat because they willfully ignore other aspects of the activity. Debates should probably be educational. What we learn and why is (like everything else) up for debate, but it’s hard to argue we shouldn’t be learning something from the activity. Fairness in a vacuum is a coin-flip and that’s hardly worth our time. On the other hand, probably isn’t a purely educational enterprise. Debate isn’t school. If it were students wouldn’t be so excited about doing debate work that they ignore their school work. The competitive aspects of the activity are important and can’t be ignored or disregarded lightly. How fair things have to be and which arguments teams are entitled to make are up for debate, but I think we need to respect some constraints lest we confuse all discourse for argument. The phrase “debate is a game/the content is irrelevant” probably won’t get you very far, but that’s because games are silly and unimportant by definition. But there are lots of contests that are very important were fairness is paramount (e.g. elections, academic publishing, trials). Rather than assert the same banal lines from recycled framework blocks, excellent debaters will try to draw analogies between policy debate and other activities that matter and where fairness is non-negotiable. So the takeaway is … I generally think the topic exists for a reason and the aff has to tie their advocacy to the topic, although I am open to arguments to the contrary. I tend to think of things in terms of options and alternatives. So even if topicality is a necessarily flawed system that privileges some voices over others, I tend to ask myself what the alternative to reading topicality would be. Comparison of impacts, alternatives, options, is always preferable to blanket statements like “T = genocidal” or “non-traditional aff’s are impossible to research.”

4. Theory Debates (i.e. Debates about Debate Itself) I have a relatively high threshold for theory arguments, but I am not one of those judges that thinks the neg teams gets to do whatever they want. You can win theory debates with me in the back, but it probably isn’t your best shot. As a general rule (though not universal) I think that if you didn’t have to do research for an argument, you don’t learn anything by running it. I have VERY high threshold for negative theory arguments that are not called topicality. It doesn’t mean I wont vote on these arguments if the aff teams makes huge errors, but a person going for one of these argument would look so silly that it would be hard to give them anything about a 28.

I am a novice parent lay judge. Please speak slowly and define all terms. Good luck on your rounds!

email: connquisty@gmail.com

Phil: (Yes!)

K's: (Yes again!)

LARP: (reluctant acceptance)

Reading more than 3 theory shells: (please no)

Tricks: (NOOOOO)

I competed in LD in high school for Loyola. If you're wondering whether I value truth or tech more, my answer would be firstly that you should try for both; if a round becomes absolutely irresolvable, I usually try to vote for the argument that makes more intuitive sense. I care a lot about logical coherence, and the single best way to win my ballot (especially in the 2nr or 2ar) is by explicitly telling me what framing is most important and how you're winning under that framing at the top of your speech; if the round is extremely messy, this is doubly true, especially if you have a clever way for me to evaluate the round. I want important, far-reaching arguments to be well-developed, so I don't think that tricks are persuasive (and on balance I'd say that the development required for any given "trick" would devoid its strategic value). That said, I love philosophy, and well-developed philosophical positions (specifically moral/epistemic/linguistic/... skepticisms) will be fairly and gleefully evaluated. I love K's (identity-oriented, postmodern, or otherwise), and K tricks are also super cool and underutilized. LARP is fine, although not my favorite, but you can definitely win it; I'd suggest diversifying your offs if you want to larp against another larper (ie read a 3 card K or some theory). Theory done well is fun, but theory done poorly is hard to evaluate, so if you're not exactly a theory God just yet, try not to read too much of it. The same applies for T. Also, I don't have strong emotions regarding T-framework (positive or negative). I try to be nice with speaks, and if you want higher speaks, ask well-articulated cx questions and make smart strategy decisions throughout the round. Finally, I have no taste for aggressiveness or arrogance of any kind: You can be commanding without being condescending or rude, and if I feel you've crossed that threshold, then your speaks will reflect that. With that said, happy debating! You can ask me further questions about my prefs via my email.

tldr do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.

--

About me:

she/her

policy coach @ damien-st. lucy's: spring 2022 - present

ld coach @ harker: fall 2024 - present

--

Recently rewritten paradigm, probably best to give it a quick skim!

My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments.

I am good for policy teams that do topic research and aim to not go for process cp backfiles every 2nr. I am also good for k teams that do topic research and answer the aff and go for 2nr arguments that are substantive (not "role of the ballot"). I am bad for ld teams that go for ld-specific things ("tricks"), but am good for ld teams that are well-researched and read policy or k arguments.

More LD-specific notes/thoughts at bottom of paradigm.

--

Topic Knowledge:

I don't teach at a policy camp in the summer. I am involved in the Damien-St. Lucy's team research, and have vaguely kept up with the camp evidence updates. Most of my early-season topic knowledge is a result of hearing Chris yap at me about how he has a law degree in this field. So, consider my topic knowledge to be a less-smart version of Chris. Will update this section of the paradigm if/when that changes. Independent of this, I am generally a bad judge for arguments that rely on understanding of or alignment with community-developed norms -- I don't form my topicality opinions in July and then become immovable on them for the remainder of the season.

--

email chains:

ld email chains: nethmindebate@gmail.com

policy email chains: damiendebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

if you need to contact me directly about rfd questions, accessibility requests, or anything else, please email nethmindebate@gmail.com (please don't email the teamail for these types of requests)!

please include an adult (your coach, chaperone, or even parent) on the email chain if you are emailing me directly -- just a good safety norm to not have direct communications between minors & adults that don't know them!

--

flowing: it is good and teams should do it

stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow:)

--

Some general notes

Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve procedurals about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate. I feel increasingly uncomfortable evaluating debates that come down to accessibility/cw procedurals, especially when the issue could have easily been resolved pre-round.

Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. I can handle a decent amount of speed. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.

Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate's still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.

I am aggressively pro-disclosure. Disclosure is one of the elements of debate that is most important for small-school and novice accessibility. If you do not disclose, I will assume that you prefer the exclusionary system where only big schools have access, and I will punish your speaker points accordingly. I am so aggressive about enforcing disclosure with all teams (big and small school) because I believe in the mission of the open evidence project and other similar open source disclosure practices. tldr disclose or lose!

--

Speaker points:

Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.

I try to give points as follows:

30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive

29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots

29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined

28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix

28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round

27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors

27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors

26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament

25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.

Extra speaks for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.

Minus speaks for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.

--

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

--

Case:

I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.

Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the impact is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.

--

Planless affs:

I tend to believe that affirmatives need to defend the topic. I think most planless affs can/should be reconfigured as soft left affs. I have voted for affs that don't defend the topic, but it requires superior technical debating from the aff team.

You need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.

I tend to dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have a meaningful relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.

--

T/framework vs planless affs:

In a 100% evenly debated round, I am likely better for the neg than the aff. However, approximately none of these debates are evenly debated. Either team/side can win my ballot by doing the better technical debating. This past season, I often voted for a K team that I thought was smart and technical. Specific thoughts on framework below:

The best way for aff teams to win my ballot is to be more technical than the neg team. Seems obvious, but what I'm trying to convey here is that I'm less persuaded by personal/emotional pleas for the ballot and more persuaded by a rigorous and technical defense of why your model of debate is good in this instance or in general. I have historically voted against aff teams that made arguments along the lines of "vote for me or I'll quit debate."

I think that TVAs can be more helpful than teams realize. While having a TVA isn't always necessary, winning a TVA provides substantial defense on many of the aff's exclusion arguments.

I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness (or something else). I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponents' strategy.

I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.

--

Theory:

The less frivolous your theory argument, the better I am for it.

Please weigh! It's not nearly as intuitive to make a decision in theory debates - I can fill in the gaps for why extinction is more impactful than localized war more easily than I can fill in the gaps for why neg flex matters more/less than research burdens.

--

Topicality (not framework):

I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are your friend.

Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.

--

Kritiks (neg):

I tend to like K teams that engage with the aff and have a clear analysis of what's wrong with the aff's model/framing/epistemology/etc. I tend to be a bit annoyed when judging K teams that read word-salad or author-salad Ks, refuse to engage with arguments, expect me to fill in massive gaps for them, don't do adequate weighing/ballot analysis/judge instruction, or are actively hostile toward their opponents. The more of the aforementioned things you do, the more annoyed I'll be. The inverse is also true - the more you actively work to ensure that you don't do these things, the happier I'll be!

--

Disads:

Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.

Counterplans:

I don't have strong ideological biases about theory other than that some amount of condo is probably good. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.

No judge kick. Make a choice!

--

LD-specific section:

-you might think of cx judges in ld as people who despise judging ld and despise you for doing ld. i try to not let this be true about me. all of my issues with ld can be grouped into two general categories: 1) speech times/structure (not your fault, won't penalize you for it), and 2) the tendency to read unwarranted nonsense, such as "tricks," shoes theory, etc (you can avoid reading these args very easily and make me very happy)

-i am a horrid judge for tricks and frivolous theory. please just go for another argument!

-i am okay for phil. i don't have any personal opposition to philosophy-based arguments, i just don't coach/judge these arguments often, so i will need more explanation/hand-holding. many phil debates recently have involved tricks, which has soured me on this argumentative style, but i would be happy to judge a straight-up phil debate:)

-you don't get 1ar add-ons -- there is no 2ac in ld

-i teach at ld camp every summer, so assume i have some idea of community norms, but don't assume i am following trends super closely

--

Arguments that are simply too bad to be evaluated:

-a team should get the ballot simply for proving that they are not unfair or uneducational

-the ballot should be a referendum on a debater's character, personal life, pref sheet, etc

-the affirmative's theory argument comes before the negative's topicality argument

-some random piece of offense becomes an "independent voter" simply because it is labeled as such

-debates would be better if they were unfair, uneducational, lacked a stasis point, lacked clash, etc

-a debater's moral character is determined by whether they read policy or k arguments

-evidence ethics should be a case neg, as opposed to an opportunity for reasonable preround discussion and an opportunity to correct mistakes

-"tricks"

-debaters get to make arguments about how many speaker points they should get

-teams should not be required to disclose on opencaselist

-the debate should be evaluated after any speech that is not the 2ar

-the "role of the ballot" means topicality doesn't matter

-debaters get to claim the alternative is a floating pik after pretending not to know what a floating pik is during cx

--

Arguments that I am personally skeptical of, but will try to evaluate fairly:

-it would be better for debate if affirmatives did not have a meaningful relationship to the topic

-debate would be better if the negative team was not allowed to read any conditional advocacies

-reading topicality causes violence or discrimination within debate

-"role of the ballot"

-the outcome of a particular debate will change someone's mind or will change the state of debate

-the 5-second aspec argument that was hidden in the 1nc can become a winning 2nr

-the affirmative may not read a plan because of "bare plurals"

--

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! if there's anything i can do to make debate more accessible for you, let me know! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.

CKM '18

Berkeley '22

Assistant coach at Immaculate Heart. She/her. annabellelong@berkeley.edu

I’ve heard/debated it all and will listen to/vote on anything, provided you do it well. Specific argument preferences are below, but none of these preferences should significantly change what you read or how you debate in front of me. If you win the debate, I will vote for you.

Ks: I’ll vote for them. I'm familiar with most commonly read Ks. I think good K teams do more than just read the same shell and 2NC overview every round, and I’ll appreciate it and find it easier to vote for you if you have contextual links to the plan/impacts. It will be difficult to convince me that debate is bad.

K vs K: the area where I’m least familiar. I'm not super comfortable evaluating these rounds. You will have a hard time convincing me that the perm doesn't solve.

Counterplans: On condo: it’s good. On kicking planks: you can do it. On 2NC counterplans: they are good. None of these preferences mean I can't be convinced otherwise, but if debating on the question is equal, that is how I will typically lean.

Disads: I really care about evidence quality – if any card you’re planning to read has frankensteined a sentence out of words from three different paragraphs, it’s probably a bad disad, and I won’t be a fan. Zero risk is definitely a thing.

Framework: yes. Plans = good, debate = good, topic education = good. I’ll vote on fairness. I think portable skills are real and that movements-style framework can be strategic. I am not the best judge for you if you read a k aff, but I certainly won't auto vote neg on framework. Always tech over truth.

LD: I strongly dislike and do not feel comfortable judging theory/tricks debating, I love policy-style arguments, and am not fond of judging traditional LD philosophy debates (convincing me util is wrong/not the best way to make governmental decisions will be difficult). It will be nearly impossible to win an RVI in front of me. You should not pref me if you frequently go for theory or tricks. I will functionally judge the debate as if it is a 1v1 policy round (with the exception of maybe being more sympathetic to condo).

Misc.:

It is often in your best interest to go slower than your top speed. I do not flow off the doc and will not vote for arguments that I do not have on my flow.

Record your speeches locally in the event of a technical issue.

I am not timing your speech or your prep time.

Debated for Winston Churchill High School (TX). Debated at Texas. Camps worked at: VBI, Baylor, UTNIF.

Email: jacoblugo101@gmail.com

Please have the email chain ready as soon as both opponents meet before the round.

A few thoughts:

• I consider my role in the debate is to decide who did the better debating.
• I prefer for there to not be any room in the debate to input my own opinions. Prefer debates to be as clean and explicit as possible to make the most objective decision.
• I'll listen to most any type of argument. Not a fan of vacuous theory arguments or paragraphs of spikes/preempts (most pertinent to LD).
• I tend to/prefer to flow on paper. Take that into consideration. If you see me flowing on my computer, be mindful when you are transitioning between arguments.
• I flow what you say. Not looking at the doc during speeches unless I have absolutely no idea what you are saying (at which point I will stop flowing and stare at you until you notice). I read the docs between speeches/during CX/after the round.
• Please slow down during analytics. For some reason people tend to read through these faster and faster every year.
• I'm very expressive. My face is a good indicator of where the debate is going.
• If I'm absolutely unsure of what is going on/no arguments have been made, I'm most likely going to err neg.
• I'm always listening.
• Speaker points: I like to be entertained. I care about pathos. I enjoy creative and strategic argumentation. I generously doc speaks if I feel that you are being unnecessarily rude.

My name is Sridevi Madaraju and I am a software professional. This is my third year judging LD and Policy Debate for Dougherty Valley High School. I have also occasionally judged parliamentary debate and public forum debate. I am a parent judge.

IMPORTANT FOR STANFORD 2021 LD--

I will not be able to keep up with high speeds, please go slow. I am unaccustomed to judging philosophical debates and have a strong bias toward voting for utilitarianism. AFFs must be topical, which means they must affirm the resolution or a subset of it, so I do not understand and will not vote for K AFFs.

GENERAL--

Things that I evaluate when making my decision -- quality/comparison of arguments, effective refutation, impact calculus and judge instruction. Please do not say "they conceded this" or "they dropped this" when the other team didn't.

Things that matter for speaker points -- quality of impact calculus and judge instruction in rebuttals, truth of arguments, argument quality and having good warrants/evidence, cross ex, clarity

I flow/take notes during the debate.

Debaters should read cards and use email chains to send speech docs. I will provide my email address for the email chain during the round. Evidence needs to be extended in the debates, but solely author name extensions are insufficient, you need to extend the actual warrants in the card.

Cross examination is something I listen to and take into account for speaker points, but it does not affect my decision.

I value debate skill over truthful arguments, but I will hold the line when it comes to voting on egregiously untruthful arguments.

I'm a flay LD judge and a lay LD judge. My background is in Parliamentary, but this doesn't mean I need you to talk pretty, though please talk at a reasonable pace because I want to understand you just as much as you want me to.

My email address is venkatnet@yahoo.com (for any question or when emailing your case)

- I do appreciate a conversational, relatable tone.

- Also love it when you pair pathos with logos (maybe even some ethos) haha

Safety is my #1 priority in the round:

1. Avoid oppressive discourses including but not limited to sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. It’s not just an argument.

2. If you need any accommodations before the round, please email me

3. Give trigger warnings with an anonymous opt-out before reading any potentially sensitive argument.

- I like clear signposting, great weighing, and being considerate. These things are key!

Specific Debate Categories:

LD: I don't know what wpm I max out at, so I would appreciate a speech doc, but if you are unable to provide one, that's totally fine, just remember to outline your contentions once again after your Constructive :)

- I need a hint at a floating pik during the 1NC, make sure your root cause argument is contextualized to the Aff.

Theory: I am probably not the best for this debate, and I won't evaluate frivolous theory. If there is actual abuse, then it’s fine.

LARP: I am fine evaluating a decently in-depth phil debate. If there are no standards presented, I default to util.

- I don’t lean either way on conditionality. But, reading six-off is sort of ridiculous

Tricks: Don’t. Haha

Excited to judge for all of you, and I wish y'all good luck!

I am a lay judge, this is my fourth year of judging league and invitational speech and debate. If you have any questions, please ask.

Email for chain: debate.wm@gmail.com

Because this is being done online, please slow down a bit. I would hate to miss anything due to latency or other technical issues. If you need to spread I won't stop you, but your opponent might miss something, and I might miss something.

I am open to just about anything, but explain it like I am new to the argument. I am most likely not familiar with the sources you are using to cut your cards.

Please have fun.

Email: lenamizrahi@berkeley.edu

Online Debate : You should record your own speeches. Be prepared to send them if the wifi goes out mid-speech. No re-giving speeches.

Misc stuff :

Don't cheat. Disclose. Clipping = L25

"There is no "flow clarification" time slot in a debate. If you want to ask your opponent what was read/not read, you must do it in CX or prep -- better yet, flow!" - Danielle Dosch

I don’t care if an argument is a “voting issue." Tell me why that matters. Same goes for "terminal defense" and "zero risk" -- these words mean nothing to me.

Strong impact calculus wins debates

2AR and 2NR impact calculus arguments are not new (2AR turns case arguments are new though)

I'm flowing CX. Treat it like a speech, not prep.

Your 1NC should always answer the case.

I'll only vote for an argument if I heard it and can reasonably explain it.

Know your positions well; it will win you debates.

Counterplans :
I'm of the belief that conditionality is good. More than 2 is pushing it. When answering condo, the 2NR needs to do impact calculus. “Cheaty” counterplans are smart and should be included in more 1NCs. Will judge kick if you tell me to! (so do)

Kritiks :

Negating: Links must be tailored to the aff. A good kritik with disagrees with and disproves the affirmative. Ideally, your 1NC should include a link wall.

Affirming: Make the debate about your aff! The case outweighs. Answer -- and ask about -- the alternative. Impact turn when you can.

K Affs:

Affirming: Arguably most important to me is a coherent counter-interp. Explain your offense and make it super clear which affs would be allowed under your interpretation.

Negating: I think one-off framework is a smart strategy (especially if you have no idea how to give a 2NR on the other positions you're filling the 1NC with.) Fairness is an impact but you need to explain it as such.

If you're reading FW, answer the case. FW 2NRs must be thorough. Don't rely on your 5 minute overview to answer every 1AR argument -- it probably won't.

Philosophy:

I believe that framework serves as impact calculus, not a preclusive impact filter. I can be persuaded otherwise.

Read NC's! But answer the case

Theory:

I like reasonability. The more frivolous an argument is, the lower the threshold I have for responding to it.

My email is alex.mork@harker.org. Please add me to the chain

General:

1. An argument is a claim, warrant, and impact. I will not vote on anything that does not meet this threshold and I will vote on basically anything that does. The fact you say the word "because" after your claim does not mean what follows is a warrant.

2. I won’t vote on any argument that I cannot explain back to your opponent after the round. I need to be able to explain it back based off your explanation, not my prior knowledge of the argument.

3. Assuming they meet the threshold set in #1 and #2, I’m willing to vote on “bad” arguments. However, the less intuitive/worse that I consider an argument to be, the lower the threshold I have for the response.

4. If something is conceded, I grant it the full weight of truth. If I did not realize that an argument was being made, then I will not consider it to be conceded.

5. I will attempt to err on the side of least intervention. I think it’s the job of whoever presents an argument to prove the argument is true. So, for example, if the NEG team says “X card is a link to our K because it’s gendered” and then the AFF team says “no link, X card is actually criticizing gender norms, not perpetuating them,” I would consider both these explanations to be lackluster and have no way of resolving the question, but instead of reading the card and coming to my own conclusion, I would err AFF and assume there’s no link because it is the job of the NEG to prove a link to the K, not the job of the AFF to disprove it.

6. **********Debaters have an obligation to flow. You should send a marked version of the doc indicating where cards were cut immediately after the speech, but you should not delete the cards that weren't read. If your opponent wants to know what was/wasn't read, they must take prep or CX time. I will deduct speaks for debaters who don't adhere to this.

7. **********Slow down on analytics. This is especially true now that I don't judge very often! I rarely miss entire arguments but I have recently judged several debates in which I didn't flow a 1ar warrant for an argument that the 2ar collapsed to. I am sympathetic to the difficulty of the 1ar as a speech, but I think the way to navigate this challenge is by making less arguments that are more robustly explained, not vice versa

8. Theory defaults: drop the team for T (or other arguments about the plan), condo, disclosure; drop the argument for everything else; no RVIs; competing interps. These are admittedly very arbitrary and I only created them so that I would have a consistent way of evaluating rounds in which neither side establishes paradigm issues - these defaults can and will change as soon as one team makes an argument to justify their paradigm issues. In fact, I would almost always suggest making a reasonability argument (especially against 1ar theory if you have specific warrants!)

9. I think good evidence is important in so far as it allows debaters to make arguments about author qualifications, recency, the methodology of their studies, quality of warrants, etc... but the onus is on you to make these arguments. I don't decide rounds based on my own readings of evidence unless there is a specific dispute about what a card says.

10. I don’t flow author names

Ethics:

I will end rounds in which I witness clipping because to the best of my current knowledge not clipping cards is an NDCA “rule,” and doc speaks when I see miscut evidence because to the best of my current knowledge, properly cut evidence is a “norm” (although reading theory about miscut evidence or ending the round for an evidence ethics challenge are still fair-game).

LD Paradigm

This is the LD paradigm. Do a Ctrl+F search for “Policy Paradigm” or “PF Paradigm” if you’re looking for those. They’re toward the bottom.

I debated LD in high school and policy in college. I coach LD, so I'll be familiar with the resolution.

If there's an email chain, you can assume I want to be on it. No need to ask. My email is: jacobdnails@gmail.com. For online debates, NSDA file share is equally fine.

Summary for Prefs
I've judged 1,000+ LD rounds from novice locals to TOC finals. I don't much care whether your approach to the topic is deeply philosophical, policy-oriented, or traditional. I do care that you debate the topic. Frivolous theory or kritiks that shift the debate to some other proposition are inadvisable.

Yale '21 Update
I've noticed an alarming uptick in cards that are borderline indecipherable based on the highlighted text alone. If the things you're saying aren't forming complete and coherent sentences, I am not going to go read the rest of the un-underlined text and piece it together for you.

Theory/T
Topicality is good. There's not too many other theory arguments I find plausible.

Most counterplan theory is bad and would be better resolved by a "Perm do the counterplan" challenge to competition. Agent "counterplans" are never competitive opportunity costs.

I don’t have strong opinions on most of the nuances of disclosure theory, but I do appreciate good disclosure practices. If you think your wiki exemplifies exceptional disclosure norms (open source, round reports, and cites), point it out before the round starts, and you might get +.1-.2 speaker points.

Tricks
If the strategic value of your argument hinges almost entirely on your opponent missing it, misunderstanding it, or mis-allocating time to it, I would rather not hear it. I am quite willing to give an RFD of “I didn’t flow that,” “I didn’t understand that,” or “I don’t think these words in this order constitute a warranted argument.” I tend not to have the speech document open during the speech, so blitz through spikes at your own risk.

The above notwithstanding, I have no particular objection to voting for arguments with patently false conclusions. I’ve signed ballots for warming good, wipeout, moral skepticism, Pascal’s wager, and even agenda politics. What is important is that you have a well-developed and well-warranted defense of your claims. Rounds where a debater is willing to defend some idiosyncratic position against close scrutiny can be quite enjoyable. Be aware that presumption still lies with the debater on the side of common sense. I do not think tabula rasa judging requires I enter the round agnostic about whether the earth is round, the sky is blue, etc.

Warrant quality matters. Here is a non-exhaustive list of common claims I would not say I have heard a coherent warrant for: permissibility affirms an "ought" statement, the conditional logic spike, aff does not get perms, pretty much anything debaters say using the word “indexicals.”

Kritiks
The negative burden is to negate the topic, not whatever word, claim, assumption, or framework argument you feel like.

Calling something a “voting issue” does not make it a voting issue.

The texts of most alternatives are too vague to vote for. It is not your opponent's burden to spend their cross-ex clarifying your advocacy for you.

Philosophy
I am pretty well-read in analytic philosophy, but the burden is still on you to explain your argument in a way that someone without prior knowledge could follow.

I am not well-read in continental philosophy, but read what you want as long as you can explain it and its relevance to the topic.

You cannot “theoretically justify” specific factual claims that you would like to pretend are true. If you want to argue that it would be educational to make believe util is true rather than actually making arguments for util being true, then you are welcome to make believe that I voted for you. Most “Roles of the Ballot” are just theoretically justified frameworks in disguise.

Cross-ex
CX matters. If you can't or won't explain your arguments, you can't win on those arguments.

Regarding flex prep, using prep time for additional questions is fine; using CX time to prep is not.

LD paradigm ends here.

Policy Paradigm

General
I qualified to the NDT a few times at GSU. I now actively coach LD but judge only a handful of policy rounds per year and likely have minimal topic knowledge.

My email is jacobdnails@gmail.com

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain. No, I don't need a compiled doc at end of round.

Framework

Yes.

Competition/Theory
I have a high threshold for non-resolutional theory. Most cheaty-looking counterplans are questionably competitive, and you're better off challenging them at that level.

Extremely aff leaning versus agent counterplans. I have a hard time imagining what the neg could say to prove that actions by a different agent are ever a relevant opportunity cost.

I don't think there's any specific numerical threshold for how many opportunity costs the neg can introduce, but I'm not a fan of underdeveloped 1NC arguments, and counterplans are among the main culprits.

Not persuaded by 'intrinsicness bad' in any form. If your net benefit can't overcome that objection, it's not a germane opportunity cost. Perms should be fleshed out in the 2AC; please don't list off five perms with zero explanation.

Advantages/DAs
I do find existential risk literature interesting, but I dislike the lazy strategy of reading a card that passingly references nuke war/terrorism/warming and tagging it as "extinction." Terminal impacts short of extinction are fine, but if your strategy relies on establishing an x-risk, you need to do the work to justify that.

Case debate is underrated.

Straight turns are great turns.

Topics DAs >> Politics.

I view inserting re-highlightings as basically a more guided version of "Judge, read that card more closely; it doesn't say what they want it to," rather than new cards in their own right. If the author just happens to also make other arguments that you think are more conducive to your side (e.g. an impact card that later on suggests a counterplan that could solve their impact), you should read that card, not merely insert it.

Kritiks
See section on framework. I'm not a very good judge for anything that could be properly called a kritik; the idea that the neg can win by doing something other than defending a preferable federal government policy is a very hard sell, at least until such time as the topics stop stipulating the United States as the actor.I would much rather hear a generic criticism of settler colonialism that forwards native land restoration as a competitive USFG advocacy than a security kritik with aff-specific links and an alternative that rethinks in-round discourse.

While I'm a fervent believer in plan-focus, I'm not wedded to util/extinction-first/scenario planning/etc as the only approach to policymaking. I'm happy to hear strategies that involve questioning those ethical and epistemological assumptions; they're just not win conditions in their own right.

CX
CX is important and greatly influences my evaluation of arguments. Tag-team CX is fine in moderation.

PF Paradigm

9 November 2018 Update (Peach State Classic @ Carrollton):

While my background is primarily in LD/Policy, I do not have a general expectation that you conform to LD/Policy norms. If I happen to be judging PF, I'd rather see a PF debate.

I have zero tolerance for evidence fabrication. If I ask to see a source you have cited, and you cannot produce it or have not accurately represented it, you will lose the round with low speaker points.

Parent Judge

No spreading

No progressive arguments

PLEASE READ (evidence ethics): I am very willing and ready to pull the trigger on evidence ethics. These practices are just WAY too common in LD. You have to cut full paragraphs. You cannot start or end a card in the middle of a paragraph. You cannot clip (I will be reading through your evidence while you are speaking). These attempts to actively mislead debaters ARE a form of cheating. I'll listen to what you say in response to ethics challenges, and I will evaluate for myself whether a piece of evidence was actually misrepresented. But know that I am likely to vote on any ethics challenge as this is a topic I feel strongly about.

Pronouns she/her

Put me on the email chain: jayanayar@college.harvard.edu

Background

I debated at Harvard-Westlake for 5 years doing 4 years in LD and 2 in Policy (they overlapped my junior year). I now debate on Harvard's policy team.

Conflicts

Harvard-Westlake School

Sequoia AS

Sage MP

Argumentation

Btw: a lot of this was stolen from Jasmine Stidham's paradigm. I think about debate very similarly to her and Scott Phillips.

Topicality: Familiar with it. You need a definition and you should do a ton of evidence comparison in these debates. Cards that just mention a word in the topic in the context of the topic aren't T definitions. Very persuaded by aff arguments about arbitrary theory/T shells combined with reasonability claims about shifting the goal posts.

Framework: I understand both perspectives. As a debater, I lean more towards affs should defend the topic, but I think there are plenty of good arguments for why teams shouldn't have to defend the topic. I never read a K aff in high school and am a first-year (so I haven't judged a ton of rounds on it) so my views are still evolving. Right now, I'm kind of a clean slate. In these debates, impact calculus and judge instruction is the most important because I think framework often ends up as 2 ships passing in the night.

K affs: Make sure to answer the question "what do you do" otherwise I'm very persuaded by neg presumption arguments. You need a clear outline for your advocacy.

Disads: impact calc! Do good impact calc and link analysis and win! Don't just dump cards plz do actual analysis and explain your cards. People like to just dump cards in uniqueness blocks - if you ever read a card that's tagged "more evidence" that's how you know it's not needed and you're not gaining anything from reading it.

Counterplans: condo prob good - can be egregious and often times people will just mess up / mishandle it so feel free to go for it but I generally ideologically lean condo good. I think there are good arguments on both sides for why process counterplans/any type of counterplan that does part or all of the aff is good/bad. Just make sure to keep the theory debate clean by clearly explaining your offense, why it outweighs, and why their offense is probably wrong (put defense on their stuff). These debates often get too messy to evaluate which is why it's so much easier for judges to vote neg but if you keep the theory debate clean then affs should very easily be able to win why the counterplan should be excluded. I'm generally not gonna drop the debater though. I'll only judge kick if told to do so.

Ks: I'm big into link work - make sure to impact each link argument like a tiny disad. I don't like long overviews please dont' make the debate super messy. Floating PIKs can be good so defend the theory side of it if you want to!

If my camera is off, don't start your speech. If you want to email me questions about your round, please do so with haste because I have an awful memory.

Email: okvanessan@gmail.com

Kapaun Mt. Carmel/Mount Carmel Independent '19. I did policy debate for four years.

University of Southern California '23. I did not compete but was still involved with the policy debate team.

General:

Please be kind. I promise I'm not angry or upset, my face is just like that.

Again, I haven't competed since high school and I'm not as involved as I once was: this means I've forgotten lots of jargon and you will need to slow down a bit. The technical nuances of debate aren't as intuitive to me anymore so please explain the implications of your arguments more.

I don't really have any strong opinions on debate other than:

(1) be kind to your partner and opponents, and

(2) debate is a valuable activity and all argumentative styles that allow chances for contestation/clash are essential for that.

If you take time out of your own prep to delete analytics from constructives, you're only hurting yourself.

Feel free to email me with any further questions.

Content:

Do whatever as long as it's not repugnant. If you're unsure whether your argument falls under this category, then probably don't read it.

For what it's worth, I read mainly policy arguments in high school and am not super familiar with critical arguments. If you read the latter, you're going to have to explain your arguments more. Such debates are easier for me to follow if your strategy engages the impact level. Non-USFG affs should have a debate and ballot key warrant. I always went for framework, a topic disad if it linked, or an impact turn against such affs.

I think fairness is the best impact.

I think affs should get to weigh their plan and it will be an uphill battle to persuade me otherwise.

I know very little about the topic. Please keep this in mind if going for T.

I like impact turns. That does not mean death good. That does not mean wipeout. Please.

*LD note: I dislike RVIs.

Good luck! Have fun! Learn lots! Fight on!

Hi, nice to meet you!

In short, I've been debating for a while so I will understand most jargon and stuff. Therefore, feel free to run most types of arguments, don't be mean or use harmful rhetoric in round, do do impact calculus, make sound and logical arguments, and tell me what to look for and vote for. Off time road-maps are a good idea.

I'm sure all you are amazing, but I study public health and am deathly afraid of germs, so please don't shake my hand!

If you would like more information about me or about how I process debate, continue reading here:

General/Important Things on How I Judge:

-Call all Points of Order(POOs)in the last speeches. I will protect the flow as much as I can but calling them is best.

-Content warnings are generally appreciated because we do not know the background of all the people in the room.

-I'm ok with counter-plans (CPs), theory, and kritiks (Ks) and whatever arguments you can make against them

-I am not an expert on theory or kritiks, but generally, I can keep up. Make sure that you are thoroughly explaining your theory and your kritiks regardless because debate is educational at its core.

-Speed is ok, but let everyone in the room know if you are going to spread. If your opponent is talking too quickly, please call CLEAR (this means to say clear in an assertive tone and is a signal for the other team to slow down). If you are talking too quickly and not enunciating to the point that I cannot understand, I will stop flowing.

-Tag-teaming is ok, but be respectful. If you are puppeting your partner to the point of it being obnoxious and rude, I will drop your speaker points.

-Point of Informations(POIs): I think that it is polite to take at least one if not two.

Background on Me:

-I debated through college. I was not super-competitive in high school, but I have won tournaments and medals in NPDA, IPDA, and speech during my gap year (taking classes at a local CC).

Case Debate:

-I will try to be as much of a blank slate as possible (tabula rasa). Meaning that I will not intervene with any of my knowledge to the best of my ability. That being said, if you are saying lots of untrue things it might affect your speaks.

-Please have a clean debate. The messier the round becomes the more I have to go through and pick over information which increases the likelihood of some judge intervention.

-A few isolated quips will not win you the round. Make the debate clean and make it tell a story.

-Again debate is about creating a narrative, so collapse down and create the most compelling narrative you can make.

-Make your arguments logical and make sure they work together (ie. Advantages or Disads that contradict each other really grind my gears and happen more often than you would think)

Theory:

-It should make sense and be specific to the round.

-Throwaway theory is fine as long as you are specifically connecting it to what is happening in the round. (ie. don't run vagueness just to run vagueness, show me where the opponent is vague)

-Make your standards clear and explain it well. (Note: If you get a POI, I would suggest taking it.)

Kritiks: I think they are important to debate and I will listen to them, but because I am less familiar with them than some judges you might have, make sure you both thoroughly understand and can thoroughly explain your K.

-Do not make assumptions about others and do not run anything you already know is offensive and/or hurtful.

-People and emotions are more valuable than a win...and being offensive/causing emotional-damage probably won't get you a win.

-Like theory, make it specific to the round...please don't run something just to run it and not link it to the res.

-Please repeat the alt and take POIs. Ks can be hard and it is exclusionary not to make sure that your opponent understands what you are saying.

-Don't spread your opponents out of the round. If you are not clear or organized, it will be reflected in speaks or (depending on the severity) the way I vote.

-I will flow through what you tell me to and will vote on my flow. This means that you should emphasize arguments or links that you think are key to your Kritik.

Speaker Points: Generally, these are subjective...but I base them on a mix of strategy and style.

25: Please be more considerate with your words. You were offensive during round and I will not tolerate that because debate is about learning and it becomes very hard to learn if someone is not putting thought into their words (ie. please stop being racist, sexist, homophobic, etc).

26-26.9: Below average. Most likely there were strategic errors in round. Arguments were probably missing sections and did not have a ton of structure.

27-27.9: Average. General structure is down, but most likely the arguments were not flushed out and were loosely constructed with hard to follow logic.

28-28.5: Above Average. All the parts of debate are there and the manipulation of the arguments is there but unpolished. The basics are done well.

28.5-28.9: Superior. Very clear and very well done debate. However, most likely some strategic errors were made.

29-29.9: Excellent. Wow, you can debate really well. Good strategy and good analysis.

30: You were godly.

This paradigm was done really late, so it will be edited as I judge more.

The chain should be ready before the round starts and I want to be on it. anovering@gmail.com

Hi, I’m Andrew Overing. I am currently a law student at the University of Texas School of Law. When I debated, I read primarily util and theory, but with a hefty side of philosophy. I don't know a lot of K literature, so please be clear and err on over-explanation.

If I am in front of you at a tournament: wow, I'm judging again! Spreading is okay if clear and a little slow. Be explicit and assume that I know nothing other than the resolution text (if that).

Share your flow with me. I want to encourage good flowing and reward reading this paradigm. If you send me your flow prior to my decision, you'll get at least .1 extra points, no matter what.

Clearly explain your arguments. I will not vote for you if I cannot explain why you have won.Think of what you want the first sentence of my RFD to be after I say “I voted for you because…”. Give me a clear route to the ballot that I can repeat back to you, and remember that you do not need to win everything. Generally: “Tell me 1) what argument you won; 2) why you won it; and 3) why that means you win the round.” (Michael Overing)

Siddharth Panchanadam

Unionville’19 UPenn’23

Contraints: Unionville High School

Experience: Debated 4-years of Policy, LD

Email Chain: 24siddhipan@gmail.com

Policy: Refer to LD paradigm I haven’t had time to write it up before semis. Feel free to ask any questions

I think debate is an extremely valuable activity, and I will always try to encourage debaters. I will be extremely respectful, and if you think I’m not paying attention, let me know! You deserve a fair judge.

Please tell me where you are in a speech, so I can make sure that I’m considering your arguments the way you want them to be considered. While I prefer that you have a road map, I will be fine as long as you clearly sign post.

Note: I will NOT vote for any clearly abhorrent (racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic etc.) arguments. I prefer that debaters avoid any problematic language, and will doc speaker points accordingly, but I’m also sympathetic to those genuinely trying to improve (novices, ESL, etc.) Just don’t be unnecessarily abusive, so I don’t have to worry about this.

LD Paradigm:

I am a CX debater, and tend to evaluate arguments from that mindset. Just because you run Ks, CPs and other policy style arguments doesn't mean I will automatically vote for you. I expect a level of rigor and understanding to all arguments that I judge.

I am comfortable with both traditional value/value criterion framework as well as policy style argumentation. I don’t have a preference for which style of arguments, but I want you to tell me how and why I should evaluate the debate in a certain way. That means if you run a kritikal argument, you need to explain why I should evaluate your argument under the lens of that philosophy. If your running theory or topicality, you need to justify the impact of the violation beyond just “something is unfair”. You should tell me a story of why concepts of fairness matter.

I want you to write my ballots for me. I will always favor more nuanced and detailed argumentation, and the last thing I want to see is two people yelling unconnected things at each other.

Quick Notes:

Theory: As mentioned above, I need better reasoning for voting against a team then “there argument is unfair” Explain how this operates and weigh the impact of your story with their’s. I’m not a person that like theory heavy debates, but if you prove that the other team violates, show why I should prefer your theory of debate, and explain the story of why that abuse matters, I will vote for you.

Topicality: Like in policy debate, its the Aff’s burden to be topical, and I generally won’t drop the neg team on topicality. However, like in theory, you need to explain the reasons why I should care. Furthermore, if the Aff’s sufficiently proves that they are topical or explains why the abuse of them being forced to be topical outweighs, then I will not vote neg for topicality. My approach to this is similar to theory, and I will always look for an evaluation between the two competing abuse stories.

Kritiks: I’m completely supportive of running Kritik’s, as I’ve run Ks in both LD and policy in the past. However, I need a clear articulation of the alternative and the link chain/story of the argument. I want to see more attention to the link debates, and while its easy to read generic cards, I will more likely vote for the team that has a strong explanation of this part of the debate. Furthermore, I want a clear articulation of the impact calculus, and why I should weigh certain impacts over others. While I really enjoy K debates, I will vote you down if you don’t have a legitimate answer against theory/framework arguments.

Other Policy Style Arguments: I like these. Like I mentioned in the K section, I want you to spend time on the story of these arguments. I want you to explain exactly what happens in the world of the Aff’s/Neg and how I should vote as a result. I always want your arguments to clearly link, so make sure you put in the work to make it count.

ROB/Judge: Hopefully, you’ve heard this from your coaches and mentors (since I have a lot), but your job is to write my ballot. Don’t just tell me how I should think; tell me why I should evaluate the debate in your lens and what the net benefits to that approach is. Make sure you properly explain the link and impact analysis. At a fundamental level, I view every argument as part of an overall story of the round, and your job is to frame that story for me.

I love everything from the Value/Value Criterion Debates to the K vs K debates, so show me your best arguments, and give me a reason to vote for you.

parkjoanne17@gmail.com

Archbishop Mitty '20, Columbia '24

Coached @ Peninsula, Mitty, VBI '21, VBI '20, and NSD '20

I did LD for 4 years, qualifying to NSDA/TOC and winning a quarters bid. I read a little bit of everything, but haven't touched debate in a year, so you should err on the side of over-explaining.

Unless debated out, I presume neg unless the 2NR defends or relies on the defense of an advocacy (e.g., a counterplan I'm not asked to judge kick). For individual arguments, if debated evenly, I will err against the side who has the burden of proof (e.g., I err no link, not yes link).

Being racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. is an instant L20. If you are feel uncomfortable or unsafe in round, please do not hesitate to email me (I'll be checking consistently throughout the round).

If you stake the debate on evidence ethics, I will stop the round and use that for my RFD. Otherwise, I let these debates play out as normal. If I catch clipping, it's an auto loss, but to make an accusation you need a recording. If you ask me to stop the round, the decision I am making is a. if an established rule on evidence is being broken and b. if the breaking of the rule, in all or most circumstances where it occurs, changes the meaning of the evidence.

Tech > Truth

No spreading, I won't flow if you talk too fast or scream at me.

Don't interrupt each other, I prize politeness, don't be rude to your opponent. This is a debate not a courtroom.

I'm ok with flex prep if both competitors are ok with it.

I am a parent judge with little experience in judging.

Would be focusing on the argument data-points and how each of this are presented, argued and counter-argued. Also, would focus on presentation and interaction styles. I will not vote for anything I do not understand.

Looking forward to meet you all.

cheers!!

Lillian Poulsen (she/her/hers) - lillie.poulsen@gmail.com

West Des Moines Valley 2018 - VPF for three years, NLD for one

Coached for Iowa City West NPF for two years, WDM Valley NPF for one year

I'm a junior studying journalism and environmental policy at the University of Iowa.

Basics:

Speed is OK — make sure you're clear.

Read what you want, and I will listen.

Don't be sexist, homophobic, racist, classist, ableist, etc. or you will lose.

This is a learning environment — don't be rude or you will lose speaks.

Signpost!!

I will be timing, but make sure you also keep track of your time. I don't keep track of prep, so make sure you're communicating prep time with your opponent(s).

If you have questions, just ask me. Feel free to send me an email or ask before round starts. Don't ask me any questions during your round.

If you make me laugh or you sing, I will give you higher speaks :)

Have fun with this! This is a stressful environment — I get it. I want to make this experience more fun for you, so feel free to be yourselves!

Hey I’m Jack! I went to and now coach at Northland in Houston, TX. Feel free to ask questions before or after the round. Add me to email chains at jbq2233@gmail.com

TLDR: I will vote on anything that has a claim, warrant, and impact. I most enjoy judging policy arguments.

Defaults

- Tech > Truth

- Fairness > Education

- 1NC Theory/T > 1AR Theory

- T/Theory > K

- Comparative Worlds

- No RVIs, Competing Interps, DTD

- Presumption flips neg unless they go for an alternative advocacy

- No judge kick

Preferences

- I'm cool with anything as long as it has a claim, warrant, and impact. None of my personal opinions or interests in arguments will factor into my decision.

- I want you to debate the way you debate best. I want debaters to read what they know and are invested in.

- No buffet 2nrs please

- Be nice to one another and don't take yourself too seriously

Hot Ls

- If you are sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist or something similar

- Clipping/losing an ethics challenge OR a false accusation

- Stealing prep

Things I'm not voting on

- Any argument concerning out of round practices (except disclosure)

- Any argument concerning the appearance/clothes/etc. of another debater

- Any auto affirm/negate X identity argument

- "Evaluate the entire debate after X speech". However, I will evaluate "evaluate ___ layer after X speech".

- IVIs not flagged as IVIs in the 1NC/1AR (possibly a 2NR exception)

Policy Arguments

- My favorite type of debate to think about and judge

- Evidence comparison and impact calc are the most important things

- Great for heavy case pushes. Impact turn heavy strategies are good and solid execution will be rewarded with solid speaks

Kritiks

- I don’t have a strong preference for or against certain literature bases

- I won’t fill any substantive gaps in your explanation (this goes with anything, but it seems most relevant to what I’ve seen in K debates)

- It really helps when the 2NR includes lots of examples, especially with more uncommon literature bases.

K Aff/T Framework

- The affirmative needs to provide a model of debate with a role for the negative

- Neg teams should have an answer to case

- It is vital that aff teams provide an explanation of solvency that I can easily explain back (maybe slow down a bit here)

Phil

- Not good for dense phil v dense phil (good for util vs other phil)

- I’ve noticed that lots of phil aff contentions are pretty weak, I’d like to see more neg teams go for turns on the contention

- Neg teams should read more CPs with phil offense

Tricks

- Fine if there is an actual warrant and implication.

- Not voting on something that I don’t understand/can’t explain back

- I would recommend going MUCH SLOWER in rebuttal speeches. The current standard for an extension of a paradox or some kind of logic based trick is functionally re-spreading through the exact same block of text or contrived piece of evidence. In these debates I have found that I err heavily on the side of the other team simply because I do not understand the argument in the rebuttal.

Theory

- Great for theory

- The frivolous nature of some shells does not factor into my evaluation. Although, reasonability tends to become easier to justify and the answer becomes easier

- I’ve never voted for a team that violates in a debate where they don’t disclose (this means they didn’t disclose anything in any way) the exception is obviously new affs

T

- Caselists are necessary

- The negative needs definitions. Debate over T definitions are great. Slow down when doing comparison

- Recent explanations for bare plural arguments by negative teams have been nothing short of atrocious – please understand the semantics before you read Nebel

Misc.

- Prep ends when the email is sent

- CX is binding

- Email should be sent at the start time - I'll dock .1 speaks for every minute it's not sent (unless I'm not in the room)

Speaks

- Less prep and sitting down early will be rewarded with higher speaks.

- Clarity is VERY IMPORTANT. If you are unclear and I miss a “game changing” argument – that’s a you problem.

- Speaks will be awarded for good debating (strategy, technical ability, good CX, etc).

Add me to the email chain- katieraphaelson@gmail.com

Brentwood 19'

Smith 23'

The New School Graduate Program in International Affairs '26

Hello! I'm Katie! I use they/them pronouns. I debated LD at Brentwood School from 2015-2019. I was a quarterfinalist at state and 10th at NSDA nats my senior year. I focused mostly on circuit in high school and broke consistently my senior year. I mainly read performance non t affs and postmodernism Ks

I've been coaching and judging for about 5 years and have experience judging every event, but I do come from an LD background. This paradigm used to be super long but at this point I really only have like a few important things:

1) provide content warnings if you are going to talk about SA and violence against queer ppl. Please don't read cases that are primarily about SA/r*pe. thank u!

2) don't be racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophopic, ableist, etc. Debaters are people. The people we talk about in debate are people. Every argument has real world implications. Be sensitive to that.

3)I have mainly been coaching trad debate, but I am good for circuit

a. my background is in Ks- id pol (queerness, ableism, queercrip, performance K affs) and pomo (D&G, Baudrillard, legal realism). I had many a KvK debate, so I am also very familiar with other K lit (antiblackness, set col, cap, fem).

b. I also love smart CPs and DAs with clear links and solvency aka DA uniqueness needs to be strong and CP has to solve.

c. I like theory that is based on in round stuff and is not frivolous- spec good/bad, condo (although i think condo is good reasonably), non frivolous T. I will vote on disclosure if it is clearly an intentional lack of disclosing. I’m not convinced by new affs bad.

d. I love a neg strat of K, T, CP, DA then kick the alt and go for the links as DAs to the aff. I also love a 1 off K.

e. Don't read meme arguments ill be really annoyed

4) time yourselves please! and keep track of your prep time. I am not keeping track.

5) Feel free to share your cases, but I can keep up without a document. I'm good with spreading, but just be clear. I would implore you to send the speech doc so that I make sure I get everything.

6) Be nice to each other!!!!!!!

7) Debate the way you do best! Have fun!

Hi, I'm Tarun and I debated at Southlake Carroll for four years and qualified to the TOC my senior year. 

Email: tarun.ratnasabapathy1@gmail.com

Top Level:

Im tech over truth but I won't vote on your one sentence arg without a warrant.

Please do impact calculus, make it good, and make it comparative. This is how you will win a debate no matter what type of argument you read.

I've gone for and voted for multiple types of arguments and I'd be much happier to see debaters read what they want than try and "adapt" to a made up idea of what arguments I like.

Policy

I default to judge kick, but I'm open to args against judge kick.

Permutations that are not either some variation of perm do both or perm do the cp should have a written out perm text in the 1ar. Don't make me flow your functionally intrinsic but textually non-intrinsic perm shoved between condo bad and a solvency deficit.

The best DAs clash with the plan. Made up politics arguments usually aren't very persuasive against a well developed affirmative advantage.

Impact turns and "cheaty" counterplans are underutilized. It seems no one is ready to debate them.

You can’t just read generic cards about probability and concede a DA; I have no problem voting for a small impact against some extinction scenario, but I won't vote on probability first if you don't actually diminish the probability of the specific scenarios they read.

Stop reading terrible advantages. You need to win that the plan is uniquely key to resolve the internal links to your impact, otherwise you will lose to an advantage cp or alt causes.

Competition is better than theory against process things.

Zero risk is a thing.

Phil

I prefer and enjoy legit philosophy debates where you just win deontology or something is true rather than go for induction fails or a spike.

I'm comfortable with any of the common philosophy positions that are read in debate.

Theory

I don't enjoy when debates end with a 3 minute 2ar on a 15 second shell from the 1ar.

Drop the argument and reasonability are extremely underutilized. Theory is over-utilized in LD you will always have your links of omissions to generate violations.

T

I am not a fan of plans bad. Other T shells that qualitatively not quantitatively limit the topic are good and enjoyable. 

K

Won't vote on death good.

I like the K a lot if it has a link to the aff, and it indicts the epistemology behind the aff. However Ks that rely on fiat illusory, or "pre-fiat" offense makes me like these arguments significantly less.

Tricks

I enjoy actual debates, and get very upset when debaters read arguments that waste their opponents and my time. I also get even more annoyed when debaters are unable to flow said arguments.

I default comparative worlds. I also wont vote on a trick I don't understand or without a warrant. 

Non T affs

Framework debates almost always require you to debate the case well. Don't just rely on truth testing to exclude aff arguments.

K Affs should impact turn the negative model of debate or be topical people who do a best of both worlds don't usually win against framework. However, I'm fine with affs counter defining words in the resolution to make a we meet on framework, but this shouldn't be your only strategy. 

Fairness is an impact, but the 2nr feels like it's missing something without some defense on their model of how debate should be and why that is valuable.

yes, add me to the email chain: claudiaribera24@gmail.com

I've worked/taught at camps such as utnif, stanford, gds, and nsd.

overall thoughts: I believe it's important to be consistent on explicit labeling, generating offense, and extending some sort of impact framing in the debate because this is what ultimately frames my ballot. Debate is a place for you to do you. I will make my decisions based on what was presented to me in a debate and what was on my flow. This means I am unlikely to decide on debates based on my personal feelings about the content/style of an argument than the quality of execution and in-round performance. It is up to the debaters to present and endorse whichever model of debate they want to invest in. Have fun and best of luck!

Case

-- Case is incredibly underutilized and should be an essential part of every negative strategy. You need to have some sort of mechanism that generates offense/defense for you.

Policy affs vs. K

-- I am most familiar with these types of debates. With that being said, I think the affirmative needs to prioritize framing i.e. the consequences of the plan under a util framework. There need to be contestations between the aff framing versus the K's power of theory in order to disprove it, as not desirable, or incoherent, and why your impacts under the plan come first. Point out the flaws of the kritiks alternative and make solvency deficits. Aff teams need to answer the link arguments, read link defense, make perms, and provide reasons/examples of why the plan is preferable/resolve material conditions. Use cross-x to clarify jargon and get the other team to make concessions about their criticism.

CP

-- CP(s) need to have a clear plan text and have an external net benefit, otherwise, I'm inclined to believe there is no reason why the cp would be better than the affirmative. There needs to be clear textual/function competition with the Aff or else the permutation becomes an easy way for me to vote. Same with most arguments, the more specific the better.

-- The 2NR should generally be the counterplan with a DA/Case argument to supplement the net benefit. The 1AR + 2AR needs to have some offense against the counterplan because a purely defensive strategy makes it very hard to beat the counterplan. I enjoy an advantage counterplan/impact turn strategy when it’s applicable. Generally, I think conditionality is good but I can be persuaded otherwise.

DA

-- Please have good evidence and read specific DAs. If you have a good internal link and turn case analysis, your speaker points will be higher. For the aff, I think evidence comparison/callouts coupled with tricky strategies like impact turns or internal link turns to help you win these debates.

Theory

-- I don't really have a threshold on these arguments but lean towards competing interps over reasonability unless told otherwise.

-- When going for theory, please extend offense and weigh between interps/standards/implications.

-- When responding/going for theory, please slow down on the interps/i-meets.

Topicality

-- Comparative analysis between pieces of interpretation evidence wins and loses these debates – as you can probably tell, I err towards competing interpretations in these debates, but I can be convinced that reasonability is a better metric for interpretations, not for an aff. Having well-explained internal links to your limits/ground offense in the 2NR/2AR makes these debates much easier to decide, as opposed to floating claims without warranted analysis. A case list is required. I will not vote for an RVI on T.

T-FW

-- I prefer framework debates a lot more when they're developed in the 1NC/block, as opposed to being super blippy in the constructives and then the entire 2NR. I lean more toward competing interps than reasonability. Aff teams need to answer TVA well, not just say it "won't solve". Framework is about the model of debate the aff justifies, it’s not an argument why K affs are bad or the aff teams are cheaters. If you’re going for framework as a way to exclude entire critical lit bases/structural inequalities/content areas from debate then we are not going to get along. I am persuaded by standards like Clash and topic education over fairness being an intrinsic good/better impact.

K affs vs. T-Framework

-- There are a couple of things you need to do to win: you need to explain the method of your aff, the nuanced framing of the aff, and the impacts that you claim to solve. You should have some sort of an advocacy statement or a role of the ballot for me to evaluate your impacts because this indicates how it links into your framework of the aff. If you’re going to read high theory affs, explain because all I hear are buzzwords that these authors use. Don’t assume I am an expert in this type of literature because I am not and I just have a basic understanding of it. If you don’t do any of these things, I have the right to vote to neg on presumption.

-- You need a counter-interp or counter-model of debate and what debate looks like under this model and then go for your impact turns or disads as net benefits to this. Going for only the net benefits/offense without explaining what your interpretation of what debate should look like will be difficult. The 2AC strategy of saying as many ‘disads’ to framework as possible without explaining or warranting any of them out is likely not going to be successful. Leveraging your aff as an impact turn to framework is always good. The more effectively voting aff can resolve the impact turn the easier it will be to get my ballot.

Kritiks

-- I went for the Kritik in almost every 2NR my senior year. I have been exposed to many different types of scholarship, but I am more familiar with some critical race theory criticisms. This form of debate is what I am most comfortable evaluating. However, it is important to note I have a reasonable threshold for each debater's explanation of whatever theory they present within the round, extensions of links, and impact framing. I need to understand what you are saying in order for me to vote for your criticism.

-- You should have specific links to affirmatives because without them you will probably lose to "these are links to the squo" unless the other team doesn't answer it well. Link debate is a place where you can make strategic turns case/impact analysis. Make sure you have good impact comparison and weighing mechanisms and always have an external impact.

-- The alt debate seems to be one of the most overlooked parts of the K and is usually never explained well enough. This means always explaining the alt thoroughly and how it interacts with the aff. This is an important time that the 2NR needs to dedicate time allocation if you go for the alternative. If you choose not to go for the alternative and go for presumption, make sure you are actually winning an impact-framing claim.

K vs. K

-- These debates are always intriguing.

-- Presumption is underutilized by the neg and permutations are allowed in a methods debate. However, it is up to the teams in front of me to do this. There needs to be an explanation of how your theory of power operates, why it can preclude your opponent’s, how your method or approach is preferable, and how you resolve x issues. Your rebuttals should include impact comparison, framing, link defense/offense, permutation(s), and solvency deficits.

Tricks/frivolous theory/skep

-- I am not the best at evaluating these types of arguments. It is important to extend the claim, warrant, and impact of your argument and WEIGH. Please slow down on analytics that are important, especially in theory debates.

include me on the email chain- luzia.rode@gmail.com

likes: theory, disads, cps with great plan text cards, and long walks on the beach

Kritiks... depends on the K. I appreciate very good evidence, if your K includes some great cards I will enjoy it. Particularly enjoy Kritiks when they link specifically to the aff!

will give you high speaks for short speeches (if done well)

dislikes: all the isms (racism, sexism), being mean to opponents, phil, and the tv show friends

Hi!

I'm a recent UC Berkeley graduate and an assistant Speech and Debate coach. I'm a former debater who mainly competed in Parliamentary debate for Claremont High School. Alongside that, I've competed in and/or judged LD, PF, Worlds, BQ, Congress, and several speech events (mainly Impromptu/Extemp). I always appreciate a competitive and respectful round so I'm looking forward to hearing what you have to say!

General Debate Notes

Please focus on your links! I believe they are just as/more important than your cards/impacts. Arguments that depend on well-thought out logic are always more interesting to listen to than a random card without much analysis from the debater. I weigh magnitude and probability heavily, meaning I will not vote for your nuclear fallout argument just because you tell me to based on a 0.0000000001% chance.

Please provide a roadmap and signpost in each speech! I want to be able to flow your case/refutations as accurately as possible and it's difficult when you spew random facts at me for 7 minutes. Remember, you could have the most beautiful argument to ever be conceived of in human history, but if I don't know where/how to flow it I can't give you credit.

Lastly, be respectful! Especially during POIs and cross. That also means avoid making faces or facepalming in person or while your camera is on. I'll probably tank speaks without hesitation if a debater is being disrespectful throughout the round

Kritiks & Theory

I'm open to hearing these arguments as long as you can justify them. There are definitely rounds where these arguments are necessary and will impact my decision. I'm not the most familiar with K's so please explain each component to me! If there's one thing I hate more than spreading, it's frivolous theory/k's that you wrote at camp 5 months ago and decided to shoe into your case. Please make sure the K makes sense for the specific round/opponent. Please avoid running K or Theory against newer debaters. Don't feel pressured to run these arguments either, you don't need to use jargon or this structure to explain why a definition or argument is abusive! Just talk :)

Speaking

I'm pretty generous (I think?) when it comes to speaks. If you make me laugh I'm probably going to boost your speaks too. Be respectful to your opponents, being rude is an easy way for me to dock your speaks without feeling very bad.Don't Spread, Don't Spread, Don't Spread. Or if you, for whichever reason, feel that you have to spread and cannot make the necessary adjustments, at least send a speech doc via the tournament designated file-sharing program.

If you have any other questions feel free to ask them in round! :)

email:

Isaiahsalgado24@gmail.com

About Me: I am a former Open Debater at Cal State Fullerton. I had 3 years ~ debating in college and experience as a coach at CSUF. I have vast judging and coaching experience at the High School level. I spent a lot of my Career running mostly critiques including Settler Colonial K's, Afropessimism K's, Baudrillard K's, performance K's, as well as experience running Framework.

Aside from that my cases usually involved futurisms and storytelling.

Coaches: Toya Green, Romin Rajan, Lee Thach.

Me as a judge real talk: I can understand spreading, and I'm as good as anyone at getting this down. But Imma be honest, it is hard for me to stay organized. I joined debate in college, no high school experience.

In other words, framing is super important for me. Clarity is important to me, because I want to understand how you think we/you/ I should think, view and participate in the community, in this round, at this tournament, etc. Is debate a game? is the game good? why or why not? I'd like these question answered either implicitly or explicitly. I don't inherently work with the perception that debate is (just) a "game", but if given a good argument as to why I should take on that perspective (in this round, all the time, etc) I'll take on that perspective. I prefer not to feel like a worker in the debate factory who needs to take notes and produce a ballot, but idk maybe I should function in that way-just tell me why that's true.

Evidence Reading: I will read your cards if you urge me to look at them, or if they are contested during the round. Otherwise, I am assuming they say what you tell me they say. IF you don't mention the evidence outside of the 1ac/1nc, they most likely wont stay in the forefront of my mind during the debate. This means reading the evidence will a clear voice will give you an advantage with me, because I will most likely understand the evidence better.

Impact: Proximity and likelihood> magnitude and time frame

MISC:

Clipping Cards is an auto DQ.

I really don't care what you do as far as tag teaming, changing format, playing music, using stands, seating placement, etc. Do you, just don't make the debate go longer than it needs to. Also feel free to talk to me before, after and during prep in rounds. I generally enjoy talking about debate and like helping young peeps. Just chit chat and such.

Policy- I think that a straight up policy plan is dope. MY biggest concern is the debaters ability to explain numbers to me. ITs hard for me to do the calculations and understand why specific stats are important and win you the debate. I am pretty line by line when it comes to a policy debate. Id say with me, focus on some impact calc because thats usually where my attention is mostly at. Liklihood and proximity are more important than severity, magnitude. Time-Frame is iffy but doable.

FW- Honestly, framework is pretty cool. I think its become kind of a meme at this point about my annoyance with whiney FW debaters, so make sure you are being real with your critique. Framework says that there is a structure which needs to be followed for this activity to run efficiently. This assumes that the game of debate is good, so explain why the game is good, or why your specific version of the game is good. When you run framework you are saying that the other team is debating in a way that lessens/nullifies the benefits of debate. That is a big claim, so treat it as such. If you are just using it strategically- more power to you buuuuuuut, it makes you hella less persuasive if thats how you are coming off. Also, Fairness is not inherently a terminal impact, lol. At least mention debate is a game and tell me why the games good.

K- I love k's, but they get hella sloppy. With k's, i need to know that you are solving your impacts. seems basic but im shocked at how often debaters dont explain how their "self abolishment" solves antiblackness. Acknowledging that there is a problem isn't a solution, or plan or anything. It's just a diagnosis. I need a prescription. HAving said that, Im pretty open minded when it comes to different strats. The more weird the more fun for me.

I'm way more truth than tech.

This is my 3rd year judging. My daughter competes in PF, OO/OA, and Expos.

I am a lay judge. I value the speaking style as much as the quality of the materials. Speak clearly and don't just read your arguments. All of your overall arguments, evidence, links and impacts need to have a clear tie back to your criterion. Have a good clean debate, be respectful at all times.

Have fun and good luck!

Note for online debate: Use the file share if there is one. Also, please record your speeches, and don't go your top speed (70-80% is fine).

Bio: I debated in LD for Harker for 7 years and qualled to the TOC twice, cleared at a number of national tournaments, and won multiple speaker awards. I currently debate BP at Duke University.

Questions and email chain: sachin97shah@gmail.com

General Stuff:

Don't be offensive or rude. Time limits are set by the NSDA.

My argumentative preferences from high school don't completely determine the kinds of round I like judging. With that said, I'd say that I'm a good judge for LARP/policy and K debate, an ok judge for theory, and a pretty bad judge for phil and tricks.

More specific argument stuff:

DAs:

-Explain the story of your DA

-Have clear links and impacts

-Do weighing and impact calc

CPs:

-Explain why they compete

-Explain why there's a net benefit/why the CP is better than the aff

Ks:

-I expect a decent level of explanation of your theory; I'm familiar with most common Ks, but if you're reading some weird pomo K, I expect you to explain EXTRA well

-Explain the alt

-Understand what your K says

-Have specific links to the aff

T/Theory

-Impact out your standards

-Do standard comparison and weighing

-Do voter comparison and weighing

Specific Theory

-Condo-one condo is probably fine, more and I could go either way

-Spec-if the aff is whole res, this is probably not great, but I'll vote on tech

-I think that short theory arguments can be pretty strategic, and again, I'll vote for tech

If you have questions, you can ask me before the round or email me.

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

Top-level Debate Opinions:

1. I'll evaluate almost any argument presented to me in round.
2. If an argument is conceded and adequately, I'll consider it in my decision.
3. I love, love, love seeing smart analytics against bad arguments.
4. The best way to get my vote is by having a clear view of where you want to spend your time and telling me a coherent story as to why the arguments you are going for mean you have won the round.

2023-2024 Policy Topic: New to the topic. Don't assume deep knowledge.

Case: Contest the affirmative. Most AFFs are not well constructed and their impact scenarios are embarrassingly fake. So, if you are deciding between adding a T shell --- that you and I know you won't go for --- and having more case arguments, do the latter.

Counter-plans: I'll listen to any CP, doesn't mean every CP is fair --- tell me if the NEG is cheating. Using CX to isolate how the AFF solves, then explaining how the CP solves those mechanisms, is how to win the CP debate.

Disadvantages: These are my favorite debates to judge. Do impact calculus and sprinkle in some turns case analysis, and you have a winning recipe. Prioritize DAs that link to the AFF.

Kritiks: I enjoy well thought out Ks that have specific links and reasons why the 1AC is a bad idea. As the links become more general, I give increasing leeway to the specificity of the AFF outweighing generic indicts of topic or whatever the K is problematizing. You would also being do yourself a great disservice if you don't answer the AFF. Also, going for the K doesn't mean you can skip impact calculus.

K-AFFs: These are fine (even ran one for a season), but I think that framework is a powerful tool that is very persuasive if articulated well. If you are reading a K-AFF, thorough explanations of what voting AFF means and why that solves your impact is the path to victory.

Speed: I am fine with spreading, but always choose clarity over speed. I'll call out clear and slow as appropriate. Using a more conversational speed during the rebuttals is an excellent way to create contrast and emphasize your winning arguments.

Theory: I don't particularly enjoy judging these rounds. I'll still listen to your theory shells and definitely include it in your 2AC, but, if you are going to go for theory, have a compelling reason.

Topicality: T debates are fun to judge. What I enjoy are NEG teams reading T for the sake of reading T shells; why not just use that time to do something that will actually help you in the 2NR?

Thank you for opening my paradigm.

Debate is an educational activity. Do not gamify it.

Public Forum should be accessible to the public.

Lincoln-Douglas should engage with relevant philosophies and their practical consequences.

Parliamentary should be creative, off-the-cuff argumentation.

Policy should explore policy-making and its impacts on society.

Focus on the basics of persuasion that carry over to real life.

a. Speaking extremely fast is rarely persuasive.

b. Exaggerating impacts is never persuasive.

c. Speak clearly. Stay calm.

background:

--->brophy '18 (policy), cal '22, double 2'ed so no aff/neg sympathy, toc qual/coaches poll/tournament wins and all that stuff. i coach LD now so this is customized for that.

general:

---[1] ssrivastava@berkeley.edu - put me on the email chain

---[2] good debating outweighs any of my following argumentative preferences, my leanings are only relevant in borderline decisions where poor debating has left too many arguments unresolved and there's no other way to arbitrate other than defaulting to what i'm more convinced by.

---[3] always tech>truth as long as there are arguments

---[4] an argument has a claim and a warrant, a good one has an impact (some ev doesn't even meet this standard) - calling out 'non-arguments' is a sufficient answer until it becomes an argument (pls do this more? it's strategic and helpful for norm-setting - a lot of ev i'm reading is abysmal)

---[5] don't just tell me to read ev - do the actual debating and use good ev comparison in conjunction with that

---[6] slow down on theory. spreading your blocks ≠ debating. and if your opponent is incoherent spreading theory, don't ask them to say it slowly during cross ex - i only evaluate/flow what i can actually hear so you're only doing yourself a disadvantage

---[7] 'which cards did u skip' / 'can you send with analytics' / etc auto-caps speaks at 28.6 nonnegotiable

by argument:

k affs:

---> neg: k affs are cheating. fairness is an impact, but not always the most strategic one. debate is a game, answering args ≠ racist, the [insert fake word here] disad is probably stupid, TVA + SSD are super compelling to me, etc. I'm increasingly willing to vote on presumption vs affs that do/solve nothing and you will be heavily rewarded with speaks if you go for it. k v k can be fun or painful, just have actual answers to the perm.

---> aff: clever/creative t interps with strong defense, strong answers to SSD/TVA, and coherent offense is the best route in front of me. or, just impact turn everything with your thesis and win on the flow. please have real topic-specific AND lit-specific answers to SSD + TVA - i weigh those much higher than most judges, but am also down to discount them on stupid but poorly answered args like "micropolitics is a pre-requisite". vs the k, go for the perm it probably solves.

kritik:

--->aff vs k: most convincing args = particularity, falsifiability, impact turns, alt solvency attacks, and fw. pet peeve is people just saying 'weigh the case' when other interps have more strategic value. also i'm very down for fw no alts with good reasoning. a lot of k teams (not just psycho) make nonfalsifiable broad-sweeping claims so call that out (please do this more i am so ridiculously persuaded by it).

--->neg going for k: can be the worst debates, can be the best - up to you to decide. i'll have a hard time thinking a generic baudrillard debate is good, but neolib/security i'm very open to. surprisingly literate in a wide range of literature, but i'm not granting you the thesis of an entire book without you explaining it sufficiently (which, in ld, is almost impossible because of time constraints). utilize framework cleverly PLEASE

cp/da: my personal favorite strat. vs soft left affs sufficiency framing makes sense (especially if you bait 'step in the right direction'). smart adv cp's make me happy and will reward you with speaks. think about competition theory more - pdcp is very sloppily debated out. i'm very anti pics that are textually uncompetitive.

t: good for nit picky violations with good impact stories, undecided on reasonability (but more down to vote on it than the avg judge if well explained - esp if the only response is a 2 second 'causes intervention' arg - but tbf it's never well explained)

tricks/phil/friv: hate this but also if you can't answer this nonsense you probably deserve to lose

theory: in theory inf condo good, but i could be persuaded that the structure of LD makes this untrue. no 1ar theory makes a weird amount of sense to me. slow down and actually debate theory pls. pics are fun but theoretically more justifiable with solvency advocates.

decision time:

decision making: i first resolve quick arguments (technical drops or one side being clearly ahead) then I compare how much work I have to do for each side to grant the key argument pathways for their victory and vote for the team that requires the least work. there's almost always some work required - if there's not, then a) you're getting good speaks b) comes down to persuasive argument framing / judge instruction (i.e. which way to err on key args, how losing one key arg might implicate some other arg's probability, etc - basically closing doors).

tech>truth: the implication to this being true is limited by the debating done/argument presented, and everything is a sliding scale. dropping a solvency deficit doesn't mean the aff doesn't solve, it probably just means the aff only solves some percent of its advantages depending on the ev (unless it's articulated to implicate 100% of solvency or the argument lends itself towards a large solvency take out via evidence or warrants).

ev evaluation: good research sets you up to win debates. that being said, a clever 2ac analytic is the same in my mind to a card from a random blog with no author quals. just because you have evidence, does not make it a better argument. good ev + explanation > bad ev + good explanation > good ev + no explanation > bad ev + no explanation. resist debate's recent tendency towards awful evidence, but don't be scared to rely heavily on smart analytics.

misc: default to judge kick and sufficiency framing, long overviews are never helpful. the brightline on 2ar leeway is whether enough of the argument was in the 1ar to reasonably expect the 2nr to have predicted it. if i'm not flowing, you're not making arguments.

speaks: being a clear, loud, and snarky/clever presenter with judge instruction in final speeches is the most important for me. closing doors makes my decision easier (god please do this more i dont think ld'ers know how to close doors) and will be generously rewarded. research quality/innovative strategies would be the next most important. speaks inflation is probably inevitable and hurting certain debaters doesn't solve, so i'll default to the rough average at that tournament to form my scale.

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Steele%2C%20Nick Affiliations: Harvard Westlake, Dennis Tang (West Linn HS)

Hey all - I haven't judged in a while so please try to signpost, be clear, and maybe don't go your absolute fastest. Thanks! Here's my old paradigm:

Hi - My name is Nick Steele and I debated varsity LD for 4 years at Harvard Westlake. I'll try to keep this brief - my judging preferences are pretty open:
I'll evaluate the round based off of the line by line. I'll try to be impartial - For example I will vote on ideal theory/Kant vs. a race AFF if good comparison and weighing are done. I will vote on politics vs. a structural violence AFF, and I will vote on K impact turns to theory, and vice versa
That being said, I tend to lean more towards policy/k style arguments than theory and phil
Policy args: most of what I read in highschool, I'm comfortable evaluating them
Ks: I read a lot of these too, I'm familiar with all the common ones but if you're reading dense pomo or something less common please have clear overviews and tags
Non T AFFs, performance, narratives, etc: all fine and I read them, they're still debate arguments so I hold them to the same standards. Hopefully they're related to the topic. Making the reason to vote AFF clear is key
T framework: it's fine and necessary sometimes , the T version of the AFF debate is usually important so be clear there
Theory: Good strategic theory or theory to check actual abuse is good, I will vote on frivolous theory but I don't think it's very strategic and that will be reflected in speaks
I'll try to be neutral but I lean AFF on 2 or more condo, NEG on agent cp's, AFF on specific plans good, NEG on reasonable PICs but AFF on super small or random PICs. Default competing interps and drop the debater
Phil: I'm familiar with and read at some point all of the common LD frameworks. I'm most familiar with consequentialism and deontology, but feel comfortable evaluating most framework debates. Same thing applies with dense fw as dense Ks
Tricks/a prioris/ skep etc: will vote on them, don't like them. I think common sense responses answer a lot of these positions well
Speaks: will be given based off of efficiency, giving good overviews, collapsing effectively, reading quality substantive arguments, and effectively using ethos if it suits the round.
30 - one of the best speeches I've seen all year
29.5 - you should get to late out rounds
28.9 - you should probably clear
28.5 - average
Flashing: Make an email chain. If you're using a computer you should have a flash drive as back up. I won't take prep. Be fast please
I won't vote on things like racism or rape good, etc. If you personally insult someone in the room or deliberately make someone uncomfortable you'll get a 0.
Do what style you're best at and have fun! I'm excited to see different individual arguments styles and people debate best when they're confident in what they're reading.

Old paradigm, I will no longer give extra speaks for anything listed as extra speaks, but I think this paradigm is a classic: https://tinyurl.com/yyhknlsn

[Updated 3/3/2021] In fact, here is a list of things I dislike that I will probably not be giving good speaks for: https://tinyurl.com/55u4juwp

Email: conal.t.mcginnis@gmail.com

Tricks: 1*

Framework: 1

Theory: 1

K: 6

LARP: Strike

To clarify: I like K's and LARP the LEAST (as in, you should rate me a 6 if you like Ks and strike me if you LARP a lot) and I like Tricks, Framework, and Theory the MOST (you should rate me a 1 if you like Tricks, Framework, and Theory a lot).

Util is bad enough to be beaten by sneezing on it

Overall I am willing to vote on anything that isn't an instance of explicit isms (racism, sexism, etc.).

Other than that, here's a bunch of small things in a list. I add to this list as I encounter new stuff that warrants being added to the list based on having difficulty of decision in a particular round:

1. Part in parcel of me not being a great judge for LARP due to my low understanding of complex util scenarios is that I am not going to be doing a lot of work for y'all. I also will NOT be reading through a ton of cards for you after the round unless you specifically point out to me cards that I should be reading to evaluate the round properly.

2. I know it's nice to get to hide tricks in the walls of text but if you want to maximize the chances that I notice something extra special you should like slightly change the tone or speed of delivery on it or something.

3. If you have something extremely important for me to pay attention to in CX please say "Yo judge this is important" or something because I'm probably prepping or playing some dumbass game.

4. I will evaluate all speeches in a debate round.

"Evaluate after" arguments: If there are arguments that in order for me to evaluate after a certain speech I must intervene, I will do so. For example, if there is a 1N shell and a 1AR I-meet, I will have to intervene to see if the I-meet actually meets the shell.

Update: In order for me to evaluate "evaluate after" arguments, I will have to take the round at face value at the point that the speeches have stopped. However, as an extension of the paradigm item above, the issue is that many times in order for me to determine who has won at a particular point of speeches being over, I need to have some explanation of how the debaters thing those speeches play out. If either debater makes an argument for why, if the round were to stop at X speech, they would win the round (even if this argument is after X speech) I will treat it as a valid argument for clarifying how I make my decision. Assuming that the "evaluate after" argument is conceded/true, I won't allow debaters to insert arguments back in time but if they point out something like "judge, if you look at your flow for the round, if you only evaluate (for example) the AC and the NC, then the aff would win because X," then I will treat it as an argument.

Update P.S.: "Evaluate after" arguments are silly. I of course won't on face not vote on them, but please reconsider reading them.

Update P.S. 2: "Evaluate after" causes a grandfather paradox. Example: If "Evaluate after the 1NC" is read in the 1NC, it must be extended in the 2NR in order for me as the judge to recognize it as a won argument that changes the paradigmatic evaluation of the round. However, the moment that paradigmatic shift occurs, I no longer consider the 2NR to have happened or been evaluated for the purposes of the round, and thus the "Evaluate after the 1NC" argument was never extended and the paradigmatic evaluation shift never occurred.

5. "Independent voters" are not independent - they are dependent entirely on what is almost always a new framework that involves some impact that is presumed to be preclusive. I expect independent voter arguments to have strong warrants as to why their micro-frameworks actually come first. Just saying "this is morally repugnant so it's an independent voter" is not a sufficient warrant.

Also - independent voters that come in the form of construing a framework to an implication requires that you actually demonstrate that it is correct that that implication is true. For example, if you say "Kant justifies racism" and your opponent warrants why their reading of the Kantian ethical theory doesn't justify racism, then you can't win the independent voter just because it is independent.

6. I will no longer field arguments that attempt to increase speaker points. I think they are enjoyable and fun but they likely are not good long term for the activity, given that when taken to their logical conclusion, each debater could allocate a small amount of time to a warranted argument for giving them a 30, and then simply concede each others argument to guarantee they both get maximal speaks (and at that point speaker points no longer serve a purpose).

7. My understanding of unconditional advocacies is that once you claim to defend an advocacy unconditionally you are bound to defending any disadvantages or turns to that advocacy. It does not mean you are bound to spend time extending the advocacy in the 2NR, but if the aff goes for offense in the 2AR that links to this unconditional advocacy and the neg never went for that advocacy, the aff's offense on that flow still stands.

Update: Role of the Ballots are frameworks and do not have a conditionality.

8. Don't like new 2AR theory arguments.

9. I don't time! Please time yourselves and time each other. I highly recommend that you personally use a TIMER as opposed to a STOPWATCH. This will prevent you from accidentally going over time! If your opponent is going over time, interrupt them! If your opponent goes over time and you don't interrupt them, then there's not much I can do. If you are certain they went over time and your opponent agrees to some other way to reconcile the fact that they went over time, like giving you more time as well, then go ahead. I do not have a pre-determined solution to this possibility. I only have this blurb here because it just happened in a round so this is for all of the future rounds where this may happen again.

10. If you do something really inventive and interesting and I find it genuinely funny or enjoyable to listen to and give good speaks for it, don't run around and tell any teammate or friend who has me as a judge to make the same arguments. If I see the exact same arguments I will probably consider the joke to be stale or re-used. Particularly funny things MIGHT fly but like, if I can tell it's just a ploy for speaks I will be sadge.

11. In general, for online events, say "Is anyone not ready" instead of "Is everyone ready" solely because my speaking is gated by pressing unmute, which is annoying when I have my excel sheet pulled up. I'll stop you if I'm not ready, and you can assume I'm ready otherwise. (However, for in person events, say "Is everyone ready" because I'm right there!)

12. I will not vote for you if you read "The neg may not make arguments" and the neg so much as sneezes a theory shell at you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For traditional rounds: speak and argue however you want (bar racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other ism or phobia)

*WHEN YOU READ TRICKS: I PREFER BEING UP FRONT ABOUT THEM. Pretending you don't know what an a priori is is annoying. Honestly, just highlight every a priori and tell your opponent: "here are all the a prioris"**.

**Seriously, I have yet to see anyone do this. Do it, it would be funny, I think.

Contact Info:

Email: nevilletom1@gmail.com

Facebook: Neville Tom

Basic Info:

Hi! My name’s Neville. I debated for four years at Strake Jesuit (got a few bid rounds during my career if that makes any difference), and I’m currently a freshman at UH. I’m still kinda working out the whole judging thing, so there’ll probably be some edits to this as time goes on. As such, please feel free to ask me any questions prior to round if you need any clarification about my judging style or my paradigm.

How to Win (the TL;DR version):

You do you – just do it well. Tell me very clearly how to evaluate the round and why you’re winning compared to your opponent and that’ll probably be what I decide on. I liked to read a little of everything in my rounds, so don’t be afraid to try out some obscure strategy in front of me – just know how to explain it well enough for the win.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Winning & Boost Speaks:

- Weigh: Do it. A lot. As much as you POSSIBLY can manage. It doesn't matter to me if you're winning 99% of the arguments on the flow; if your opponent wins just that 1% and does a better job at explaining WHY that 1% matters more in terms of the entire debate, you will probably lose that debate.

- Crystallize: Don't go for every possible argument that you're winning. You should take time to provide me a very clear ballot story so that I know why I should vote for you. It might even behoove you to explicitly say: "Look. Here's the thesis of the aff/neg: (insert story of the aff/neg). Here's what we do that they can't solve for: (insert reason(s) to vote aff/neg). Insofar as we're winning this/these argument(s), we should win the round."

- Use Overviews: I find that debaters who use overviews effectively tend to win more rounds. It will definitely help me evaluate if you start off your rebuttal speeches with an overview, so... *shrug*. A good overview will have these three components: (1) explain which issues matter most in the debate, (2) explain why those issues matter most (why I should care about them most), (3) why you're winning those issues. After that, feel free to go to the line-by-line to do the grunt work. This will help clarify the round and will help me to focus on the issues that matter.

- Warrant your Arguments: When making arguments, be sure to provide clear WARRANTS that prove WHY your argument is true. Highlight these warrants for me and make sure to extend them for the arguments that you're going for in later speeches - if done strategically and well, I will probably vote for you.

- Signpost: Make very clear to me where you are on the flow and where you want me to put your responses. This will help to prevent any disambiguities that might affect my decision.

- Creatively Interpret Your Arguments: Feel free (in fact I encourage you) to provide your own unique spin to your arguments by providing implications that may not be explicit on first glance. Just make sure your original argument is open-ended enough to allow for your new interpretation. For example, if you win a Hobbesian framework and claim that the sovereign should settle ethical dilemmas, then feel free to make the implication that theory is illegitimate because it is not a rule that the sovereign has proposed.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Losing & Lower Speaks (Borrowed from Chris Castillo's paradigm):
1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too).
2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand, so don't just read some dense phil or K and expect me to understand it.
3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters.
4. Don't steal prep.
5. Don't manipulate evidence or clip. If I get conclusive evidence that you are purposely clipping, then I will down you.

Speed:

I’m fine with it – make sure to start off slow and ramp up to your higher speeds so that I can get used to it. I flow on my computer and will say slow or clear several times if necessary – that being said, if you still continue to be incoherent, I will not get your arguments on my flow and will not be able to evaluate them.

That being said, there are things I will DEFINITELY want you to slow down for to make sure that I catch them.

Slow down on:

1. Advocacy/CP Texts

2. Text of Evaluative Mechanism (This can include the text of your ROB, your standard/value criterion, etc.)

3. Theory Interps

4. Tags

5. Author Names

6. After Signposting (Just pause for a second so that I can navigate to that part of my flow)

7. Analytics (in rebuttals)

**NOTE: I'm not asking to talk at a snail's pace when making analytical responses to arguments. However, if you blitz out ten 1-sentence analytics in the space of 5 seconds, I will not be able to catch all of them, so it would be to your betterment to slow down a bit. Additionally, it would help me flow analytics if you provide a verbal short 2-word tag prior to making your argument. For example, "A-point, no warrant: (insert argument here). B-point, missing internal link: (insert argument here). C-point, turn: (insert argument here). D-point, turn (insert argument) here." etc., etc. Feel free to be creative with your tags.

Speaks:

I will assign speaks based on your strategical decisions in round, but sounding pretty doesn’t hurt. I’ll start at a 28 and go up or down based on how you do.

Explicit Argument Preferences:

- LARP:

Read what you want. I'm cool with plans, CPs, DAs, PICs etc, as I tended to run them quite a lot as a debater. Just run them well.

Things that I would like to see in LARP rounds:

1. Rigorous Evidence Comparison. In my opinion, this skill is the key to being a good LARPer. It is much more compelling to me if you read one card about climate change being false and winning why your evidence is better than your opponents compared to your opponent spreading 18 cards on climate change being real.

2. Weigh. Do it as often as possible and make sure to do comparative weighing between your arguments and your opponent's. Prove to me why your arguments matter more than your opponent's. The earlier this debate starts, the better.

3. Advocacy Texts/CP Texts. I need to know what I'm endorsing.

4. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm) Case Debate is Amazing. People don’t do it enough. A 1N that isolates every internal link to solvency on the aff and line by lines the warrants + reads weighing and comparison for their turns vs aff solvency links / 2NR that collapses to the case debate and just gives a really good ballot story and explains all the interaction will really impress me. Similarly, a 1AR that deals with a heavy 1N press well and explains/weighs their own ballot story will impress me.

5. Small Plan Affs/PICs. These really interest me. Don't lose on the case debate as (a) if your aff/PIC is really a small one, they really shouldn't have any good answers to the aff/PIC and (b) it will indicate to me that you weren't all that prepared to defend your position to begin with, which will not be good for your speaks. Also, be sure to be prepared for the theory debate as I tend to err towards the abuse story of the interp, especially if they provide round-specific abuse stories.

- Kritiks

Again, read what you want. While I was definitely fascinated by critical literature and knew how to read and go for one, I admittedly didn't read Ks all too often, and so may not know/be aware of all the nuances of this style of debate. I have a decent understanding of some critical literature, including (but not limited to): Wilderson, Deleuze & Guattari, Edelman, Puar, Lacan, Agamben, Baudrillard, Tuck and Yang, etc.

I tend to view debates as an issue of testing the truth and falsity of the res (but this can easily be changed). Unless convinced otherwise, I view Ks similar to frameworks: to me, Ks filter what offense matters. As such, I view ROBs and FWs to function on the same level (you can convince me to think otherwise in round, but that's my view).

Things that I would like to see in K Rounds:

1. A Clear Link. I need to know explicitly what the K is criticizing. It doesn't matter whether it is the method, the reps, the discourse, or whatever. Just make clear to me that the aff has done something wrong and what exactly that is.

2. A Cohesive and Comprehensive Explanation of the Alt. Make sure to spend a decent chunk of time in the 2N explaining the alt. Explain to me (1) what the world of the alt looks like, (2) why this is net preferable to the aff, (3) why the alt solves the impact, and (4) why the alt is mutually exclusive. If you can explain all of these very clearly to me, I will be much more inclined to vote for you and will definitely boost your speaks.

3. Normatively Justify your ROBs. While not ABSOLUTELY necessary, I find completely impact-justified ROB somewhat uncompelling. Providing a conclusive ethical theory (this doesn't necessarily have to be justified by analytic phil - it can be justified by your critical author of choice) that provides a framework for your ROB will provide more nuanced discussion and will definitely give you a leg up in justifying your ROB as the framing mechanism. If done well, I'll give you speaks a big boost.

4. Make your K Accessible. Show me that you understand your K. Explain it to me (especially in the 2N) in easy-to-understand language. Also, even if you're using generic literature, use your K to provide a very close, nuanced analysis of the aff and paint a very detailed picture of the world of the aff vs that of the alt. This will help me to learn and understand more about the K and garner you good speaks.

5. Provide an Explicit and Unambiguous ROB Text. Give me an explicit metric through which I should view the round and adjudicate. If I can not make heads or tails of how to weigh using your ROB, I will use an alternate weighing mechanism. If the ROB is ambiguous and doesn't provide a clear way to weigh arguments, I will be much more compelled by a Colt Peacemaker-type shell that has a contextual story to the round, should it be read.

6. Notes for Non-T Affs. I have no problem with them. If that's your style, then go for it; just do it well and tell me why I should vote for you. However, if T-FWK/T-Defend the Topic becomes an issue, then be sure to: (a) provide good justifications for why you could not have been topical as I tend to be compelled by nuanced TVAs, (b) provide ample well-justified reasons for why the aff/your voters come prior to fairness and any impacts to it, (c) depict a clear picture of what your model of debate looks like and why it's net preferable to that of the interp, and (d) (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm), generate impact turns based on your aff, not just random impact turn cards like Delgado. I’ll vote on these external criticisms, but it’s much much less compelling and persuasive than your specific arguments about the aff.

7. Notes for Aff v.s. K. (a) PERM THE ALT. I will listen (and evaluate) any type of perm that you come up with, even "silly" ones like judge choice or method severance. (b) Go for "Case Outweighs", ESPECIALLY if the alt is very vague: I have not heard many great responses to this argument. (c) If your opponent's alt is vague, point this out: if I think you're correct in your assessment, I will be much more lenient in your responses to the K as a whole.

8. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm): Performances are fine, but it ends after your speech. If you try to play music during your opponent’s speech, for example, I will drop you. Believe it or not, I need to hear your opponent’s 1NC to evaluate the debate.

9. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm): Personal attacks in a debate round are unacceptable. I will not vote on an argument requiring someone lose for something that happened out of the round or out of their control, such as an attack on someone for their school/coach/affiliations. This is not limited to the K debate, but it is where I have seen it happen most.

- Phil/FW

As a debater, I loved the framework debate as I found the literature super engaging and the style super strategic. Unfortunately, the style seems to be falling out of fashion (#bringbackfwdebate), and so I am definitely down to judge this kind of debate. I'm decently well-versed with a lot of philosophies, such as: Util (duh), Kant (and Neo-Kantianism), Hobbes, Deleuze, Innoperative Community, Agamben, Particularism, Virtue Ethics, Derrida, Existentialism, Testimony, Levinas, Butler, etc.

Things that I would like to see in FW-heavy rounds:

1. Have a Meta-Ethic. Not only is this super strategic in excluding other frameworks (and thus, offense), but it also provides a great starting point to any framework.

2. Provide a Syllogistic-Framework. Explain why each premise (following your starting point) is necessarily the only possible derivation from the former proposition. This will make your framework (a) a lot harder to attack, (b) a lot easier to understand, and (c) a lot easier to defend, which is a definite win-win. It's a lot more compelling than random blips about "preclusion" or impact-justified frameworks. Also (especially if you're aff), draw out implications from your premises so that you can apply it to different scenarios. For example, if you've justified that there is an intent-foresight distinction (i.e. all that matters in judging the morality of an action is the intention behind it), feel free to draw out the implication that this means that you should not lose on theory because you did not intend to violate the shell. If you do this, I will definitely give your speaks a boost.

3. Use Skep. Do not be afraid to justify why skepticism is true as long as you justify why your framework resolves the problem. Use it to justify why your theory is better than others. If necessary, feel free to trigger skep in round for your strategic necessity - I feel that this is a legitimate strategy and that the onus is on your opponent to prove why it is not, should they have a problem with it.

4. Provide a Explicit Framing Mechanism. Be able to explain in simple terms (a) what your normative starting point is, (b) why your framework is the only one that can be drawn from this point, and (c) what actions your framework cares about. In other words, be clear about your view of what ethics is. Be sure that you provide a clear weighing mechanism that explains how I should evaluate arguments.

5. Don't be Sketchy. Make it clear to everyone what offense links and doesn't link. if in CX you do not provide a clear answer to your opponent about the offense that links to your framework, chances are that I won't know how to use your framework. As such, I will be very lenient to new reinterpretations of your opponent's arguments and will be much more like persuaded by a theory argument about vague weighing mechanisms.

6. TJFs/AFC are great. Read them if that's what you want. I will definitely be impressed if you manage to have decent nuanced theoretical reasons to prefer frameworks that aren't Util as I feel that this is an area that is (as of yet) unexplored by the debate community.

7. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm) Framework hijacks are super strategic. Well explained and executed strats based around hijacks will get you high speaks. If you are able to provide good clash in defending your framework against a hijack, that will also garner you high speaks.

- Theory/T

This style of argumentation was one that I initially struggled a lot with. Later in my career though, I grew to love and implement it in a lot of my round strategies. If you are able to run theory and debate it well, I believe you will definitely go far in your debate career as it definitely improved my winrate and my capacity to generate arguments quickly as well as my critical thinking skills.

Things that I would like to see in Theory Rounds:

1. WEIGH and CRYSTALLIZE. Theory has a bad rep of being super blippy and unaccessible and I can't say I blame the people that feel this way. The theory debate tends to collapse down to who blitzed out the shortest analytic responses which tends to result in very, very messy and hard to adjudicate debates. Doing this can make you a "good" theory debater. However, in order to really get to a higher level in this style of debate, you have to master the essential skills of weighing and crystallizing, which are generally seen in the later speeches. These speeches on the theory debate should be less and less blippy and focused on the essential issues of that debate. In front of me, you should (a) provide an overview where you isolate how I should evaluate the theory debate and what offense matters under this framing, (b) explain your offense really well, (c) prove that your offense comes prior to your opponent's, and (d) clearly indicate why this offense links back to a voter. If you do this successfully, I will definitely give you high speaks.

2. Do Comparative Analysis between the World of the Interp and the World of the Counter-Interp. Use this framework to explain what the net benefit is in terms of the interp/counter-interp. Don't be afraid to explicitly say, "Under the world of the interp, there is (some net benefit). The counter-interp can't resolve this issue, and as such, you should reject it."

3. Default Theory Paradigms. I do not like to default to any specific issue in this style of debate, as I believe that it is your job to justify them. However, if there comes a situation in which I need to default, then here they are:

(a) Theory > K/ROB

(b) Fairness > Education/Other Voters

**NOTE: I will only default to these if these voters are read. If you do not read voters on your shell, then I will not evaluate the shell - the onus is on you to provide a framework through which I should evaluate the debate.

(c) Competing Interps > Reasonability

**NOTE: if you're going for reasonability, PLEASE provide an actual brightline that tells me conclusively what counts or doesn't count as reasonable. If you tell me to gutcheck the shell or something along the lines of "you know this shell is silly", I will simply evaluate the line-by-line of the theory debate to determine the winner.)

(d) No RVIs > RVIs

(e) Meta-Theory > T/Theory

(f) T > Theory

(g) Semantics > Pragmatics

(h) Text of the Interp > Spirit of the Interp

**NOTE: If you go for spirit of the interp, provide some sort of metric through which I can understand the "spirit" of the shell, as (a) I dislike gutchecking as it can lead to arbitrary decisions and (b) I'm rather compelled by the argument that the text is the only objective metric as I cannot truly know what the spirit of the interp is.

(i) Drop the Argument (DTA) v.s. Drop the Debater (DTD): I do not have a default on the implication of the shell. The onus is on you to read them.

**NOTE: Conceded paradigm issues do not need to be extended. For example, if Competing Interps and No RVIs are conceded, you do not need to extend them again. If you need to refer to them again for whatever reason, feel free.

4. Be Creative. This style of debate really rewards those who like to go off-script and try new things. As such, I encourage you to try new ideas with theory in front of me. For example, use creative independent voters and argue why said voter comes prior to other voters.Just be sure to explain how to evaluate the argument and why it means that you are winning.

5. Be Nuanced. Make your shells as contextual as possible to the specific round. Feel free to extemp your shell (just be sure to provide either a written or digital copy of the actual interp before your speech so that I have something to hold you to). This will not only boost your speaks, but is also much more strategic as it becomes more difficult to respond to.

6. Policy on Frivolous Theory: To be perfectly honest, I've never quite understood what frivolous theory is. If you can provide a definition that conclusively defines what differentiates frivolous theory from a "normal" theory shell and why it's bad, then I won't evaluate the shell. In other words, use theory however you want.

- Tricks

I got introduced to this style of debate late in my career, but I really developed a liking to it as I found justifying and running meme-y arguments very entertaining. If done well, it can be a really fun round to both watch and adjudicate; if not, though, it can be near-impossible to judge.

Things that I would like to see in Tricks Rounds:

1. Be Upfront. I like debaters being tricky by reading tricky arguments (like NIBs or burdens). However, this does not give you free license to be shifty. In other words, be open with the implication of your tricks and how they function. That being said, I am okay with you providing slightly ambiguous answers. However, I heavily discourage you from providing responses like "I'm not sure, it COULD be a trick," or "I have no idea what you're talking about," or "What's an a priori/spike/NIB?", or just blatantly lying and later doing a complete 180. I will dock your speaks heavily if you do this, will significantly lower the burden of rejoinder for your opponent, and will want to vote for a theory argument indicting your practice, should it be read..

2. I'm not a huge fan of a prioris. I will vote on them provided you do a good job both (a) warranting why they should be my foremost concern under a truth-testing paradigm (if necessary, win that truth-testing is true and should be the framing mechanism first) and (b) provide a well-warranted reason why the a priori tautologically proves the resolution true/false. I will hold you to a higher threshold on proving these issues. If you do this well, then I will not dock your speaks and will likely pick you up if I deem that you won the argument. If you do not do it well, then I will likely dock your speaks and adjudicate the rest of the debate. Other than a prioris, I'm perfectly fine with every other trick, including, but not limited to: NIBs, Burden Structures, Triggers (i.e. Skep, Trivialism, etc.), Contingent Standards, Theory Spikes, etc.

3. Be Creative with your Tricks. Try not to default to recycled tricks like the Action Theory NC or a recycled Distinctions Aff from yesteryear with a slightly changed up burden. Creative tricks will be rewarded with higher speaks.

4. Weigh. Win why your winning of the trick is a prior question to adjudicating the rest of the debate. This can be done via making some claim towards fairness or education, for example. Admittedly, this can be tricky in a trick v.s. trick debate. In this case, attempt to provide unique reasons for why your trick is more true/comes first, and also have an additional out if that debate becomes too messy.

Random Notes:

- Tech > Truth: Technical proficiency outweighs the actual truth value of an argument. Even if I do not personally agree with your argument, the onus is on the opponent to prove why the argument is false or shouldn't be evaluated. If your opponent fails to do this, then I will view the argument as legitimate and will evaluate the argument accordingly.

- Talk to me prior to the round if you need any accommodations. If you have a legitimate problem with a specific argument that impedes you from debating at your best, then please, by all means, let me know before the round starts. In order to avoid any mishaps, please provide a trigger warning prior to reading any (possibly) sensitive issue. If you are doubtful on whether you should give a trigger warning, then provide one anyway to be safe.

- Have Fun with the Activity: feel free to make jokes/references/meme (a bit) in round. Debate is admittedly a stressful activity and so is school and basically the rest of life, so feel free to relax. Make sure that your humor is in good taste, however; there is a very fine line between humor and arrogance/insults and I do not want to have to deal with a situation where "fun goes wrong".

- Disclosure is probably good: I find myself compelled by the argument. This does not mean that I will auto-hack for Disclosure Good or any of its variants - I believe that it is a legitimate debate to be had and if you conclusively win that disclosure is bad, then I will vote for you. That being said, do NOT run it on someone that is clearly novice level/just started circuit debate. If you win the argument, I will vote for you, but I will not be giving you higher speaks.

- Strength of link is a great weighing argument. Use it.

- People I Share Similar Judge Philosophies With: Chris Castillo, Matthew Chen, Tom Evnen, Erik Legried, Etc.

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

*Edit - Here’s my wikis from senior year so that you can get an idea of the type of debater that I was:

Aff: Senior Year Aff Wiki

Neg: Senior Year Neg Wiki

About:

Hi, I’m Asher (he/him). I competed in LD from 2017-2020 and qualified to the TOC twice. Shortened my paradigm for efficiency – feel free to email/message me if you have any questions about my opinions on specific arguments. Other events at bottom

Email: ashertowner@gmail[dot]com

Online Debate:

1. It’s in your best interest to go at 50-65% speed for analytics and 80-90% speed for cards. Slower on tags, conversational pace for short tags that are 1-3 words/plan texts

2. Record your speech locally to send in case there are network/wifi issues. I will not let debaters regive speeches – if you didn’t record it locally I will vote off of what I have on my flow

Judging philosophy:

1. I will vote on anything as long as it is won, not blatantly offensive, and follows the structure of an argument (claim, warrant, and impact). My decisions are always impacted first and foremost by weighing, no matter what style of debate you choose. I value argument quality and development – I’m unlikely to pull the trigger on cheesy, one-line blips and reward debaters that perform quality research and explain their positions well.

2. You must take prep or use CX if you want to ask your opponent what they did/did not read

3. I will not vote on anything which occurred outside of the round (with the exception of disclosure) or use the ballot as a moral referendum on either debater. Genuine safety concerns will be escalated and not decided with a win or a loss.

4. "Insert rehighlighting" - you should be reading the card if you're making a new argument distinct from the one the evidence made when it was initially introduced. Insertions are okay if you're providing context, but you should briefly summarize the insertion. I'm unsure how to enforce this besides being a little annoyed if you go overboard, but if your opponent makes an argument that your insertion practices are toeing the line I'll be inclined to strike them off my flow

Preferences:

1. I think theory can be an invaluable check on abuse and enjoy creative interpretations that pose interesting questions about what debate should look like. The more bland and frivolous the shell the more receptive I am to reasonability. Reasons to reject the team should be contextual to the shell – otherwise rejecting the argument should be able to rectify the abuse. Counterplan theory is best settled on a competition level

2. Kritiks should be able to explain and resolve the harms of the affirmative - the less specific the link arguments, their impact, and the alternative the more likely I am to vote aff on the permutation and plan outweighing. Impact turns are underutilized. 2NR fpiks = new arguments unless clearly indicated earlier in the debate

3. I have no strong ideological predispositions against planless affirmatives. However, in a perfectly even matchup I would likely vote on framework

Evidence ethics:

I will end the round and evaluate whether or not the evidence is objectively distorted: missing text, cut from the middle of a paragraph, or cut/highlighted intentionally to make the opposite argument the author makes (ie minimizing the word “not”). For super tiny violations like powertagging I’d prefer you just read it as a reason to reject the evidence.

Misc:

Be nice to your opponent! Will nuke your speaks if you are too rude, especially if your opponent is a novice or is making a good faith effort to get along

PF stuff:

PLEASE TIME YOURSELVES.

I'm comparatively less involved in this event and so I'll try not to impose my opinions on its conventions. For varsity, I'd prefer both teams share their evidence prior to their speeches, and I dislike paraphrasing as a practice but won't automatically penalize you for it. Speed is fine but not ideal given the norms of the activity. Generally speaking, I would prefer you not read progressive-style arguments given this format's time limitations. Other than that, just weigh.

Hey I'm Calvin ( cbtyler@usc.edu ),

USC '24

BCP '20

I debated 3 years, 2 on the national circuit, at Brophy College Preparatory. Qualifications: I debated both traditional and circuit, qualifying to the TOC my senior year and breaking at a decent amount of nat circs.

Debate Views:

I will try to be as tech > truth as possible, but everyone has their biases and areas of expertise. I was mainly a larp debater but branched out into theory and some critical literature my senior year. I am increasingly finding myself persuaded by all forms of arguments as long as they are well warranted and won on the flow.

I AM NOT A GOOD FLOWER - so be clear and slower when extpemping analytics if you want me to flow them.

I will vote on tricks(and anything with a warrant), but if the argument is silly, I will also have a low threshold for responding to it.

Most of all: be nice, debate is supposed to be a safe and supportive environment.

* Update for Jack Howe (and any tournaments after): please don't read eval after the x speech in front of me. These debates get very confusing since most debaters never articulate what evaluating the debate after x speech looks like.

*Update for Holy Cross: I did an extensive amount of traditional debate in my career, so I would consider myself a pretty good judge for traditional rounds. I am more than happy to listen to a standard v/vc debate. Also, if you are a traditional debater debating against a circuit opponent, please feel free to message me on Facebook or email me with any accommodations that you need. The National Circuit does tend to be elitist towards traditional debaters, so I want to do what I can to mitigate that environment.

Hey y'all! I debated for Mountain House High School for 4 years, one of them on the national circuit. Cleared at a couple of bid tournaments, Qualified to NSDA in Policy, and CHSSA State in LD.

add me to the chain - immanuel.j.victor@gmail.com

TLDR: you do you, and I'll evaluate accordingly. I'll vote on any argument with a warrant, given that it is not violent or oppressive (things like racism good, sexism good, homophobia good, etc.) - these arguments will result in an L20 potentially lower speaks. I will be recording rounds for the sake of clipping (with permission of course), and if there is a claim that someone in the round is clipping, I will look back at the recording and make a decision. If you are caught clipping, it's an L20, but if the accusation is false then it's an L20 for the accuser.

I average speaks at around 28.8. Things that will raise your speaks include good collapsing and good strategy (also humor! Debate is supposed to be fun!!). Things that will lower your speaks are overwhelming novices or just being unstrategic.

PF Paradigm's below the general one! If you want to read prog stuff, I have my general preferences in the PF paradigm, but more specific queries should be addressed in my general paradigm.

Pref Shortcuts

Phil - 2 (not excessive reliance on trix)

Policy/Theory - 1

K - 2 (never read one but trust me I'm really good at evaluating this)

Trix - 3 or 4

Things I went for: Policy and K affs (Speeced Plans and Agamben/Baudrillard), Phil NC's, Lots of 1AR theory and Topicality, CBW Disads on the JanFeb topic, Set Col (on the standardized testing topic), Truth-testing, A Rawls AC.

Defaults

TT>CW

CI>Reasonability

Yes RVI's (both sides get this)

DTA>DTD

Presumption flows neg

Yes 1AR theory

Theory>K

Any arguments will override my defaults.

Thoughts about arguments

I don't want to make this long, so I'll just list things that you should keep in mind while arguing K's and Trix in front of me (Policy args are p simple - just prove why the plan's a good idea, or why the plan is a bad idea).

K's - cool with K affs. I am a better sell for debate bad than you think. Explain your theory of power and what that means for the round. K tricks and Floating PIK's are cool, but theory on that is warranted. I will vote against a K on presumption if there's a warrant. Kick the alt of the K if you want, just tell me how to vote for you in that case. I definitely lean more towards k aff in a kaff v tfw debate, mostly cuz tfw debaters don't articulate their fairness impacts strategically.

Tricks - If you're shady in cross, you won't be happy with your speaks. Defend your aprioris and NIB's and win on them. I think theory against apriori's is fine, but I think TT takes out theory (you have to make that argument). Innovative tricks will earn you high speaks and a smile on my face.

Phil - Explain your syllogism and how it interacts with your opponent's framework/offense. If they don't get offense under your framework, explain why. Don't spam me with preclusion arguments, actually clash with the opposition framework. I'm a good sell for deontological frameworks and induction fails.

Ask me any questions if I haven't covered a topic you need to know. Good luck and let's have a fun round!!

PF Paradigm - NANO NAGLE RR AND OTHER TOURNAMENTS

I've debated a lot of PF on a local level and a couple of nat circ tournaments in my junior year. I would say that I evaluate PF in a similar fashion as LD with 2 major exceptions: No counterplans and a higher threshold on extensions (that being said, I'm open to reasons why counterplans can be in pf and my threshold on extensions is not too much higher -> I just want card extensions as well as a scenario explanation). Second rebuttal doesn't have to frontline, but it's much better. Anything I vote on has to be in final focus, and anything in final focus has to be in summary, so make sure everything important's in summary!

Prog stuff!

I think this is where the most questions will be so.... yes, I am very open to prog stuff. K's, Theory, even tricks and framework is cool in front of me. Just give me warrants and explanations for why that model of debate is good/allowed within the confines of PF. That being said, I'm not endorsing really bad prog debate - just cuz I'm your judge doesn't mean you should whip out that kritik you've never read before. I won't do any analysis for you, so make sure you warrant things well if you read prog stuff.

Note: Made some edits to my paradigm since I'm a 3rd year out now...

Hi! I debated LD for Bronx Science (NY) for 4 years, qualled to TOC senior year. I'm studying Philosophy right now at Johns Hopkins.

Email chain: anniewang9422@gmail.com

Quick Prefs

Pomo or High Theory Ks/Performance Ks/Phil: 1/2

FW/T: 3

Tricks/Theory: 4

Policy/LARP: 5

IR/Security Ks: 6/STRIKE

Overview

1. You can read whatever you want and I'll do my best to adapt. I would rather there be a good round than you trying to adapt by reading something you've never done before.
2. I really, really, like phil or k substantive debate (does not have to be topical but one-off NC then AC top-down strats would make me happy). Will boost speaks for a good clash.
3. Don't be mean in CX, especially if someone you're debating is clearly a novice/someone less experienced than you.

Ks

1. I read a lot of pomo Ks my senior year, the ones I'm most familiar with are Deleuze, Lacan, Kristeva, Baudrillard, Warren, Nietzsche, Marx, Edelman, and Wilderson. I don't think this list matters though I'm sure there are many books/articles written by these authors I haven't read.
2. I tend to err truth>tech in rep K situations where the card is miscut/misrepresented.
3. I don't really understand IR or Security Ks... Please over-explain.
4. Default Tech>>>>>>Truth unless you make arguments for otherwise.

T/Theory

1. I'm more familiar with T than Theory, but I guess they are structurally similar.
2. Case-specific standards are really cool.

Phil

1. Familiar with a lot of philosophy, please explain things regardless.
2. Slow down (please) on fully analytic phil cases. Examples are cool.

Tricks

1. I'm not amazing at flowing, especially blippy exempted 10 point underviews so if I miss something rip
2. Technicality and flowing aside. I find induction/deduction/skep debates interesting if done properly.

Policy/LARP

1. I'll try my best :(

Miscellaneous

1. Will yell 'clear' as many times as needed, and will probably not dock speaks but if I miss an arg it's on you. My face is pretty expressive, maybe explain more if I look confused...

2. Compiling doc is prep, sending is not, pls don't steal prep.

3. +.2 speaks if you show me your wiki BEFORE I submit the decision (osource, first 3 last 3 in the textbox, and round reports - you can attach a screenshot when sending out the speech doc)

4. Don't be racist, homophobic, sexist, etc... and don't plagiarize from people's wiki without giving credit

5. Not sure how judge kick works, be clear if that's something you are going for.

quick prefs - I'm a parent judge

1- traditional, lay debate

2 - 4 - everything in between not really preferable only pref me high if you want to do traditional lay debate

5/strike - circuit debate, spreading, high theory, Phil, ks, t/tricks, literally anything that's not lay

General comments

- assume I know nothing about the topic (explain everything to me)

- give voters and clearly articulate why I should vote for you at the end of the round

- be respectful, don't make racist, sexist, homophobic, and ableist arguments, such arguments will result in a L20

- speaker points start at 26 and only goes up from there

- I don't "flow" but I will be paying attention to the round and evaluating based on whoever gives clear voters or have clearing won the round

- for online debate I don't care if you turn your cameras on

- put me on the email chain, Calvin.wang@trocha.com.tw

- my idea of autonomous weapons are weapons that attack by itself, without human intervention, this means that you will need to put in more work to convince me otherwise in the round if you define things such as drones or landmines as autonomous weapons

Some background: I did four years of high school debate- both lay debate and nat circuit focusing on mostly LD.

Include me on your email chain please: helenawehr@outlook.com

Speed:

I’m okay with spreading, but please make sure you speak clearly, if I can’t understand what you’re saying I won’t flow it. Better slow than sorry.

Kritiks:

Kritiks are fine, just don’t assume I have any comprehensive understanding of the philosophy- especially if it’s more obscure, and make sure you actually know what you’re talking about. Also, make sure your kritik has solid impacts, when it comes down to a wash between policy versus in round impacts, I’m more likely to favor policy.

In general: I mostly liked policy debate, that's definitely what I prefer. I'm fine with theory. Mainly, just be organized and don't be rude.

I'm a student in college judging for my brother.

I'll give speaker points based on quality of arguments and speaking. Expect to get around 28-29.5 on average, unless you are exceptionally good, or bad.

Utilize logos, ethos, and pathos. I have very little experience with debate, but expect arguments to make sense.

DO NOT LIE OR CHEAT. I have seen both of these happen. I don't take them lightly.

I would prefer if you keep time.

Use "speech-drop" or built in file-sharing features - they are very convenient.

I don’t like extremely fast-paced speaking - but I understand that its part of the event and will do my best to follow.

I have a very basic understanding of theory, but basic forms are alright. (to me, it has been explained as a sort of rule-setting practice).

I prefer simple substance debate that is grounded in reality. On this topic, that kind of goes out the window, so you should read whatever you want that relates to the topic. (You can read your impacts about nuclear war as long as they have real and tangible connections to the topic at hand. I would still prefer discussions about more immediate dangers, such as poverty.)

I usually do not disclose - you should take things easy and not stress about results.

Overall:
1. Offense-defense, but can be persuaded by reasonability in theory debates. I don't believe in "zero risk" or "terminal defense" and don't vote on presumption.

2. Substantive questions are resolved probabilistically--only theoretical questions (e.g. is the perm severance, does the aff meet the interp) are resolved "yes/no," and will be done so with some unease, forced upon me by the logic of debate.

3. Dropped arguments are "true," but this just means the warrants for them are true. Their implication can still be contested. The exception to this is when an argument and its implication are explicitly conceded by the other team for strategic reasons (like when kicking out of a disad). Then both are "true."

Counterplans:
1. Conditionality bad is an uphill battle. I think it's good, and will be more convinced by the negative's arguments. I also don't think the number of advocacies really matters. Unless it was completely dropped, the winning 2AR on condo in front of me is one that explains why the way the negative's arguments were run together limited the ability of the aff to have offense on any sheet of paper.

2. I think of myself as aff-leaning in a lot of counterplan theory debates, but usually find myself giving the neg the counterplan anyway, generally because the aff fails to make the true arguments of why it was bad.

Disads:
1. I don't think I evaluate these differently than anyone else, really. Perhaps the one exception is that I don't believe that the affirmative needs to "win" uniqueness for a link turn to be offense. If uniqueness really shielded a link turn that much, it would also overwhelm the link. In general, I probably give more weight to the link and less weight to uniqueness.

2. On politics, I will probably ignore "intrinsicness" or "fiat solves the link" arguments, unless badly mishandled (like dropped through two speeches). Note: this doesn't apply to riders or horsetrading or other disads that assume voting aff means voting for something beyond the aff plan. Then it's winnable.

Kritiks:
1. I like kritiks, provided two things are true: 1--there is a link. 2--the thesis of the K indicts the truth of the aff. If the K relies on framework to make the aff irrelevant, I start to like it a lot less (role of the ballot = roll of the eyes). I'm similarly annoyed by aff framework arguments against the K. The K itself answers any argument for why policymaking is all that matters (provided there's a link). I feel negative teams should explain why the affirmative advantages rest upon the assumptions they critique, and that the aff should defend those assumptions.

2. I think I'm less technical than some judges in evaluating K debates. Something another judge might care about, like dropping "fiat is illusory," probably matters less to me (fiat is illusory specifically matters 0%). I also won't be as technical in evaluating theory on the perm as I would be in a counterplan debate (e.g. perm do both isn't severance just because the alt said "rejection" somewhere--the perm still includes the aff). The perm debate for me is really just the link turn debate. Generally, unless the aff impact turns the K, the link debate is everything.

3. If it's a critique of "fiat" and not the aff, read something else. If it's not clear from #1, I'm looking at the link first. Please--link work not framework. K debating is case debating.

Nontraditional affirmatives:

Versus T:

1. I'm *slightly* better for the aff now that aff teams are generally impact-turning the neg's model of debate. I almost always voted neg when they instead went for talking about their aff is important and thought their counter-interp somehow solved anything. Of course, there's now only like 3-4 schools that take me and don't read a plan. So I'm spared the debates where it's done particularly poorly.

2. A lot of things can be impacts to T, but fairness is probably best.

3. It would be nice if people read K affs with plans more, but I guess there's always LD. Honestly debating politics and util isn't that hard--bad disads are easier to criticize than fairness and truth.

Versus the K:
1. If it's a team's generic K against K teams, the aff is in pretty great shape here unless they forget to perm. I've yet to see a K aff that wasn't also a critique of cap, etc. If it's an on-point critique of the aff, then that's a beautiful thing only made beautiful because it's so rare. If the neg concedes everything the aff says and argues their methodology is better and no perms, they can probably predict how that's going to go. If the aff doesn't get a perm, there's no reason the neg would have to have a link.

Topicality versus plan affs:
1. I used to enjoy these debates. It seems like I'm voting on T less often than I used to, but I also feel like I'm seeing T debated well less often. I enjoy it when the 2NC takes T and it's well-developed and it feels like a solid option out of the block. What I enjoy less is when it isn't but the 2NR goes for it as a hail mary and the whole debate occurs in the last two speeches.

2. Teams overestimate the importance of "reasonability." Winning reasonability shifts the burden to the negative--it doesn't mean that any risk of defense on means the T sheet of paper is thrown away. It generally only changes who wins in a debate where the aff's counter-interp solves for most of the neg offense but doesn't have good offense against the neg's interp. The reasonability debate does seem slightly more important on CJR given that the neg's interp often doesn't solve for much. But the aff is still better off developing offense in the 1AR.

LD section:
1. I've been judging LD less, but I still have LD students, so my familarity with the topic will be greater than what is reflected in my judging history.

2. Everything in the policy section applies. This includes the part about substantive arguments being resolved probablistically, my dislike of relying on framework to preclude arguments, and not voting on defense or presumption. If this radically affects your ability to read the arguments you like to read, you know what to do.

3. If I haven't judged you or your debaters in a while, I think I vote on theory less often than I did say three years ago (and I might have already been on that side of the spectrum by LD standards, but I'm not sure). I've still never voted on an RVI so that hasn't changed.

4. The 1AR can skip the part of the speech where they "extend offense" and just start with the actual 1AR.

My name is Darius White and I debated at C.E. Byrd High School for 4 year and debate for the University of Oklahoma currently.

Speaker Points: I generally give fairly high speaks, and I understand that their is going to be some rudeness in the debate, but try not to over-do because that will be a speak-point decrease. Also stealing prep, and speaking CONSTANTLY during your partners speech will drop your speeches quite a bit, but I usually try to be generous with the speaks.

Cross-X: I defer c-x being binding (unless told otherwise but they need to be nuanced, not tag line extensions of theory shells) and tend to flow c-x

After-round evaluation of evidence: I will try as best as possible to not call for evidence unless you are highly reliant on one piece of evidence in your last speeches, and/or evidence is into question (i.e. if you call for me to look at a piece of evidence after round), but other than that I tend to try to judge the debate on the actually speeches given by the debaters.

Theory: I have a high threshold for theory arguments and hate when teams spray through your theory blocks; I usually default to reasonability and reject-the-arguments-not-the-team
unless you win the abuse story i.e. I don't think one conditional advocacy destroys aff ground so just try to be reasonable and very persuasive when going for theory.

Disads/CP's: Impact calculation is always a good idea, and even though I am more on the K side of debate, I am down to listen to a really technical CP/DA as a net-benefit debate, so don't be shy to run these arguments in front of me. But, I feel that the CP does need a net-benefit for me to vote for it, so if the 2NR is just CP with no net-benefits, I will have a hard time finding reasons why I should vote for the CP. Turns case arguments on the DA are always tight.

Impact Turns: I really enjoy these types of debates, and they are very persuasive in my opinion, so if you got any in your files, I am down to listen.

Kritiks: I hate when teams read a random K that they have no idea what it means or says, and that is always a pet peeve. Don't run a K in front that you are not comfortable going for, but if you are very well at going for a specific criticism then do your thing because I am more familiar with this side of the debate. I feel that the alternative portion of the K is very under utilized and would like to be a debate I would want to see, but if your thing is going to turns case, then do your thing.

Framework: This is the argument I least agree with but if will listen and flow if required.

Flashing: I don't count flashing as prep unless you are taking hella a lot of time in which I will inform you that I am about to start your prep time; PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, do not steal prep.

Random shit: I like jokes, and making me laugh usually gets you some where speak point wise. Using historical references is always a good idea and paints a better picture on the impact calc. Remember to jump your cards over before the speech, and if you read any new cards that aren't on the flash, flash them before c-x or before the next speech is about to start, this is not prep time.

If you have any other questions feel free to email me: darius12456@gmail.com

Updated 11.02.2021

Coach at Kent Denver School; he/him/his; HS LD 2014, TOC/NSDA competitor; second season coaching policy, LD & PF; conflict with KDS and Valor Christian High School.

> Please include me on email chains - andrew.wixson@zoho.com <

POLICY:

JUDGE INTERVENTION — I try to be as tabula rasa as can reasonably be expected — an argument is claim, warrant, impact. My paradigm is an abstract list of preferences and while I obviously live for its incorporation in front of me, it does not mean I will outright refuse to vote for you if you do certain things, but I will naturally accept weaker responses to problematic arguments. Bottom line: be as explicit as you possibly can about why I should or shouldn't vote for certain arguments so that I'm not forced to intervene, leaving everyone far more frustrated than they would've been if you simply said out loud how I ought to write the ballot.

DISCLOSURE — Please please please disclose early and often to the wiki and in-round and don't cheat. My thoughts on this have evolved, but I'm at the point where I think that radical transparency is a good hard policy to have and I really don't think there should be much dispute.

BEST STRATEGIES — The vast majority of my debate experience is in LD so I'm rather biased towards philosophical debate since that's what I came up on. I absolutely love Ks, but if you're running them in front of me, please make sure you're actually making it count and not just using a generic K purely to confuse your opponent with no deeper substance. Empirical debates that whittle down to an evidence dispute are very interesting to me, but I'm not the most skilled at making informed calls based purely on the data, so be careful to over-explain and not assume that hard data will win rounds by default. Obviously, theory's the only way to check abuse and debaters definitely need that guardrail, but please don't run non-applicable theory for strategy's sake or I will be very sympathetic to I meets and counterclaims of abuse.

AFF BURDEN — You have to have a present a topical advocacy, by having a well-warranted plan text. I tend to prefer concrete advantages, but justify anything, there's great ways to subvert this expectation if executed properly. I default NEG unless given topical offense by the AFF. This does not mean that AFF teams are bound to only reading topical offense in their constructives, it just means that at the end of the round the AFF has to have some shred of topical offense survive that I can hinge my ballot on.

NEG BURDEN — I default NEG, which means just cast as much doubt on the resolution as you can by any means necessary. Please make sure off-case positions are relevant: DAs and CPs only work on plan texts and word kritiks/PICs only work if your opponent used the actual language ascribed in the literature you're reading. Too many NEGs have one strategy that they use to answer every AFF regardless of its relevance so please be careful to avoid giving this impression.

CX — CX is the fun part of debate. CX is binding, but take a deep breath and relax, be funny and likable, and perceptually dominate and you're good to go. Please don't use CX as an opportunity to abuse your opponent, especially if they are obviously a weaker debater than you, it will make me uncomfy and that should not be the goal.

KRITIKS — Krit lit is awesome. Don't assume I know your K — even if you think it's generic, make everything crystal clear as K debates often get way too muddy to justify an objective decision. If it's obviously policy backfiles, I won't be impressed. I won't vote on what I don't understand, so if you can't extend it without reading verbatim from the author nor explain your argument to your opponent in CX, I will be very hesitant to vote on it. If you're running a K with no alt, I don't have a reason to vote on it unless your opponent massively fumbles it. Please do the explicit weighing for me since Ks are inherently ambiguous and don't hesitate to back up any argument you're making with a theory justification.

THEORY — Be careful to address substance first and foremost and avoid cheap tricks that don't actually contribute to anyone's understanding of the round. I default to reasonability, drop the argument, and fairness over education and competing interps on T. I'm much easier to convince with "I meets" than most judges — i.e., theory should only be run on real violations and the threshold for those violations is high enough that you should be using a substantial amount of your speech time defending that it comes before any substance happening in the round. Potential violations are trash and I prefer that you warrant why the theoretical interpretation isn't valid and move on, because providing offense back to a counter-interpretation becomes infinitely regressive.

SPIKES — Just don't. While there's *a* reality where I vote on this if someone openly doesn't address it at all, I doubt they're winning on substance anyways so just avoid it in front of me especially if I'm rolling my eyes the whole time you're reading them.

SPEED — While I can follow speed, I probably can't flow your top speed — clarity is the issue, particularly if you aren't disclosing. Try to slow down on analytics, tags, and author names so I can follow where you are in the document. Please email/flash me your speeches.

DELIVERY & SPEAKER POINTS — I like giving high speaks. If you are making smart arguments and debate well, your speaker points should be good. A 30 will be hard to come by (but not a 29.8), but I'll tend to average 28.5. Well-placed jokes are the best and can (usually) only help your speaks. My judgment on how to assign speaker points is based on my perception of your debate sense and ability to cut through the BS and make complex arguments crystal clear. I won't hesitate to give you a loss 0 for oppressive discourse that creates an uncomfortable debate space or justifies things we all know are atrocities. I tend to be expressive during the round, so look up from your computer every once in a while and adjust accordingly.

Do what you do best and please be original and creative. Great weighing and writing my ballot for me wins rounds, it's really that simple. Don't get lost in the formality of it all, literally just level with me and bring me on a journey, that's what it's all about.

LD:

JUDGE INTERVENTION — I try to be as tabula rasa as can reasonably be expected — an argument is claim, warrant, impact. My paradigm is an abstract list of preferences and while I obviously live for its incorporation in front of me, it does not mean I will outright refuse to vote for you if you do certain things, but I will naturally accept weaker responses to problematic arguments. Bottom line: be as explicit as you possibly can about why I should or shouldn't vote for certain arguments so that I'm not forced to intervene, leaving everyone far more frustrated than they would've been if you simply said out loud how I ought to write the ballot.

DISCLOSURE — Please please please disclose early and often to the wiki and in-round and don't cheat. My thoughts on this have evolved, but I'm at the point where I think that radical transparency is a good hard policy to have (other than local Colorado tournaments lol) and I don't think there should be much dispute.

BEST STRATEGIES — I'm rather biased towards philosophical debate and absolutely love a well-constructed K, so if you're running them in front of me, please make sure you're actually making it count and not just using a generic K purely to confuse your opponent with no deeper substance. Empirical debates that whittle down to an evidence dispute are very interesting to me, but I'm not the most skilled at making informed calls based purely on the data, so be careful to over-explain and not assume that hard data will win rounds by default. Obviously, theory's the only way to check abuse and debaters definitely need that guardrail, but please don't run non-applicable theory for strategy's sake or I will be very sympathetic to I meets and counterclaims of abuse.

AFF BURDEN — I like topical AFFs but non-topical AFFs can be really great especially when approached in a similar manner to a K. I tend to prefer concrete advantages on policy-based topics and ethical theory on moral dilemma topics, but justify anything. I default NEG unless given topical offense by the AFF. This does not mean that AFF teams are bound to only reading topical offense in their constructives, it just means that at the end of the round the AFF has to have some shred of topical offense survive that I can hinge my ballot on.

NEG BURDEN — I default NEG, which means just cast as much doubt on the resolution as you can by any means necessary. Please make sure off-case positions are relevant: DAs and CPs only work on plan texts and word kritiks/PICs only work if your opponent used the actual language ascribed in the literature you're reading. Too many NEGs have one strategy that they use to answer every AFF regardless of its relevance so please be careful to avoid giving this impression.

CX — CX is the fun part of debate. CX is binding, but take a deep breath and relax, be funny and likable, and perceptually dominate and you're good to go. Please don't use CX as an opportunity to abuse your opponent, especially if they are obviously a weaker debater than you, it will make me uncomfy and that should not be the goal.

KRITIKS — Krit lit is awesome. Don't assume I know your K — even if you think it's generic, make everything crystal clear as K debates often get way too muddy to justify an objective decision. If it's obviously policy backfiles, I won't be impressed. I won't vote on what I don't understand, so if you can't extend it without reading verbatim from the author nor explain your argument to your opponent in CX, I will be very hesitant to vote on it. If you're running a K with no alt, I don't have a reason to vote on it unless your opponent massively fumbles it. Please do the explicit weighing for me since Ks are inherently ambiguous and don't hesitate to back up any argument you're making with a theory justification.

THEORY — Be careful to address substance first and foremost and avoid cheap tricks that don't actually contribute to anyone's understanding of the round. I default to reasonability, drop the argument, and fairness over education and competing interps on T. I'm much easier to convince with "I meets" than most judges — i.e., theory should only be run on real violations and the threshold for those violations is high enough that you should be using a substantial amount of your speech time defending that it comes before any substance happening in the round. Potential violations are trash and I prefer that you warrant why the theoretical interpretation isn't valid and move on, because providing offense back to a counter-interpretation becomes infinitely regressive.

SPIKES — Just don't. While there's *a* reality where I vote on this if someone openly doesn't address it at all, I doubt they're winning on substance anyways so just avoid it in front of me especially if I'm rolling my eyes the whole time you're reading them.

SPEED — While I can follow speed, I probably can't flow your top speed — clarity is the issue, particularly if you aren't disclosing. Try to slow down on analytics, tags, and author names so I can follow where you are in the document. Please email/flash me your speeches.

DELIVERY & SPEAKER POINTS — I like giving high speaks. If you are making smart arguments and debate well, your speaker points should be good. A 30 will be hard to come by (but not a 29.8), but I'll tend to average 28.5. Well-placed jokes are the best and can (usually) only help your speaks. My judgment on how to assign speaker points is based on my perception of your debate sense and ability to cut through the BS and make complex arguments crystal clear. I won't hesitate to give you a loss 0 for oppressive discourse that creates an uncomfortable debate space or justifies things we all know are atrocities. I tend to be expressive during the round, so look up from your computer every once in a while and adjust accordingly.

Do what you do best and please be original and creative. Great weighing and writing my ballot for me wins rounds, it's really that simple. Don't get lost in the formality of it all, literally just level with me and bring me on a journey, that's what it's all about.

email: imeganwu@gmail.com

--

note for blue key '22: i haven't judged/coached consistently since the 2020-21 school year. please assume that i am unfamiliar with the topic, topic-specific jargon/knowledge, the current meta of debate, etc. when i judged frequently, a large majority (>~80%) of the rounds i judged involved phil fw, t/theory, or tricks to some extent. this is my wiki from senior year.

--

i debated on the national circuit for a couple years and qualified to the toc as a senior ('19). i taught at nsd flagship '19, nsd philadelphia '19, tdc '19 & '20, and legacy debate '20, and i coached hunter college high school in the '19-'20 season (see hunter sk, hunter nk). in the '20-'21 season, i coached hunter md and lindale pp. i currently attend swarthmore college ('23), where i study philosophy and math.

my coaches and biggest influences in debate: alisa liu, kris wright, katherine fennell, xavier roberts-gaal. as a debater, my favorite judges were sean fahey and mark gorthey.

in the interest of full disclosure, i am profoundly deaf in both ears and have bilateral cochlear implants. i do not believe that this significantly impacts my ability to judge, as i debated on the circuit and wasn’t horrible at it; you should be clear, give overviews, slow down for anything important, and explain to me how i should write your rfd—as you should with any judge. i will use speech docs in the 1ac/1nc, but will not in rebuttals for anything besides advocacy texts and interps. i will call clear or slow in your speech if i can’t understand you.

i do not have any preferences for style of debate; my only preference is that you debate in the way you choose, as opposed to what you think i’d like to see. i will vote for any argument so long as it is fully warranted, won, and implicated. i won’t vote on links/violations that i can’t verify. i am most familiar with philosophical framework and theory/t debates and least familiar with policy/k debate. i won’t supplement a debater’s explanation of arguments with things i know that weren’t on the flow, so it should not matter if i’m unfamiliar with literature that is read because it is the job of the debaters to fully explain and implicate their arguments—nor will i help you out even if you read a framework that i know well.

i will attempt to operate under the shared assumptions held by both debaters—e.g. if both debaters collapse to theory shells in the 2n/2a but forget to read voters, i will act as if a voter had been read rather than ignore theory and vote on a random substance extension. however, it will always be to your benefit to debate in a non-messy way: even if the 2n collapses to T, concedes substance, and it is assumed by both debaters that substance flows aff, the 2a should still quickly extend the ac. you should also attempt to extend interps & violations. the more i have to think about what the shared assumptions of the round are (and the less clear you are about your ballot story), the more your speaks will suffer.

if i am unable to determine what the shared assumption is, and if no argument has been made on the issue, i will assume the following defaults:

• theory is drop the debater, no rvi, competing interps, fairness and education are voters, fairness > education
• strength of link to weigh between layers, and theory > t > k if strength of link is irresolvable
• epistemic confidence
• presumption and permissibility negate
• tech>truth

---

ethics issues:

• evidence ethics, clipping: you need to formally stake the round for me to call tab in & i will defer to tournament policy when that happens. otherwise, i will adjudicate this like any other theory debate.
• in-round safety: if you judge that the round needs to be stopped, please ask me to and i will call the equity ombudspurson or tab in & defer to tournament procedure/tab's judgment. i am highly unlikely to stop the round unprompted, or vote on an in-round conduct issue if it is not made into a voting issue by the other debater. my policy on this is intended to place the judgment of the affected debater in higher regard than my own.

---

speaker points: higher when you utilize judge direction, make creative strategic choices rather than spamming args, and are good at cx. lower when you clearly haven't read my paradigm, comport yourself in an uncompassionate way, and read largely prewritten args. i average around 28.6 and i don't disclose speaks.

important notes, especially for west coast debaters:

• if you read reasonability without a brightline, say only that “good is good enough,” or tell me to “gut check,” i will gut check competing interps. reasonability should have a brightline that tells me how to differentiate between abusive and nonabusive scenarios.
• i would really prefer it if you read and normatively justify a rob/standard/vc, even if it's short. i tend to think that normative ethic spec is a true argument, and if neither debater indicates a framework and there is not a clear shared assumption of a certain framework, i will be forced to default to my intuitions to frame offense—which you likely don’t want because i’m not a utilitarian.
• i will vote on an rvi if won.
• i will vote on framework preclusion of impacts if won.
• i don’t care if your theory shell is frivolous. "this is frivolous" is not an argument.
• i think epistemic modesty is weird and have never understood it. (if it means strength of link, just say that instead?)
• ethos is created through persuasion/passion/showing you have a ton of knowledge about the subject—not snarky taglines and personal jabs—and good ethos never comes at the expense of safety in the round.

ask me if you have any questions (especially if you're a small school debater). good luck and have fun debating!

intro:

ld @ cypress woods high school '20, parli @ harvard '24.5. dabbled in worlds (usa dev '19)!

please time yourself

worlds:

ask me anything before round!

ld:

i qualled to the toc my senior year and taught at nsd flagship & tdc. if you have questions / for sdocs: angelayufei@gmail.com

shortcuts:

1 - phil/theory. i probably give more weight to k v phil interactions, phil v theory interactions, and k interactions in a truth testing paradigm than the average tx judge. i also enjoy interesting paradigm issue interactions on theory

2 - tricks/larp. i’m not familiar with the topic though, nor do i know what the principle of explosion is - you still need to explain things!

3 - k unless they're reps ks, which i read a lot of. i prefer lbl to floating overviews that im not sure what to do with.

speaks:

- have the doc ready to send ahead of time

- i enjoy a good cx

- i'll call slow and clear as many times as i need to but speaks will drop. im fine w ur opponent calling slow/clear too as long as it's not malicious.

- scripting the entire speech and/or big words without explanation is an ick - i have no idea what, for example, hapticality is.

- postrounding / being aggressive (esp against trad/novices/minorities) makes me sad

miscellaneous:

- you have to provide evi to your opponent/judge. that does not mean you have to disclose (you can have that debate) but should show them, if requested. evi contestation (clipping, miscutting, etc.) is evaluated however the debaters decide: theory shell, stopping the round, etc.

- reading problematic args (eg racism good) is obvs an L. however, the validity of death good, trigger warnings, etc. are debatable (at least in front of me)

- online rounds - record your speeches in case internet gets funky

- i think the ability to spin evi should be rewarded; having good evi helps but "call for the card" puts me in a weird position. do that weighing for me.

- send any relevant screenshot for violations

i don't want to use defaults but here they are for accountability:

- comparative worlds

- permissibility negates, the side with less of a change from the status quo under comparative worlds gets presumption

- epistemic confidence

- dta on theory, dtd on t, competing interps, no rvis

- no judge kick