2021 — Rolling Hills Estates, CA/US
Novice Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I am a parent judge.
Stay away from overly technical, high-leveled debate jargon. If used, please define the technical words that you are using in your case. If I don't understand the words, I will not be able to understand your claim.
I do take notes throughout the round, so emphasize your important contentions/points.
I will not impose my personal beliefs, and/or knowledge about the debate topic on the debaters and listen to you with an open mind.
Use the best of your knowledge, and reasoning skills. Not intimidation or mockery.
I do not prefer spreading. Deliver a organized and clear speech.
Keep your own time.
I will not disclose who won or how everybody ranked, rather, I will provide constructive feedback on your ballot.
All the best.
Be nice and explain your arguments well.
If you spread, you are required to send a copy of the doc to your opponent at the start of your speech.
Add me onto the email chain (email above).
Flex prep is allowed.
You are required to time your speeches.
Phone #: 310-707-5527
Be respectful to your opponents :)
If you are a novice and spread please make an email chain out of courtesy.
Be sure to time your own speeches (I will too just in case).
If you have any other questions please contact me (best reached through phone)
hello! my name is bella d'ambrosi (she/her).
pls add me on email chain- email@example.com
im okay with theory just make sure to structure it well!
spread if you're comfortable but won't mark you down if you can't
be respectful and don't use abusive arguments
have fun :)
Hrmmm. Looking forward to judging your round, I am!
I've been involved in speech and debate throughout high school; I have competed in Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas debate, although most of my competitive success has been in Extemp, which I've done since freshman year. My career in speech and debate has spanned dozens of tournaments across the galaxy, from local invitationals to nationals.
Although I am more of a traditional judge, I am open to more progressive arguments as long as they are clear and well-developed. Please sign-post your speeches and follow the flow. If there is an especially important point that you made during crossfire/cross-examination, please explain it in one of your speeches so I can include it on my flow. DO NOT bring up new evidence in the last speech. That is unfair to your opponent and violates the Jedi Code.
Attention, padawans! Make sure that you provide warrants for your evidence! Debaters' favorite impact is global destruction, but if you tell me that there is a 99% chance the Death Star will obliterate Alderaan, I need to know WHY.
Do not drop your opponent's arguments, otherwise, 99.99999999% of the time, I will accept undropped arguments as true and flow them through.
As I mentioned earlier, my jedi training was in speech so I take speaker points seriously and will give you feedback on how to improve them. That being said, I understand that with virtual debate the sound sometimes gets muddled to the point where everyone sounds like Chewbacca. As such, I will be a lot more lenient with speaks in this unprecedented environment.
Please do not spread! ESPECIALLY if you aren't going to be sharing your case. I will try my best to flow and keep up with the round. However, if you're speaking so fast that I don't have enough time to write everything down, you are risking the possibility that I will miss an important argument or rebuttal.
Also, be civil and respectful during speeches and cross. If I am judging a debate that sounds like a brawl at the Cantina, I will be disappointed.
May the force be with you!
My priority is communication. I have to be able to understand you, so I would prefer it if you not spread. If not, I have a tendency to shut down. Clarity is key!
Effective claims and evidence not only supplies your own side, but works as a counterattack against your opponent's case. Recency and evidence source will also be considered for any potential bias, implicit or explicit. Be mindful of dropped contentions: any arguments left unanswered will flow through. It is your responsibility to ensure that your case aligns with any provided value criterion. If offering a differing weighing mechanism, be sure to explain why yours should take precedence instead.
That being said, not all arguments ought to be weighed equally when using said criterion. What might be the financial burden and which population would be affected the most? Will this solution be able to work in the short-term and the long-term? Of these includes-but-not-limited-to example questions, there has to be a bottom line. Why does yours matter the most?
I look forward to hearing your well-researched and well-delivered cases. Good luck!
I am a parent judge for the first year. Please enunciate and don't speak too fast so that I can understand your points clearly.
Hey, I'm Steven (He/Him) and I'm a sophomore at Yale! Go ahead and put me on the email chain (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Background: I debated at Arroyo Grande High School in California as a 2a/2n where we ran a mix of policy arguments and Ks. I also know (most) debate jargon so go ahead and run whatever you want in front of me.
Topicality: Great! I think T is super strategic, however I think a lot of times people miss the "so what" of the debate. You should definitely explain why the specific violation is bad, what it impacts out to (preferably in round/debate) and then weigh their standards/voters against yours. I'm probably not going to vote for a shell that wasn't super developed in the 1nc and is then blown up in the block (1nr for ld).
Theory: Eh. As a debater I ran a little bit of theory but I think it's usually used as a tool to not engage with the aff when there are better options, so if that's your strat then maybe I'm not the judge for you. Otherwise, I default to competing interpretations but am open to being persuaded to reasonability. Same as T, debate whatever the violation's impact and show me some impact calc.
K: Sure! I ran a few K's (mostly Baudrillard) when I debated and I actually really like these type of debates. I have a pretty rudimentary understanding of "typical" K's but if it's something more unique/hard to understand then do more in-depth analysis and connections. For the aff, I think you can perm most K's in some way so I kind of expect you to be making these arguments. On K-Affs, I didn't have much experience with them but I'm totally cool with you reading one (all the stuff above applies obviously), just know I probably lean towards the neg on these debates if T is read.
DA: Love them! I really love seeing creative and innovative DA's and think they are really underutilized. Try to make the links as strong as possible, as much as I understand the need for generic DA's I would much rather see (and would probably vote more for) specific links to the aff. If you're going for politics (or another time-sensitive DA) then your uniqueness should be pretty new. I like to see good impact calc so tell me why the DA totally outweighs the case!
CP: Yes! Make sure there is a net benefit to the CP (and explain it) or else there's literally no reason for you to waste the time reading it. I tend to think condo (within reason) is good for debate but can be persuaded otherwise.
Case: I'll listen to your stock core of the topic aff, but it's a lot more fun when affs are new and innovative. I find a lot of people repeat arguments over and over again, so be smart with your line by line and group arguments. Impact calc is key, so make sure that's a (big) part of the 2ar.
Speed: I'm cool with fast rounds, but if you start getting unclear I'll yell "clear" once or twice and then just stop flowing (would also like the speech doc if you're spreading). Update for online debates: for the sake of clarity, maybe go a bit below your full speed so that the microphone can pick everything up.
Speaker Points: I liked speaker awards and I'm sure you do too, as long as you don't do anything racist/sexist/homophobic/etc then you'll be fine.
I prefer all of my speakers to make sure that any contentions, plans or the like are clear and always link back to the topic at hand. You're free to run theory or K at your peril. I've heard great rounds on Afro-pessimism and bad rounds on it. I've loved a round full of theory and hated rounds full of theory. All depends on how it's done, and what the point of it is.
If creating an email chain - please include me: debate.foster @ gmail.
I am a social studies teacher, so I can't unknow the rules of American government or economics. Don't attempt to stay something that is factually inaccurate that you would know in your classes. I have been coaching debate for the last six years.
Be respectful of all parties in the room - your opponent(s), your partner (if applicable) and the judge. Hurtful language is in not something I tolerate. Pronouns in your names are an added plus.
Speaking clearly, even if fast, is fine, but spreading can be difficult to understand, especially through two computers. I will say "Clear" if I need to. In an online format, please slow down for the first minute if possible. I haven't had to listen to spreading with online debate.
For LD, I don't mind counterplans and theory discussions as long as they are germane to the topic and as long as they don't result in debating the rules of debate rather than the topic itself. In the last year most of my LD rounds have not been at TOC bid tournaments, but that doesn't mean I can't follow most arguments, but be patient as I adjust.
Truth > tech.
It's work to make me vote on extinction or nuclear war as a terminal impact in any debate. That link chain needs to be solid if you're doing to expect me to believe it.
In PF, make sure that you explain your terminal impacts and tell me why I should weight your impacts vs your opponents' impacts.
WSD - I have been around enough tournaments to know what I should hear and I will notice if you're not doing it well. Thinking global always. Models should always be well explained and match the focus on the round.
Email chain: email@example.com
Debated 3 years of Policy at Kudos, 3 years at Northwood. Have done all speaker roles at some point, mainly was a 2N/1A.
I've gone for both policy and kritikal arguments.
K affs should be at least related to the topic.
You should be timing yourself. I will stop flowing if your time goes too over.
After judging a few tournaments, I find that I facially react a decent amount.
Have ev comparison - this is usually the fastest way to win debates.
Explain why your cards being true means their theory is wrong.
A DA by itself can win a debate, as long as there's sufficient turns/solves case analysis.
Treat it like a disad - compare standards and weigh them against one another.
I'm not against voting for theory, as long as it's debated well.
K's I've gone for: Lacan, Cap, Security, Berlant, Puar (in that order of familiarity)
When going for the K, the most important thing is to have specific analysis regarding the aff. In a k debate, the team that talks about the AFF more wins.
Tie your story together, instead of just "aff is like [x concept] and [y concept] is bad".
PLEASE EXTEND YOUR IMPACTS.
I've seen too many debates that are much closer than they should be because of a lack of extended impacts. The best link story without impacting it out is ultimately still not a reason to vote for your side.
I appreciate strategic argumentation instead of reading blocks - if they drop a turn, go for it instead of some other piece of defense.
Add me to the chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Call me Daisy, pronouns are she/her.
I debated for Oak Hill School for 4 years (2 on the nat circuit) and qualified to the 2020 TOC. Currently taking a gap year before I start school at Georgetown.
FOR MEADOWS! I haven't really engaged with debate since mid April. For you, this means a couple things:
1. You can spread, but you probably shouldn't go top speed. About 70% of what you'd normally go should be good. Be clear, especially on tags and analytics. I will tell you to slow/clear if I need, though, so don't worry too much about this.
2. I'm unfamiliar with the current high school topic. Don't use super topic-specific acronyms. For T and framework debates I'm gonna need both sides to invest a bit more time explaining what the topic looks like under your interpretation and why that's preferable - don't just give me a list of affs because I likely won't be familiar with them and won't know what to do with that absent more explanation.
- Tech > truth.
- Dropped arguments are true, BUT an argument must include a claim, warrant, and impact/implication for it to matter.
- Debate is a game.
- Good judge for pretty much all types of policy args (I will be quite annoyed if I have to judge death good or spark, though).
- Not the best judge for the K. If you're going for it anyway, identity-focused Ks are probably your best bet, (what I'm most familiar with) and weird pomo stuff is probably your worst.
- Good judge for framework, I will vote on procedural fairness as an impact.
- I am pretty expressive with my face - use this to your advantage.
- I will not adjudicate debates based on issues that have occurred outside the round.
- You must adhere to speech times and speech order. During your speech, I will only flow what I hear you say, and I will not flow your partner.
- Prep includes everything other than attaching the doc to the chain, making a marked copy, or taking a reasonable amount of time to deal with tech issues.
- No double wins or losses.
- If you make blatantly offensive statements I will drop you.
- If you accuse your opponents of clipping or another serious ethics violation, know that you are staking the outcome of the debate on that accusation. I will stop the debate and go to tab.
- Pretty straightforward here. Totally fine with politics and more generic topic DAs. Specific evidence on the link level is always important, though.
- DA turns case arguments are super important for framing the debate - make them and answer them!
- I do think zero risk exists, but it's hard to establish.
- I love clever, well-thought-out CP strategies! Ultimately the theory debate determines what is legitimate. I'm predisposed to think of most process CPs, PICs, international actor fiat, and 2NC CPs as fairly legitimate. Consult and delay CPs seem more iffy, as do CPs without solvency advocates that fiat super inconcrete things (i.e. "China shouldn't attack Taiwan"). If you have more specific questions, feel free to shoot me an email.
- Write your perms in a way that is explanatory. "Perm do both" isn't sufficient.
- Unless it is dropped or handled very poorly, theory other than condo will be treated as a reason to reject the argument.
- I lean neg on condo. Go for it if it's mishandled or you feel you're undeniably losing on the substance debate.
- I default to competing interpretations.
- Limits are only useful insofar as they're predictable - prove your interp sets the most predictable limits and you'll probably win.
- The amount of interp cards that don't even remotely say what they're tagged as is kind of astonishing. Take the time to read through and rehighlight your opponents' cards, and I'll be happy.
Ks on the Neg
- I tend to believe the aff gets to weigh the plan. I can be convinced otherwise by good framework debating, but it will be an uphill battle.
- I want to know how the K implicates the aff. Stolen from the wonderful Julian Bellavita: "if you read Ks and have me in the back, your best bet is using the K to prove the hypothetical enactment of the plan would be bad."
- Specific links, please. You're really unlikely to win in front of me using links of omission.
- Don't assume I'm familiar with your theory and/or jargon.
- I'm really not a great judge for K affs. If you're reading one in front of me, it should be clearly related to the resolution, and you need to have an interp that makes it possible for the negative to sufficiently engage with the affirmative.
- Procedural fairness is an impact, BUT aff teams can certainly win that it's not as important as other impacts in the round.
- TVAs (preferably carded) are super helpful for the neg in terms of mitigating aff offense.
- Neg, engage with the case! Having indictments of the aff's theory and offense against whatever alternative method of institutional engagement they propose can also really help mitigate their offense on the framework page.
- If there's a link, the neg going for DAs or impact turns vs K affs is totally cool with me.
- To raise your speaks: be clear & efficient, do evidence comparison, and give judge instruction. Being assertive in cross-ex is good, but don't repeatedly interrupt your opponents or let it cross over into a place of meanness.
For questions and email chain: email@example.com
I'm a senior in high school currently competing in LD. I'm more familiar with the traditional judging of a round, but am open to understanding new forms of arguments if thoroughly explained.
A few preferences during a round:
- Please don't spread, I'd like to be able to understand every point you make and not miss anything important in your case, so try your best to be clear with your speaking and at an understandable speed. If you do choose to spread, please make sure to share your case with your opponent and judge.
- Be respectful of your opponent and throughout your arguments: don't be rude or make any harmful comments/arguments at any time.
- Clearly signpost throughout your speaking in order to allow for me to flow each of your arguments.
Add me to the chain! *Please have your camera on when giving speeches (includes CX)*
I'll answer any questions you have after the RFD.
Be nice and respectful please!!!
he/him or they/them whatever you're more comfortable with -- better yet, just call me judge
debated at peninsula ld 2020-2022
debated at peninsula parli 2018-2020
add me to the chain firstname.lastname@example.org
i'm not that good at debate, lol -- sorry
1 - policy
2 - stock phil/stock K/stock theory
3 - non-stock phil/non-stock K/non-stock theory/shitty policy stuff like politics DAs and agent CPs
4/5/strike - trix
the reason non-stock phil and non-stock K are a 3 is that i'm not that familiar with not stock stuff, so feel free to go for it but you'll have to explain it a lot more than you normally might. write my ballot in the 2nr/2ar, but i need to make sure i know what my ballot means.
non-stock theory is a 3 because i don't like it
i'll listen to and vote for shitty policy stuff, but if you want higher speaks/a more educational round/a happier judge don't go for them
trix are a great way to get nuked speaks and likely not a W, it's a horrible path for debate to devolve into
- bathroom is on prep
- if you finish CX early, you start prep time
- prep time starts as soon as the previous speech ends
- don't be annoying/rude
- don't be racist/sexist/homophic/classist/any other type of discrimination/exclusion
- be nice
you'll get better speaks if you:
- use correct grammar
- do something that brings some massive energy (ex: end a speech/prep early, annihilate someone in cx, super-confidently proclaim that the CP is condo, etc)
- have good formatting in your document (a blank line between each card, each off CLEANLY listed as 1, 2, 3, etc or "DA," "K," etc, same highlighting color, same font, no bullet points, no notes, etc)
- have a clean and c r i s p wiki. i'm not going to go looking, but if you think yours looks clean and crisp, point it out to me before the round and i'll give you up to +0.3 speaks.
- make me laugh (in a good way)
you'll get worse speaks if you:
- use bad grammar ESPECIALLY (pet peeve) if you say "the reason xyz is because abc." using "the reason" and "because" is redundant. say either "the reason xyz is abc," or "the reason xyz is that abc," or "xyz is because abc."
- have an unorganized speech/don't give an order/dont follow the order you gave/etc
- have bad strategy
- show up late/have to use the bathroom halfway through/generally disruptive
- be annoying -- either to me or to the other team (what's a floating pik?)
- make me laugh (in a not so good way)
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE send the documents you're reading, if you're reading from any documents. send the document right before your speech (preferable), before the whole debate (less preferable), or after the debate (really not preferable and i'll probably dock your speaker points). you don't need to send it to your opponent, but are you really that afraid to have a quality debate?
the reason i need your document is that i need to check to make sure that you're using your evidence correctly. for instance, if you misquote an article, or say that evidence came from 2021 when it actually came from 2015, or claim that your author has a PhD when they actually don't – that's an instant loss, even if the opponent doesn't point it out. if you see something with bad evidence ethics, point it out to me during your speech as a theory argument (if you know how to make them; if not, then just point it out).
if you're in pf
and you choose to paraphrase
please expect nuked speaks
Please feel free to email with questions!
I graduated from the University of Florida in 2020 in Poli Sci and International Studies. I currently work as a labor organizer in North Central Florida.
I did high school PF, with a bit of experience in extemp and Congress.
I will always do my best to minimize intervention within the round — this is your time to be creative with your arguments and to have fun with developing your own style of debate.
I am generally open to any arguments, but especially love to see how far left you can go with each argument.
If you treat novices/obviously less-experienced debaters with anything but the same respect you'd want in a round, you will not pick up my ballot. Debate is an educational activity. I really value debaters who try their best to interpret the debate in the most humane and just way possible. I will not tolerate homophobic, sexist, racist, etc. arguments in debate.
If I'm judging you for LD, please treat me as a flay judge. I'm still learning how to judge theory/prog debate, and definitely prefer traditional LD.
I don't encourage you to speak quickly if it's a virtual tournament - hardly anyone speaks clearly enough for it to translate well over a Zoom/Jitsi call. However, speaking quickly is different than spreading. If you spread (which if fine with me), send over the doc first or else I won't be able to flow.
If you don't contextualize the argument, I will do it myself and you don't want that. also please engage with the framework debate as soon as it's brought up in round.
YOU CANNOT AND WILL NOT WILL EVERY ARGUMENT. Collapse, collapse, collapse.
The earlier you start weighing, the better the round will be for you. I won't weigh anything in FF if it's not in summary (please condense and weigh impacts in these two speeches rather than going line-by-line.)
Please answer defense.
Hello, I'm quite new to judging, so I'm not going to go into the minor details of the round. I'm just going to look at how well you have researched, how you respond to your opponent's contentions and how you fare during cross-ex.
Please don't speak fast, so no spreading. If I don't understand what you're saying then I won't be able to judge you appropriately.
Good luck, and have fun!
Granada Hills Charter High School '22 + Lincoln Douglas debater! I tend to lean traditional (that means avoid spreading☺☺ which you shouldn't be doing if you haven't cleared it with your opponent anyway) because that's how I compete, but I'm open to more progressive argumentation so long as it seems cogent. Be civil and courteous, and debate each other well.
✿ I don't flow CX/crossfire. I'm paying attention, but if you get a meaningful concession from your opponent, please integrate it into your speech so I can consider it in my decision.
✿ I really value framework. This determines the way I view everything in the round, so don't ignore it.
✿ As much as I want to minimize my judge intervention, I hesitate to fully call myself tech > truth because I do think I should be able to not vote on arguments that seem entirely unreasonable or false. What this means for you, I guess, is that you need to warrant your claims. Link everything so I don't have to, so that you're never in a position where the claims you make don't imply the outcome you want me to weigh and I disregard it.
✿ I'd like an order/off time road map before each speech, along with judge instruction/voters at the end.
✿ I'd rather be sent speech documents as PDFs or Google Docs, so if you're giving me one as a Word/.docx file, just expect me to take a second to convert it lol
For contact purposes, please use email@example.com.
Hi I'm Simren (she/her)
Add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org (Do not email me questions this email is solely for the chain)
I came from Parli so spread at your own risk lol.
I'm fine w theory just articulate and structure it properly.
Most importantly, be respectful and dont make offensive/abusive arguments.
good luck! :)
Hi, I’m Anish. I debated for Peninsula for four years and qualified to the TOC twice.
My email is email@example.com.
The only thing I really care about is judge instruction — identifying the most important arguments in the debate, reducing the size of the debate, and making arguments about how I should interpret evidence or other arguments helps me a lot when making decisions. Not doing judge instruction/any sort of impact calculus increases the risk of me intervening in a way you won’t like. Impact calculus is probably the first thing I think about when deciding rounds.
I was pretty bad at flowing, so please slow down and pause between your arguments.
I primarily read policy arguments, but I’d be more than happy to vote on philosophical and critical arguments as long as you explain them well and adhere to what I’ve mentioned above. I dislike most tricks and theory arguments because they’re underdeveloped and often lack warrants.
Other random things:
It’s the debater’s responsibility to flow — asking what was read must be done in prep or cross-x
Smart analytics can beat carded evidence
A lot of counterplan theory arguments are best settled as competition issues, not voting issues.
You can insert rehighlighting
Zero risk isn’t a thing
email: firstname.lastname@example.org - yes, add me to the email chain. please feel free to reach out by email/fb (I'm more likely to respond on fb) if you have questions.
I debated circuit LD at WDM Valley for four years and qualified to the TOC, receiving four bids, during my senior year. I have taught at NSD Flasgship (2018,2019), NSD Philadelphia (2018,2019), and TDC (2019) and I've been coaching LD since graduating in 2018.
tl;dr - it's your round, debate it how you want to.
I will evaluate the round on the flow, everything here explains my defaults but if you make arguments as to why the round should be adjudicated in a particular way I will evaluate debate through your lens. please make the round as clear as possible - weighing is your friend, give clear overviews, justify everything, and explain. tell me the implications of your arguments.
I have the most experience with framework debate, identity K debate, and theory debate.
defaults: (this only matters if no one makes arguments to the contrary)
- epistemic confidence
- competing interps, no rvis
- theory > k > substance
- pragmatics > semantics
- truth testing > comparing worlds
- I’ll say ‘slow’ or ‘clear’ if necessary.
- I am fine with flex prep.
- I love a good framework/identity k debate, it makes my heart happy (you will probably get good speaks).
- I very much think you need an impact mechanism (a standard text, a ROB, etc.) -- otherwise, i will be left to evaluate impacts as I see fit which probably won't make you happy.
- extensions need warrants and impacts, even if you are extending a conceded argument. If you are extending a case that is conceded, it isn't sufficient to say "extend my whole case."
- if you are debating a novice or someone who lacks a lot of circuit experience, please make the round educational and inclusive. this does not necessarily mean go full-on traditional (although that's definitely fine), but it does mean don't go full speed and a bunch of offs (your speaks will go way down).
- please be ready to debate when you walk into the room – this means pre-flowing during your opponent's prep if you need to and having the AC speech doc ready to send.
- theory violations need to be verifiable. just provide screenshots please! if someone makes an i meet to an unverifiable shell with no verification (i.e. a disclosure shell without screenshots or a coin flip shell that's just word of mouth), i will default to the 'i meet' being true.
- feel free to read theory for strategic reasons (i.e. friv theory) or because there’s actual abuse.
- if you go for reasonability, please provide a brightline. if you don't provide a brightline, or provide a brightline of gut check, i will probably gut check to competing interps.
UPDATED 1/31/2021 BERKELEY 2021 UPDATE
I have been judging high school debate for the past 12 years now, and I did Parli in High School, and Parli and LD in College. I have judged all forms of High School Debate. Feel free to ask me more in depth questions in round if you don't understand a part of my philosophy.
I want on the email chain please: email@example.com
- I know how to flow and will flow.
- This means I require a road map.
- I need you to sign post and tell me which contention you are on. Use author/source names.
- I will vote on Ks. But this means that your K needs to have framework and an alt and solvency. If you run a K my threshold for voting on it is going to be high. I don't feel like there is enough time in PF to read a good K but I am more than willing to be open to it and be proven wrong. For anyone who hits a K in front of me 'Ks are cheating' is basically an auto loss in front of me.
- I will vote on theory. But this doesn't mean that I will vote for all theory. Theory in debate is supposed to move this activity forwards. Which means that theory about evidence will need to prove that there is actual abuse occurring in order for me to evaluate it. I think there should be theory in Public Forum because this event is still trying to figure itself out but I do not believe that all theory is good theory. And theory that is playing 'gotcha' is not good theory. Having good faith is arbitrary but I think that the arguments made in round will determine it. Feel free to ask questions. If you want a better view into my beliefs on theory go read my theory section in my LD portion. (scroll down)
- Be strategic and make good life choices.
- Impact calc is the best way to my ballot.
- I will vote on case turns.
- I will call for cards if it comes down to it.
I tend to vote more for truth over tech. I have recently found myself being interventionist against cards with problematic authors or cards cut to exclude marginalized groups from the debate space. That being said, nothing makes me happier than being able to vote on T. I love hearing a good K. Spread fast if you want but at a certain point I will miss something if you are going top speed because I flow on paper, I do know how to flow I'm just not as fast as those on a laptop. Feel free to ask me any questions before round.
Fair warning it has been a few years since I have judged high level LD.
Things to consider:
- I see my self as a truth over tech K judge. High theory, love for dead white male philosophers, and time wasting theory spikes are really not my thing and not what I am interested in having to evaluate. I will. But I'm probably not the judge for you if you think your two line theory spikes are something I should take seriously.
- Your K's should link and I need an alt that is more than 'Drop Aff Vote Neg'. At least care about what your K is talking about instead of making it just a means to my ballot.
- Despite seeing myself as a K judge I was mainly reading DAs and counter plans in college so I am pretty good at evaluating those if that's the type of debater you are i got you.
- I will vote on RVI's if they apply. A well warranted theory argument or T that is part of the main Neg strat that is not dropped does not deserve an RVI nor will I vote on that RVI.
- Education is a voter to me, but that's because as an educator I feel like Debaters should be able to get something out of this activity.
- I will look at your docs during your speech, and I do so for two reasons. One: I want to spell the author's names right. My quality of life when judging has drastically increased since speech docs. Don't take this away from me. Two: I'm checking against you clipping cards.
- I probably need real articulated abuse in round to vote for your theory or RVI or whatever. Your arbitrary "Neg can only run this many of this argument" probably doesn't have the abuse story I am looking for.
- On the note of super complex philosophical arguments, I try really hard to understand what you are talking about and there has only been one round this past season that I felt totally lost in the lit. But if I don't get it I probably will not vote on it.
- K probably comes before T.
- Lay or Traditional LDers make sure you are framing your arguments via your framework. Do the work for me.
You do not win rounds if you win framework. You win that I judge the round via your framework. When it comes to framework I'm a bit odd and a bit old school. I function under the idea that Aff has the right to define the round. And if Neg wants to me to evaluate the round via their framework then they need to prove some sort of abuse.
I'm good with theory but that doesn't mean I buy yours. And that doesn't mean I live for it. LD theory is always changing and adapting and I don't buy that a lot of it is good or correct or needed. If you want to win your theory spend time on it and put a voter on it. Reading 80 theory spikes in the AC wastes all of our time. But just doing work on theory isn't enough to win it. I do not like frivolous theory. I don't want to promise I will or will not vote for it it really depends on how the rounds go but if you are running what I see as frivolous theory then I probably won't vote for you.
I define frivolous theory to be:
- Theory spikes read in the AC at the bottom that will never be used for anything. Just read another card for your contentions.
- Theory that tries to get debaters to debate under a super restrictive requirement.
- Theory that could easily go away with a "we meet".
My brightline for "we meet" on theory will vary depending on what it is. But most often if I can reasonably agree there is some type of "we meet" and no articulated actual abuse then I will probably buy there is no reason to vote on the theory.
Speaks will be disclosed if they are asked for. Range varies.
Hi, I'm Brigitte Sorto. I'm a high schooler and have only competed in Lincoln Douglas debate. A few things I want and don't want to see in round (listed below) for email chain - @firstname.lastname@example.org
1. Be kind - I get debate rounds can get heated since you are arguing with another person and trying to prove your point. However, it is important to remain calm and refrain from going overboard and making offensive comments! Do not call your opponent names, or insult them in any way, this applies to both your speeches and CX. I will not flow your arguments or claims if they include or revolve around you insulting or harming your opponent!
2. Speaking!- I'm okay with spreading, however if you choose to spread make sure it is done well. I'm not a huge fan of spreading, but if you choose to do make sure you are clear and both your opponent and I can hear you with ease. It would also be a good idea to ask if your opponent is ok with it before starting. If you choose to not spread the same rules still apply be clear and speak at an appropriate volume (no screaming, no whispering).
3. Arguments- Argue to the best of you abilities. Do not throw claims that you cannot back up, and if you can't back them up make sure they are logical and make sense. I will not flow a made up argument that has nothing to do with the case and cannot be backed up!
4. Sign Post- Make sure your speeches are clear, focused, and easy to follow. Make it as easy as possible for both your opponent and I to flow your arguments. Do not go all over place and stick to a specific order.
5. Linking your arguments- Make sure you're able to tie all your arguments together. Do not forget6 your framework and make sure everything makes sense in the end.
Last but not least, I look forward to judging you, and hope you have fun while debating whether you lose or not! Make sure you're clear, focused, and tie everything together. I hope everything above helps you during your round. Feel free to email me and ask any questions you may have!
I've only been judge for one tournament until now. And I have no experience on theory or kritik. So, please make sure you explain clearly and do not spread. If you spread, please make sure it is clear and understandable, and please form an email chain.
My email: email@example.com
The main thing is that I don't like spreading, make sure you speak clearly. Also, be sure to be organized and make your arguments structured and clear, and that's pretty much it.
I appreciate clear, effective, and compelling arguments and prefer slower speaking. Maintain composure and self-control. Good manners are important and well-explained evidence & arguments are crucial.
If you like, you can email me your case. Please do not spread - if I cannot follow your arguments, I cannot give you points for it. I enjoy the debates and look forward to them with an unbiased mind.
I tend to lean truth over tech, tell me why your arguments matter. I don't tend to give a ton of weight to arguments that are made just to be made, you need offense if you want to win on it.
I am looking for clash in a debate, don't just read cards past each other. Debaters that are better at line-by-line tend be the ones that get my ballot.
KNOW WHAT YOUR EVIDENCE SAYS AND WHAT IT MEANS. Nothing is more detrimental to a speaker's ethos than reading evidence and being exposed for not understanding it.
Be respectful of your competitors, everyone should feel safe and respected in the debate space. I have no problem voting you down if I feel you are not doing so.
3 years of college policy debate at CSULB, qualifying to the 2020 NDT.