For judging I am incredibly easy when it comes to judging.  I like good debate that is clear and easy to follow.  I'm not a huge fan of spreading.  Especially in debate formats that it isn't meant for.  I will pretty much flow anything in the round with in reason.   If you stretch too radical then I'm not inclined to buy into your thoughts.  I've been judging world schools the last 9 years so prefer to stick to the ideals of world schools.  Definitions should be clean and easy to follow, nothing squirrely.

I'm a Blake debate alumna and now an assistant coach.

Worlds Schools debate was my main format, and I competed it for three years at the national level. Speech content: include the principle debate, rebuild / extend arguments from the first speech in the second speeches, and become more globalized for third and fourth speeches. Weigh - and early!! Speaking style: signpost.

As a secondary format, I competed in PF. I am very familiar with the format, and lay on most topics. Read dates, signpost, and I prefer cards / evidence over paraphrasing.

Be nice to each other! At the end of the day, debating is about learning and having fun.

EMAILS FOR EMAIL CHAINS: blakedocs@googlegroups.com and sierra@u.northwestern.edu

A little about me:

Currently coaching: Sage Hill School 2021-Present

Past Coaching: Diamond Ranch HS 2015-2020

I also tab more tournaments, but I keep up with my team so I can follow many of the trends in all events.

-

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.

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.

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. Fiat is a tricky thing in the event now but use it as you see fit.

G'Day!

My name is Meg Kandarpa, and I am a Cornell ILR student in the Class of '23. I currently debate for Cornell in British Parliamentary/Worlds debate. (It seems counterintuitive to list BP qualifications on a site that is not used for BP but if you truly want to know ask me).

In high school, I primarily partook in APDA/parliamentary debate but also competed in world schools, congress, public forum, and MUN/speech.

Judging Paradigm

My judging paradigm is relatively simple - If the round doesn't say it, then I don't judge in it (this is 100% based off the flow - not my intuition). This includes not pointing out contradictions, missing links, and other case failures. I'm not one who believes in "punishment judging" - eg if a first speech fails to provide a needed definition, I don't take "away" points.

Refutation is also a good practice - direct responses to teams and telling me why you win also does help!

Also - please weigh/impact. I always see myself questioning "so what" at the end of most cases. Don't let that be your case.

If there's any way I can make the round more accessible for you in any way please don't hesitate to let me know before (or even during) the round.

Specificities to Online Debate (Credit to a University of Rochester buddy - Ali Abdullah who wrote this)

Please please slow down a bit; online debate certainly isn't conducive to blazing fast speeds (especially when most of y'all aren't even enunciating properly in person). This doesn't mean you can't speak fast, just be sure to slow down enough that I can make out every word you're saying. I'll try to tell you if I can't comprehend you but chances are by the time I do I've already missed something important.

Please try avoiding speaking over each other during CX; I love heated CX but 2+ people with their microphones on become incomprehensible in an online setting.

On video, you certainly don't have to have it turned on when I'm judging you. There are a multitude of reasons for this from privacy reasons to personal comfort, etc. Basically, you do you. I may also ask you to turn your video off if my internet is being slow, but I'll never ask you to turn it on. I find myself paying infinitely more attention to what you say and the tone/form in which you say it than your facial expressions anyway.

On that note, my video will most likely be on as it makes me stay connected and focused - and for debaters to feel comforted knowing that I am not watching Netflix in round. I never make facial expressions when I'm judging anyway so it wouldn't really be useful to y'all in that sense.

Debate Etiquette

I make it effort when doing introductions to offer a space for pronoun preferences. This is by no means required, but helpful if needed. If someone discloses pronouns or doesn't - always best to defer to the speaking position over assumptions.

I'm all for heated debates, but behavior that can frankly be determined as just jerkish is not something I stand for. This includes aggressively cutting debaters off, excessive facial expressions (if it's that ludicrous, 99% sure I caught it as well) and any generalizations/insinuations towards an entire group of people.

Again - generalizations of groups of people - bad and unpersuasive. That goes for debate, and just life advice while we are at it.

Cheers, and thanks to all who have read this far (good luck if I'm judging you!)

Meg Kandarpa

Debate Experience:

2011-2014: Policy Debater at Notre Dame High School

2014-2015: Policy Debater at the University of Michigan

2015-2018: Executive Director of Detroit Urban Debate Education (which included judging and coaching for Detroit Urban Debate League schools in Policy)

Overview:

I currently work at the University of Chicago Crime and Education Lab — an urban social science research organization — evaluating youth-based violence prevention and academic programs. I also studied criminology intensively as a Sociology student on a Law, Justice, and Social Change sub-track at the University of Michigan. This experience often involved going into local correctional facilities firsthand to discuss incarceration, state violence, and policing with individuals who were incarcerated. Based on what I learned there and my current work at the Crime Lab, you can assume I have a baseline understanding of the major policy issues and social theory in the criminal justice field. Still, while I have probably judged over a hundred debate rounds, I am not currently active in the debate community. Do not assume I am caught up on all topic-specific arguments. Please be clear.

Please use Speech Drop instead of emailing me speeches.

A note on virtual Debate:

Virtual debate, as is the case for all remote activities during the COVID-19 pandemic, is inherently biased towards certain people. Access to and knowledge of technology is a privilege. Unfortunately, even for those who have the technology, having a safe space to join Zoom rounds is also a privilege. I hope to recognize technological disparities and the collective trauma caused by the pandemic in my judging by being reasonable, empathetic, and flexible. If there is anything that I can do to make the virtual round more accessible to you please do not hesitate to let me know.

Generally, I will incorporate these norms during virtual debates:

- If possible, I would appreciate it if you had your video on, but I know this is not possible for everyone. My RFD and speaker point assignment will not change based on your video being off.

- Unless otherwise mandated by the tournament, I will incorporate 10 minutes of "tech time" for troubleshooting issues. Please do not abuse this time. It is NOT the same as prep time.

- Please try and show up to your round as early as possible. In the virtual world, it is harder to ensure everyone is accounted for and that the 1AC starts on time, so this is one way to help.

- If there is a tech issue that occurs during your speech for longer than 3-5 seconds, I will interrupt and try to troubleshoot with you in the moment. This time will not be taken out of your speech.

- Everyone should be on mute at all times except for the people currently speaking.

Philosophy:

I try as much as possible to evaluate based on the arguments in the round. While I obviously hold implicit biases for or against certain arguments, I try as hard as possible to not let that impact my decisions. I have experience debating, coaching, and judging critical- and policy-oriented rounds. I wouldn't call myself swayed toward one side or the other.

That being said a couple of notes:

- Bad arguments are bad. If your argument is illogical — for example, reading a disadvantage without a link in the 1NC or your evidence not making the warrants needed to uphold your argument — then I will likely not want to vote for it. It will not be hard for the other team to convince me otherwise. While I do not want to vote for a bad argument, that does not mean the opposing team can just ignore it.

- I am willing to vote against my own beliefs and the burden to persuade me is on both teams. However, I don't tolerate obvious hateful/rude arguments or behavior. Everyone deserves to feel safe in this activity.

- I tend to end up using a cost-benefit analysis to help me make decisions: Quantifying the risk of all impacts, seeing if the logic or warrants behind the impact uphold or minimize that risk, incorporating how much the other team's defense minimizes that risk (or thumps the impact all-together), and comparing this analysis for each impact. It is not uncommon for me to literally graph out how probable I find each impact to be (plus or minus the defense from each team) before an RFD as a decision making tool. I can't begin to tell you how many debates I have judged where one team won simply because the other team forgot to extend defense. All of this being said, I will incorporate any role of the ballot arguments accordingly, even if it means not using this decision making framework. This is simply my norm, but certainly not the overarching rule.

For novice debaters, the following acts will result in an increase of speaker points: flowing every speech, communicating with your partner, not talking over your partner, not talking into your computer, using up all of your time in cross-ex asking questions, giving the evidence you read to the other team efficiently, and keeping track of your own time (I will keep track too, but it's a good behavior to start).

Feel free to ask me questions before/after the round.

I debated Worlds Schools and Policy in high school and do a smattering of BP in college. I'm a flow judge, so just make sure you carry arguments through and explain your warranting.

Hello, I am currently a senior on the Cornell debate team in British Parliamentary/Worlds, although in the past year I have been more focused on helping teach new debaters instead of competing.

I am myself new to PF so it is important that you give me clear links throughout the debate. It is also important that you clearly weigh and impact your arguments (the earlier in the debate the better). I will do my best to try to follow along with the speed but I will struggle if you spread.

Also, please be nice to each other, we're here on a weekend because we want to be here so try and use it as an opportunity to learn from each other and have fun.

Last edited 1/30/2021.

2020 Important Notice:

I graduated from Notre Dame High School in 2017 and have been 3 years entirely removed from debate. During my senior year at ND my partner Mikaela Appleby and I qualified to the TOC with 7 bids. Therefore, I while I know about debate structure and what constitutes a fully formed argument, I know little about this year's topic. So with that being said, make sure to extra-explain concepts or acronyms that are specific to this year's topic.

I've judged roughly about 25 rounds on this topic so far in the year.

My virtual debating policies:

You do not need to turn on your webcam! It is entirely up to you and I understand why some people my refrain for various reasons.

Technology never works when we need it to, I understand that. That being said, you should be taking active steps to ensure the speed and reliability of your computer when debating. That means:

-Completely shutting down and restarting your computer every now and then. If it's been a week since you last did this, that's why it's really slow.

-Having a lot of tabs open is a HUGE drain on your computer's speed. ESPECIALLY, if you're running google chrome. Close out of as many tabs as you can. If you have an older computer, I would recommend switching to a different browser like firefox (not sure if it's NSDA Campus compatible, you should check) as it is less demanding on the hardware of your computer.

-If you have a little extra money, invest in an ethernet cord if your computer has the ability to take one. A wired connection is infinitely more reliable than a wireless one.

IMPORTANT - due to the nature of virtual debate including lag spikes, or moments of being unable to hear the person speaking, I am far far less likely to vote on quick 5 second theory arguments that go completely dropped. I'm willing to blame the drop on poor video/audio quality. If you'd still like to run arguments like aspec or fiat bad yada yada, devote at least 10 seconds into it and have the analytics in the speech doc.

If you are a first year debater:

If you are a first year debater, read the arguments you are most comfortable with, regardless of what anything else in this paradigm says.

Above all else I want you to talk about what you know the most! I want to see good, clear arguments.

An argument is a claim, followed by an explanation of the claim, followed by some data to back it up.

You should try your best to stay organized, responding to your opponents' arguments in a "line-by-line" fashion.

Have fun! And if you have any questions before the round please don't be afraid to ask me.

Ethics things:

I love the activity and if you're in it I think you're doing something valuable with your time. Which, means that you should do your best to include everybody in the community and be a good person overall. If you start being a jerk during the debate, and it gets excessive, I will step in and I will drop your speaks. Be polite y'all, it isn't too difficult!

I will not vote on "death good", I urge you to consider the effects of the argument in a high school environment where you are blissfully unaware of the mental health of other students in the activity.

General:

You do you as long as you can explain it.

Tech > Truth

When it comes to topic areas I know the most about, those would be heg, climate, the security k, and Agamben. I have no idea how relevant those are this year, but if you're able to go for any of these arguments those are my favorite debates to judge!

Nontraditional affs:

I am sympathetic to framework generally speaking and believe that debate at it's core is a game with little out-of-round "real world" impact, but:

At the least aff's should defend some form of the resolution, and have an advocacy statement (not necessarily the usfg). Affs that make broad statements about bad stuff happening without a mechanism or explanation for resolving the bad stuff are generally bland debates and leave the neg with no non-offensive ground.

That being said don't be scared of reading your usual k aff, I will happily vote on it as long as you explain it to me. The most work you will need to do is explaining to me why my ballot actually means something.

Non-usfg k affs don't usually get to perm the k unless they explain to me why they do.

Case debate:

Love it. It's underused unfortunately, so if you do a great job at getting into the "nitty-gritty" details of what the aff actually does and how it does or does not solve, I will reward you with speaker points accordingly.

It is possible to win a zero risk of the aff and I will vote on presumption if the case debate is good enough.

Topicality/Theory:

Meh....I'm not a fan of it, I just don't find theoretical debates very interesting. I do however, understand the value of them. This means that if you have the ability to win on substance, you should probably just go for substance.

Slow down for the love of all that is holy when reading your theory blocks, because like most people, my hand can only write so fast.

Condo is good in moderation - the neg should probably get 1 k and one 1 cp, anything more than that leaves me open to condo bad being an acceptable argument...But it doesn't mean I'll vote on it unless the "abuse" seems clear.

The quality of process/consult/conditions cp's is determined by how good the ev is. If anything I lean more neg than aff on these due to being a 2n.

Framework:

I lean neg on this question.

Explain to me what abuse has occurred, and why it has become impossible or unfair to be neg.

The argument should not be focused on the "content" of the 1ac, but rather that the way in which that their mechanism for doing so isn't T, and thats what makes it impossible to debate them.

Fairness is an impact.

Debate is probably a game.

Disads:

I love me some evidence comparison. The less reading of your evidence I have to do after the round, the better. Tell me what your ev says and why it's better than what their ev says.

Counterplans:

These are great, I love them.

Solvency advocates are important, if the aff sufficiently points out that the neg doesn't really have one, the cp goes away easily.

Kritiks:

Kritiks I like are: Security, Agamben, Foucault, legalism, cap, consumption, and university. Which, isn't a very extensive or diverse list really. I have my niche of k's that I like, if you read one of those you can assume I have a bit of knowledge about it and can change how you argue about it accordingly. If its not on this list, I may have heard it, and if I have, my understanding of it will be on a very shallow level. So please be sure to give good explanations particularly in cx as to what the k actually means.

Links should be specific. You should explain why what the aff has done is uniquely bad and causes X impact to occur. I have a high threshold for the link debate.

The alt should mean something. Its the weakest part of the debate which I know from experience, so invest time into telling me what it means to vote neg, what the world of the alternative looks like, and how it resolves the impact to the 1ac and the k.

Good Luck and have fun!

(If you're stressing out: http://i.imgur.com/KZf5kWZ.gifv)

Note - this was probably a terrible paradigm and you might still have a question about the way I view debate. Please feel free to ask me before the round starts. Alternatively, if after the debate you have further questions give them to your coach and have your coach reach out to me.

J.D.C.

Hi, my name is Jacob Tamkin, I am a sophomore at USC and have been debating and judging public forum for 4+ years. Please talk slow and be respectful to one another. Make sure to reiterate and carry your points through to the end. Good luck !

add me to the email chain - maloneurfalian@gmail.com

Notre Dame high school - 2018

Micro: The burden of the affirmative is to interpret the resolutional question and the burden of the negative is to act as the rejoinder of the aff. This can be whatever you want it to be if it is both flowable and making a clear argument that I can evaluate.

Macro: Clear, both argumentatively and speaking wise, debates are good. Unclear and not ideologically consistent arguments are not as good. Teams that tell good stories, see how arguments interact with each other, and contextualize warrants to the round are winning more debates. Debaters that are having fun are also probably happier and gaining more from the activity.

There is an inherent risk in presenting arguments, that is a good thing. Taking these types of intellectual risks helps you grow both in what you know and how you have come to know it. Leaving your argumentative comfort zone is the only way to improve these skills, wether you are reading the new argument or a new argument is presented to you in round.

Debate is fun and also silly! Everyone is doing silly things. It is good to laugh about it.

I added this section below because as much as I think saying, 'if you think you can win on it go for it' is sufficient. I am sympathetic to the idea that it maybe unclear what that means and does nothing to explain why I see things the way I do. So here are some thoughts and examples of what informs me in the present, what has gotten me here, and my position on what makes things convincing.

Extended thoughts:

I have no ideological disposition against any argument. Debate is a free for all. If you think you can win on it, you should go for it. Particularly fond of impact turns and any arguments that challenge an assumption of the argument it is in response to. My version of the truth of an argument has little bearing on my decision, but evidence quality has a high bearing on how the argument is evaluated. Arbitrary line drawing of what I 'will or will not' vote on seems silly, but not in the good way. If had the inverse of this paragraph that said, 'the fifty states counterplan is a non starter for me' I would not be in the back of your round and you would not be reading this.

So,I do not tend to believe that arguments should be dismissed on the grounds of not being 'real', 'practical', or 'worth talking about.' I do not think that a jobs guarantee solving a wage spiral has anymore truth to it than china war good. I do not think that any argument that is not directly personally violent to another debater is a non starter. Autodrop L + ratio for offensive conduct. Judged more than one debate this year where the response to a word pic was to double down on that word. Not a winning strategy. I believe in a good faith apology as defense and some form of offense is a sufficient response. Good faith apology sounds subjective, I think there is a bright line that can demonstrate wether or not an act was intentional and malicious or a result of ignorance and a opportunity to learn. This should be established in the link debating. I would prefer the ballot not be a referendum on someones character. I believe an accusation of a clipping or evidence ethics auto ends the round and supersedes the content of the debate.

I find arguments that exist on polar ends of a bellcurve are more convincing to me because the larger the gap between what my ballot is endorsing and/or resolving the easier it is to think about i.e. heg good vs decol is easier to resolve to me then the perm of a soft left aff about the BIA's failings. I've probably voted for Wilderson and X country first strike about the same amount of times. Both many more than any 'soft left' aff vs a disad or a k. It is not as I don't find these arguments 'real', but that it is rarely debated out to the be the 'best' option to resolve the harms or framing of harms they have presented. I think these fail to capitalize on the benefits of either a critical or policy aff, but they have strategic value in theory. I think soft left aff's sweep non specific links or alts that don't access the impact. But that seems to be reflective of a skill issue on the negatives construction of the link debate more so than endorsement of middle ground strategies. Inversely, meeting on the bottom between poles makes a lot of sense to me and is under represented in negative strategies against arguments on either ideological end.

In the vein of critical affs I believe debate is a game. I find k affs interesting, strategic, engaging, and fun to think about. When the timer goes off it is still a game to me. I give my rfd, I talk to my debaters about what happened in the round, what we can learn from it, and I move on. Maybe I download some PDF's, cut responses, or pull backfiles if it is particularly compelling. It can be a good game with a code that can be modified round by round, but it is insulated to the 8 speeches. I think tying a personal endorsement to the ballot can be parasitic and result in a negative experience with the game. This can be debated and changed of course, but when I walk into the round I am under the assumption I am adjudicating a game with four players. The way to play that game is up to you. Some rules are non negotiable. Some aren't. I think the negative is best serve disproving case in the 2nr when they are going for education/clash impacts. I find it unconvincing that a critical aff is 'unfair and impossible to debate', most of them are not very good. Most of them can be dismantled by reading the book or grad thesis their solvency card comes from. Invest the time do that once and it will change your relationship to the argument. Ballot can solve fairness. Reflecting on past RFD's I have given, to win the fairness impact you need to win that stasis is good and/or their overarching impact turn to fairness is wrong. Usually when I vote against fairness it is because the negative team has not articulated what that means. If your args on case in the 2nr are consequence focus good and pragmatism good, you need to prove why the aff doesn't access these framing arguments. Also why do you? Whats the internal link between consequences and fairness? Why is fairness something that is pragmatic? Why do games nessitate equal starting points? You get to chose where you jump off the battle bus. What is the impact I am evaluating the consequence of when you are going for fairness? Where are analogies and examples that demonstrate how it would materializes in or out of debate?

Where is the global south?

I enjoy reading cards. I enjoy cutting cards. That being said you do not need more than 5 cards to win a debate. If you send me a card doc and I did not hear those author names in the 2nr/2ar something has gone wrong in your construction of that card document. Technically conceded warrantless claims unrelated to the content of the debate do not earn ballots, but this does not mean an argument should not be answered because you think it's 'stupid'. If you cannot beat bad arguments you should not win.

Wether you chose to go for a strategy that centers around material action, epistemological framing, or theoretical illegitimacy, you need to resolve the arguments you are going for. The speech you give should be responsive to the speech before you, not just what you have written on your blocks.

I value technical debate, but I think the energy of a round is inescapable. That energy, moments on the flow, is something lost with eyes locked on the screen. Instead of a folder on my computer theres a crate in my closet of every round I've been in and judged. Hundreds and hundreds of individual memories scribed onto long paper. Worlds. Moments. Captured. Even if I never look at them again. There is a reason I wrote it down and I think that is valuable. I'll believe anything. Inverse relationship between how much eye contact I make with the person giving the speech and how good my flow is. Directly correlated is eye contact to my chances of resonating with the argument and voting for it.

Is it more truly more efficient to get your 27th condo subpoint out? Maybe it is. But I do not find that style of debate as convincing as taking up the opponent on their position on any level and having it out with them over the course of the round.

/end

this was my extended section pre TOC:

judge kick -- seems scared when people ask me to judge kick.

multiplank counterplans -- each plank is conditional unless in a set. These probably also need solvency advocates if they are more than 'ban x'

I remember the rounds I have judged, rooting for you all to get smarter, stronger, and faster when I am in the back of your rounds again !

Personal notes if you want to understand my world view better:

I went to school for aesthetics and semiotics. I love the assurance disad. I wrote my college thesis on hyperstition and death. Outside of debate I work writing for gallery openings and literary critiques in LA. I love animals. Reading I enjoy that has informed my academic thoughts: CCRU 1997-2003, Glas (Clang) by Derrida, dead french guys, auto/spec fiction anon bloggers, and everyone I have ever debated, coached, coached against, been coached by, and talked to in the hallway of a tournament.

Hello there, and thank you for taking the time to read through my paradigm!

A bit about my background: In high school I was a regular competitor in policy debate, though there were times where I found the opportunity to branch out into public forum and congress. For speech, I was most competitive in humorous and duo interpretations, and I also enjoyed retold story. After high school, I debated for The College of Idaho and Rocky Mountain College in parliamentary debate, though after my sophomore year I found passions in art and student government that took me away from debate.

I began teaching middle school science in 2014, which is also when I began assistant coaching high school speech and debate. My main coaching proficiencies lie in policy and interp events, though years of coaching, judging, and competition have shown me the breadth of events currently offered in high school competition. I coached the Idaho Mountain River District WSD team twice, and I now teach high school ceramics and biology. I have to say that my preference towards WSD has certainly shaped my outlook for other speech and debate events.

I'm often looking for some stylistic twist that any debater might use to distinguish themselves from others in the round, including their teammates. Humor is awesome, and I appreciate debaters who can tactfully introduce a heavy or solemn point without appearing preachy or disingenuous. Please avoid trigger language, such as rape, holocaust, and genocide, unless it is rather explicitly stated in motion.

I am looking for structure across the board. Case should centralize around a core theme or idea. Definitions, models, and other foundational components need to be articulated or accepted/refuted very explicitly. Substantive arguments should be easily recognizable and include adequate historic or present-day examples. Empiricism is preferred to rationalism. Anecdotal evidence is welcome to a degree. I give quite a bit of credibility to high schoolers as a teacher, coach, and former competitor, though most kids have a lack of experience while still believing they know a lot about most things. I would suggest sticking to your strengths and competencies rather than pretending to know what you do not. In the words of Socrates, "All I know is that I know nothing."

At the end of the debate, my decision comes down to which side impressed me the most in providing relevant and structured arguments, refuting opposing arguments, and showing a degree of positive authenticity. I am a really good cheerleader, but please do your best to avoid reasons for me to think negatively of you at the end of the debate. Tone, non-verbals, and word choice can be great blessings, though these may also be a debater's greatest detriment. Congeniality will win you the debate. Aggression will cost you...

I'm really excited to be a part of your debate experience! I wish you the best of luck and look forward to meeting you.

I mostly judge WSD, the below applies to such.

Clarity and cohesion (as a team) are good. Build off of each other.

If you don't have enough content to fill the entire allotted time, don't feel pressured to drag it out. A good speech can be shorter than 8 minutes.

Try to resolve conflicts on definitions and assumptions quickly. Not doing so cuts into the amount of time debating the substantive points, and it helps neither side.

Debate is a performance as much as it is intellectual exercise, so try to make sure your audience can understand it -- speaking at a conversational pace is best.

I have been doing debate for over 8 years now and have debated in pretty much every format possible both in America and Canada. If you have specific questions that aren't covered here, ask me before hand.

TL:DR - I like quality debates that are built on good strategic decisions that are appropriate in the context of your format. I do not believe in replacing thorough and nuanced logic and explanations with jargon, even in the interest of efficiency. IF YOU HAVE ME AS A WSD JUDGE, THERE IS A SPECIFIC SECTION BELOW.

While I can keep up with pretty much anything you run, I will not do any work for you. If you are competing in an American debate format and are running something progressive, assuming its appropriate for your format, make sure you do everything you need to do to make it a convincing and mechanically complete argument. That includes explaining what you're running and why you're running it. While I likely have experience with the progressive arguments you are running, in the interest of judging tabula rasa, I will pretend I have none.

I can keep up with spreading but would prefer not too. If you are going to spread, flash me your case beforehand.

I have nearly zero tolerance for tactics and strategies that are exclusionary to your opponent and other debaters in general, especially when those tactics are used against newer debaters. I will not awards losses for this behavior because I realize it is somewhat subjective, but I will adjust speaker points.

WORLD SCHOOLS SPECIFIC INFO

WSD is not an American format and I have zero tolerance for debaters that treat it like one. Understand the different assumptions and rules that underpin WSD before debating in it and do not assume they are the same as American debate formats because they are not. While there are many differences, here are some key ones to keep in mind:

- No cards

- No technical jargon

- No progressive arguments

- No spreading

- Greater emphasis on rhetoric and logic

- Debates must focus on the core of the issue rather than niche arguments

- It is acceptable to drop arguments if they are no longer important. Dropped arguments do not immediately mean a team has won

- MOST IMPORTANTLY: WSD debates are focused on the entire world, or some reasonably large segment of it, rather than just America

With that being said, WSD is a growing format in the US and I understand and respect that. People will make mistakes and default to habits from American formats and that is okay as long as you are not intentionally trying to change the format by bringing in American debate strategies and rules.

She/They

Email: stephaniezhang19@gmail.com

I don't like friv theory and I don't care what event it is. Please stop reading theory just because you don't like what your opponent is doing.

If there are concerns/questions: email me or flag me down before round.

I did four years of high school debate (2015-2019) which was primarily policy although I did a brief stint in LD (circuit and local) with some success. I’ve been both a 2N and a 2A while in policy. I graduated from UVA in May 2023 and spent all four years of undergrad coaching middle/high school LD, PF and speech. I'm now a PhD student at UCLA studying sociology. In other words, I can probably pick a winner but since I don’t coach/judge circuit LD or policy regularly, overly topic specific things or community norms on T and theory will probably require more explanation as well as a slight decrease in speed for the first 30 seconds or so.

I was never a super successful debater and there will be things I don’t understand being said or done. That being said, most of the things on this paradigm are a weak default and the longer I've been out of debate (particularly as I swing in and out of various judging hiatuses), the more I vote against things on this paradigm or that I think are true.

Top level thoughts

Things not up for negotiation: Speech/prep time and the fact that I am signing your ballot and it is only who I think won.

I don’t think I’ll have to do this but if a round is getting out of hand (racial slurs, deadnaming, misgendering, sexual harassment, violence of any kind), I reserve the right to step in, stop the round and get tab involved.

Based on my experience, I am very concerned about the way people treat small school debaters, young debaters starting out or debaters who debate on primarily lay/traditional circuits. If you're going to be rude to these debaters for not understanding your argument (being unwilling to explain it, calling them names when they aren't sure how to engage it, etc) or refusing to adapt even the tiniest bit then I will give you a 25 with very little sympathy.

Tech > Truth within reason. I think bad arguments should be beaten and called out but the proliferation of terrible theory arguments in LD is convincing me that not every bad argument deserves a full answer beyond "this is absurd". Hence, the sillier an argument is, the lower my threshold is for answering it but you still have to answer it in some way. If you can't, then sadly for me and for you, you shouldn't win. Dropped arguments are not automatically true—you still need to tell me why drops matter and do the analysis and warranting for me to buy it. [2022 judging update: if you say things that are clearly untrue I will disregard them unless it is proved true otherwise]

Clarity > speed: Speed is the number of arguments on my flow, not your words per minute. You get one clear and after that I’ll only flow what I can with very little sympathy for what I don’t catch. I flow every event except for WSD on paper, so keep that in mind when you think about how much I'll actually write down.

I don’t read card texts and when I do, it’s either a few pieces of evidence in a super close debate or all the evidence in a debate where no one did any work for me. This means it’s important you control the spin of evidence, flush out warrants and do comparisons. I tend to think quality over quantity for evidence—smart analytics can beat bad cards and you should call out bad evidence.

Write my RFD and resolve important questions—I take the path of least resistance when making decisions. Good final speakers will make voting issues clear through framing, judge instruction, filtering comparison through nexus questions and organizing responses to their opponents. When I evaluate a round, I generally look to the biggest points of clash and impact comparison first, and filter everything through that.

Nuance tends to win rounds in front of me. The more specific you are with your analysis and the scenario you give me, the more likely I am to vote for you.

Presumption can be convincing, and I tend to think that terminal defense can tip a debate.

Tag team is ok but I’ll only flow the person who’s supposed to be speaking.

Be nice. Have fun. Treat your partner and your opponents with respect. It's nice to be important, but it's even more important to be nice

Policy, Progressive LD

Fw

Debate is a game. Whether it should mean anything else is up for debate. Fairness is an internal link (stuff like fairness is important to maintain a particular kind of debate), and I think I’m usually better for debates that pit two models of debate and their educational benefits against each other. TVAs are sometimes very useful and sometimes not necessary.

I find that I tend to vote for the side that most directly engages the other.

T

I err slightly (55-45) towards reasonability, but the more "what on earth" an aff is, the more persuaded I am by T. I don’t really think good affirmatives on a topic have to fall under one definition, but one random person defining a word in a completely different context is not a "definition".

No RVIs please and thank you.

LD: I'm pretty skeptical of the Nebel ev (and the argument as a whole).

Theory

Don’t just word vomit your theory blocks. If I miss half your standards I’m not going to think that it’s a reason to reject. Most theory debates end at reject the argument, rejecting the team is a very steep uphill battle.

I’m not a fan of "new affs bad", disclosure theory (btw disclosure is still important!), and the like. As long as a reasonable attempt has been made to disclose (this does not necessarily mean the wiki) then I think disclosure theory has very little merit. If someone doesn't know what the wiki is, running disclosure theory is an auto-25. Friv theory will make me put my pen down. I don’t care what event it is.

I tend to think condo is good, but this becomes a sliding scale the more conditional options end up in the 1NC.

LD:

-Not a fan of whatever """theory""" is in LD. Policy oriented theory (condo, cp theory, perm theory and the like) is ok.

-I understand the proliferation of RVIs in LD and find it ridiculous that this is due to the proliferation of garbo theory args because here RVIs just boil down to "this is stupid, 1AR time skew is bad, vote for me". I am very persuaded by reasonability in these debates.

K

Since I don't coach, I haven't read with the intent of debating since high school but I do read a lot for school. I would say my K knowledge is average overall but quite low on authors who argue that language has no meaning, everything is meaningless, or rely on convoluted metaphors. Based on what I study you can assume some knowledge of literature around race, colonialism, capitalism, technology, etc but you can ask before round regarding specific authors/literature base.

I like Ks that are applied specifically to the aff, not just a broad theory of understanding the status quo or “the topic sucks”/“fiat sucks”. The best K debates spin convincing stories by filtering the action of the affirmative through their literature base into a convincing story that doesn't rely heavily on jargon.

I think mitigating harm is a good thing. Take that how you will

I think a team can win metalevel framing questions and still lose technical concessions

Please just be honest about how long your overview is, although if it's more than 2 minutes I would suggest reevaluating it later.

The ROB is only a question of impact calculus. Framework debates matter surprisingly little if each side puts up a fight.

I have very little experience with K v. K debates, but my default is that the affirmative gets a perm. Perm theory, like most theory, tends to annoy me when it’s done poorly.

DA/CP

I dig. Impact/link turns (within reason) are always welcome. Dedev will get a slight chuckle from me.

Topic literature is the best indication of what CPs are competitive. You should have solvency evidence in the 1NC.

Affs

Case debate please and thank you.

For K Affs:

I tend to think the affirmative should have a direct relationship to the topic (kudos for creativity), a stable advocacy/action in the 1AC (i.e: not generated after hearing the 1NC) and a robust framework response. I tend to dislike when the framework response relies on analogies or comparisons to policing or roleplaying arguments.

I’m not going to make presumption arguments for the neg, but I might raise my eyebrows at solvency claims. Both sides should take advantage of that

LD notes:

-Phil args will take more explanation in front of me. Assume 0 knowledge and slight distaste of Kant, Hobbes, and the like.

PF, Traditional LD

Evidence quality matters. That includes source, dates, including the full text of the evidence, etc. I realize traditional LD (and the PF debates I’ve seen) don’t particularly reward evidence disclosure, but that shouldn’t be an excuse to engage in dubious practices (making up evidence, clipping, mis-citing evidence) for the sake of winning. If I catch you doing so I will auto-drop you, since this is academic dishonesty.

I get irritated when the last speeches devolve into overviews. Even if you're outlining voter issues for me, you should be filtering them through nexus questions and explaining why I prefer your side or why your value/vc is better AND responding to your opponent's arguments in a coherent way. I should be able to trace a point A to point B in your scenario.

Other things

For circuit tournaments I start at a 28.5 and move up/down depending on the division. For WACFL non-policy, speaker points start a point lower (27-27.5). For WACFL policy, they start a half point lower (28-28.5).

Non-disclosure as a policy is absurd and pedagogically harmful. If I have time I will absolutely give feedback after the round, especially if it is something that needs to be fixed before other rounds. If we are in person you are absolutely welcome to track me down to ask for more.

I have a pretty terrible poker face and you 100% should use that to your advantage.

I get really peeved when debaters give silly answers during cross x. Just answer the question.

I don’t feel comfortable making a judgement on something that happened outside of the round.