Clear logical arguments based on evidence.

As a second-year judge, I want to understand your logic and evidence. If I can't understand what you say, I can't award you points. Though I understand speaking fast (spreading) is sometimes necessary, by the end of the debate I will judge based on what I understood. If I don't follow you, you may lose. Overstating your case also loses points with me (in other words, "x is unlikely and so many people will suffer" convinces me a lot more than "x will never happen and so the entire world will suffer and die").

I don't appreciate frivolous theory or too much theory. If you can show me why your opponent is being unfair in debating, that helps me judge. Otherwise running theory will probably lose you the debate.

Jared Burke

Bakersfield High School class of 2017

Cal State Fullerton Class of 2021

2x NDT Qualifier

NDT Quarterfinalist - 2021

CEDA Semifinalist - 2021

Cal State Fullerton Assistant Debate Coach Fall 2021-Present

Peninsula Assistant Coach Fall 2023-Present

Previously Coached by: Lee Thach, LaToya Green, Shanara Reid-Brinkley, Max Bugrov, Anthony Joseph, Parker Coon, Joel Salcedo, John Gillespie and Travis Cochran

Other people who have influenced the way I have thought about debate: Vontrez White and Jonathan Meza

If there is an email chain I would like to be on it:
College: jaredburkey99@gmail.com debatecsuf@gmail.com

HS: jaredburkey99@gmail.com

If you have any questions feel free to email me

Dont call me judge I feel weird about it, feel free to call me Jared

I did four years of policy debate in high school mostly debating on a regional circuit and did not compete nationally till my junior and senior year, debated at Cal State Fullerton (2017-2021)

New for 2023-2024:

Fiscal Redistribution: 11

Nukes : 13

LD Total: 89

NDT Update: I have been more involved in coaching Cal State Fullerton toward the second half of the year, this is not to say that I will know every intricacy of every aff, but from research I have done, I think I have a decent grasp on the topic.
If you are a senior,-and this is your last debate, congrats on an amazing career, but if you don't want to hear the RFD please feel free to leave.

Ramblings:
Gotten increasingly frustrated with the lack of explanatory power in K debates where there is not a sufficient link argument. I wouldn't say that I have a high threshold for the link debate but I genuinely think that this is the one part of the K that you cannot screw up. If you do well you will probably lose. If the 2NR is the fiat K I am not the judge for you.

If your 2AC/1AR strategy when you are reading a K aff is to say that only this debate matters then you shouldn't pref me. This is not to say i don't enjoy critical affirmatives but I think that the aff needs to provide a model of debate (Counter interpretation), a role of the negative, and an impact turn to the negatives standards, absent those things in the 1AR/2AR strategy it becomes difficult for the affirmative to win.

Cliff Notes:

1. Clash of Civs are my favorite type of debates.

2. Counterplan should not have conditional planks -theory debates are good when people are not just reading blocks

3. Who controls uniqueness - that come 1st

4. on T most times default to reasonability

5. Clash of Civs - (K vs FW) - I think this is most of the debates I have judged and it's probably my favorite type of debates to be in both as a debater and as a judge. I would like to implore policy teams to invest in substantive strategies this is not to say that T is not an option in these debates, but most of these critical affs defend some things that I know there is a disad to and most times 2AC just is flat-footed on the disad. Frame subtraction bad, one PIC good, 2As fail to answer PICs most times. 2ACs overinvestment on T happens a bunch and the 2NR ends up being T when it should have been the disad or the PIC. All of this is to say that T as your first option in the 2NR is probably the right one, but capitalize on 2AC mistakes. Other T things - fairness is an impact and an internal link - role of the negative has been one of the most persuasive framings to me when comparing aff vs neg model of debate - only this debate matters is not a good argument, these debates should be a question about models of debate - carded TVAs are better than non-carded TVAs - TVA are sure-fire ways to win these debates for the negative.

6. No plan no perm is not an argument

7. Speaker Points: I try to stay in the 28-29.9 range, better debate obviously better speaker points.

8. Theory debates are boring --- neg condo probably good --- I've been increasingly suspect of counterplans with conditional planks just because of how egregious they are

Ideal 2NR strategies

1. Topic K Generic

2. Politics Process CP

3. Impact Trun all advantages

4. PIC w/ internal net beneift

5. Topic T argument

Specifics

K: Love the K, this is where i spent more of the time in my debate and now coaching career, I think I have an understanding of generally every K, in college, I mostly read Afro-Pessimism/Gillespie, but other areas of literature I am familiar with cap, cybernetics, baudrillard, psychoanalysis, Moten/Afro-Optimism, Afro-Futurism, arguments in queer and gender studies, whatever the K is I should have somewhat a basic understanding of it. I think that to sufficiently win the K, I often think that it is won and lost on the link debate, because smart 2Ns that rehighlight 1AC cards and use their link to impact turn of internal link turn the aff will 9/10 win my ballot. Most def uping your speaker points if you rehighlight the other teams cards.

T-USFG:I think the stuff that I have said on the clash of civs section applies a lot here - fairness is an impact and is an internal link - role of the negative as a frame for your impacts/TVA etc has been pretty persuasive to me - 2ACs that go for only this debate matters doesn't make sense to me

DA:I think in these debates (also almost every debate) I just come through cards --- which is also why my RFDs take forever because I sift through a bunch of cards --- impact turns good --- absurd internal link chains should be questioned

CP: Process CPs good, judge kick is a logical extension of conditionality, multi-plank conditional counterplans I am somewhat suspect of just because they are sometimes are egregious --- permutations are tests of competition not new advocacies

LD Specific:

I expect to be judging LD a lot more this year with working most of the stuff applies above, but quick pref check.

1 - Larp/K

2. K affs

3. Theory

4-5. I do not like tricks or Phil

If you make a joke about Vontrez White +.1 speaker point.

I am a parent judge. I judged over 100 competitions.

I will rate the competitors based on two main parts:

-Composition:

If the content is effective writing or not.

Does the competitor's speech organize clearly and easy to follow?

Does the speech contain ample solid reasoning and logic

Is the speech too general or does it focus on specifics?

Does the speech make too many generalizations or assumptions about the audience?

Does the speech contain evidence and examples?

Does the speech have good rhetorical choices?

-Delivery:

I would like competitors to use effective oral presentation skills. I will check if the competitor is comfortable with delivery such as having a clear voice, good intonation, or a nice tone.

I will also check if the speaker uses effective body language or not such as hand gestures, facial expressions, and eye contact.

I am a parent judge. Speak slowly and clearly and give me clear reasons like voting issues about why I should vote for you. I won't vote off an argument I don't understand.

I've been in debate for a little over a decade now as a high school policy debater, coach for numerous teams across multiple events, as well as professionally at the Bay Area Urban Debate League. Essentially, do what you want. Debate is a unique educational and competitive space, please make the most of it. I will vote on most things if you give me a good enough reason. I do not lean towards traditional or K/performative debate. Both are good and valuable. Again, do what you want. Have fun. Be nice to each other.

Go ahead and add me to whatever email chain: gabriel.gangoso@gmail.com

Flex prep is fine. In's and Out's are fine. Any other practices like this are probably fine. If you don't recognize these terms don't worry about them.

Pronouns: She/Her/Hers (feel free to share yours in round!)

School Affiliation: I attended and competed at Claremont High School from 2016-2020. I am now a senior at Chapman University with a double major in Psychology and Sociology and a minor in the Honors Program.

I participated in speech and debate for 9 years during elementary, middle, and high school and have experience in a few events. I competed on both the California state and national circuit for Congress throughout high school, but off and on I participated in Parli, PuFo, and Policy. I also competed in other debate events like World Schools and Big Questions. For IE's I mostly did spontaneous events (Impromptu and International Extemp), but I have done a few prepared original speeches and have experiencing judging all types of speech.

With that being said, I don't enjoy most theory, spreading, or K's. I can follow some speed and understand basic theory (i.e. Topicality arguments), but please use that all sparingly with me. Evidence is important to a debate, but so is clash! I would like to emphasize that being rude to your opponent will never be tolerated and speaker points will be docked if you're blatantly bullying others in round (I hope I don't have to remind y'all of this, but homophobia, transphobia, sexism, racism, ableism, etc. will not be tolerated in round!!).

If there's an e-mail chain - add me to it! Just let me know at the start of the round and I'd be more than happy to provide my e-mail. If your case is going to involve sensitive topics that could be triggering to others, trigger warnings will always be encouraged and accepted in any round I judge. I also encourage and appreciate people sharing their pronouns in order to create an inclusive environment for all.

Regarding speaker points, I enjoy when speakers are clear and persuasive. There's not much to say there, just do your best! In the end, I hope we are all ready to create a fun, safe, and overall educational round.

I am an experienced speech and Congress coach, and a former competitor.

In Congress, I value respect and courtesy, delivery, an analysis of real-world impacts, evidence and clash - so unless you are the first speech, you need to show me that you are listening and responding to the other speeches in the round. I don't want to hear the same arguments restated and rehashed at the end of the round - give me some new ideas, or some summative analysis. Even if you give a fantastically delivered and well cited speech, if you aren't trying to ask good questions at every opportunity throughout the round, I'm not going to rank you highly. It is, after all, a debate event.

In Lincoln Douglas and in other styles of debate, please don't treat debate like a game. I am very traditional, and treating it like a game with progressive argumentation, performance Ks, K Affs, and RVIs harms those in small schools who don’t have the advantage of many team members to teach them the game, and it creates more inequities in debate. I listen carefully, write down excessive amounts of information and I vote off my flow so if you want my ballot, give a strong final speech that addresses, crystallizes and weighs the key arguments in the round. Show that you were listening to and have evidence to counter arguments presented by your opponent(s). These speeches demonstrate your ability to think and interact with your opponents’ case, much more so than your ability to read a prepared case, that you may or may not have written yourself. Don’t spread. If I can’t understand what you are saying, I can’t flow your case. And no one spreads in real life. Off time road maps are a waste of time. Just as a good extemp speaker should not have to read me the prompt before they start the speech, I should be able to follow your road map within your speech.

In all debate events, and in life, the most important thing is to be kind.

Hello all,

I am a parent judge. I have been judging the student congress debate for last three years.

For the contents of your speech, I would like to hear the debate about the harm and benefit analysis of the bill based on the flow of the chamber arguments and your data. I also look at the type of speeches you present during the round. I expect an argumentative speech if you speak later. If you bring an applicable real-life impact to your speech, that also counts for a good ranking. For the delivery, it matters to me if a student speaks with a clear sound, a persuasive tone, and a natural talking style. I give a favor to a student who participates in the debate actively with critical questions to weigh the side of the bill. I rank PO well if the PO runs the chamber efficiently. Good luck, and have fun!

I am a parent judge. I have been judging various speeches and debates for about 5 years now. Clarity and strength of your arguments, cross-examine of opponent's arguments and a good summary will help me choose the winner for debates.

I am a former debate coach and debate tab staffer at many regional and circuit-level tournaments in California. I competed in student congress and have actively coached congress, speech (e.g., oratory or platform events), LD, and public forum debate. I competed from 2006 to 2008, coached from 2008 to 2013, and tabbed from 2011 to 2022. My specialty is in tabbing and evaluating TOC-level congressional debate rounds.

Outside of speech and debate, I have my PhD in Social Psychology. I focus on group identities and how it affects our thoughts and behaviors. Between that and my other professional experiences, my view of speech and debate has now become focused on the communication of information and logical arguments for an audience.

Here is how this has affected my perspectives of debate rounds:

1. Do not actively harm anyone else in the debate round. Personal attacks, ad hominem arguments, or similar actions detract from the speech and debate experience. If you engage in any behavior that actively harms yourself or a competitor, I will give the win to your opponent and immediately let tab staff know of your behavior.
   
   Think about what you plan to say or do before you say and do it. This can often lead to a better round and less potential for unintentional outcomes from a round. This can also help identify biases within ourselves and each other that affect what we do and do not perceive or how our words and actions can affect others. I am trying to learn how my biases influence how I see the world, and I hope you take time to do so as well.
2. Any argument that you want to run that does not actively harm yourself or your opponent works for me. This includes traditional and progressive arguments. Importantly, any argument that you want to run is fine with me if you can explain the argument in simple English. Tell me why your argument is relevant and matters in the round, and I will evaluate it. Arguments filled with excessive jargon without an attempt to explain it in simple English will likely be ignored.
3. Debate is inherently an activity based on value judgements. Arguments that focus on an empiric as the take-home point (e.g., we save x more lives than our opponents or save x more money than our opponents) do not inherently have value by itself. You need to tell me why your evidence and analysis matters (e.g., overall, our side allows us to achieve something we value or avoid something that we do not value). Tell me what matters, and tell me why I should weigh it above your opponents' case. On average, I will value plausible evidence more than implausible examples. As an aside, extinction arguments will usually be ignored and excluded from my flow if it is irrelevant to the topic.
4. It is up to you to convince me as a judge that your evidence is (1) valid and (2) relevant to the round. Sensationalist or inflammatory arguments or evidence that do not add to the overall logic or arguments of the round will be ignored completely (e.g., they will not make my flow sheet). It is your responsibility to ensure that your argument is (a) not sensationalist, (b) not inflammatory, and (c) relevant to the round
5. I do not support the game theory of spreading. Communication matters. Information processing speed in working memory capacity matters. Short-term memory matters. Physical or mental obstacles to hearing or encoding information matters.
   
   I will defer to Cowan's (2001) analysis of short-term memory, which states that a person can remember about 4 chunks of information in short-term memory. In practice, this means that I--as well as every other judge you encounter--will remember somewhere around 4 chunks of information within each speech. You are better off developing four well-developed chunks than spreading across multiple points in a constructive speech and then collapsing from many arguments into few arguments.
   
   What this means in practice is this: If you propose three to four general advantages/disadvantages, contentions, or reasons why I should support your side and realize that two of those points should be promoted by you and your team, then collapsing to those two chunks makes sense and is a good strategy to do. If you propose more than one chunk per minute (or more) so that there is no way for your opponent to respond, and then collapse after your opponent had a chance to address your case overall? That is not equitable and I will likely call out that strategy.
   
   Do not spread. Speed is okay, but spreading will receive low speaker points. Furthermore, I will be very open to hearing and voting for a critique that says the opponent is spreading too fast, which inherently makes the activity more exclusionary and harmful to competitors and observers within speech and debate.
6. Most debates focus on a specific topic or point. Although it is a tactic to focus on a specific aspect of the debate, concede that point after much of the round has passed, and then state “I concede the point that we spent much of the round that we discussed while still winning on the rest of my case that my opponent has overlooked,” I find that to be a very cheap debate tactic that does not have much real world applicability. If you and your opponent explicitly or implicitly focus on a specific point or area of contention within a round, I will decide my ballot based on that point or contention.
7. Specific to LD: I need a value. Morality is not a value, as groups define what it means to be moral (Ellemers et al., 2013). I need to know a specific value that you think I should promote or prefer in the round.
   
   Utilitarianism is a value, but you need to tell me why this value should be preferred over other values in the round. Stating that your value is utilitarianism and that your value criterion/plan/whatever is a cost-benefit analysis may or may not win you the round, but I will likely not give more than 27 speaker points in the round to a competitor who proposes this CV/VC or defaults to this CV/VC.
8. Specific to Congressional Debate: You may have noticed that I said I competed in student congress but evaluate congressional debate rounds in my introduction. That is intentional. Congressional debate has grown into a multifaceted event with nuanced arguments regarding policy and societal proposals and implications. Assume that my rankings is based on diversity of skills (e.g., can you give multiple types of speeches), essentialism within the round (e.g., what was your holistic effect within the round, or how would the round be different if you were not in the round), and quality of novel arguments and argument advancement during debate on a topic.
   
   I rank presiding officers and know how to evaluate them based on 2 years of being a presiding officer and 14 years of evaluating student congress and congressional debate rounds.
   
   All things being equal, I rank students lowly who only give crystallization speeches within the round. The goal of congressional debate is to advance discussion on a topic. There are many ways to do so (e.g., sponsorship, early-cycle extension speeches, summary and late-cycle extension speeches, and crystallization speeches). All speeches have value, but I prefer students who show diversity in their speech types when possible. When diversity is not possible, I need to know how your speech extends an argument above and beyond summarizing what was previously discussed. Often, crystallization speeches summarize events without extending discussions. In rounds where it is possible for all speakers to give two speeches, I rate students who choose to only give crystallization speeches lower.

Overall, I hope you have fun, communicate clearly, use valid and relevant evidence effectively, and be respectful of yourselves, your opponents, and the community. We all showed up because this is something that we enjoy. Treat others with the respect you hope to be treated with, and I will do my best to treat everyone with respect throughout the round.

Main points:

I will vote on anything, but it's impossible to be completely Tabula Rasa.

I like interesting logic and dislike generic arguments. I will try to filter for these biases but you should be aware of them.

Please read all plans, counter-plans, alternatives, other advocacies, and roles of the ballot twice and slowly.

I believe that I have to personally believe real-world impacts are good or non-existent to vote for them (more on this below).

I assign speaker points based on persuasiveness.

Call the POO, I don't protect the flow.

I default to competing interpretations, but am very open to reasonability arguments.

Experience:

I competed in middle school MSPSD for three years, high school policy for one year, and high school (California) Parli for three years. I went to TOC, did well at invitationals, etc. I also debated in APDA/BP at Stanford for three years and coached Sequoia High School's parli team for four years.

Case Debate:

Case was my bread and butter as a competitor. I don't have any particularly hot takes about it. Structure is useful. I find generic arguments a bit tedious, though I acknowledge their strategic utility.

Kritiks:

I generally dislike the generic way people use kritiks to gain competitive edge. That being said, I will still vote for one if you win it, and if you have a relevant Kritik, please deploy it just as you would any other argument. I only ran one kritik ever in high school debate, and it was an argument of my teammate's and my own creation, so I am not familiar with any of the lit bases. (I also think completely original Ks are interesting.) If I don't understand your argument, I will have a hard time voting for it.

Theory/T:

My partner and I almost exclusively ran theory when our opponents were actually abusive. That being said, I will vote for frivolous theory if you win it. I default to competing interpretations, but am less anti-reasonability than most judges. I don't believe you absolutely must give me a specific set of criteria that define reasonability, and I think that the debate doesn't have to end when one team says "reasonability leads to judge intervention." (If it does end there, though, I will vote on that argument.) I think potential for abuse is a real thing, though of course you have to warrant it in round like anything else. I don't care if you're condo unless the other team does.

Speed:

I'm fine with speed up to a point, and will shout "clear" or "slow" if you're unclear or too fast. I am willing to vote on speed theory, just like any other argument. Please also shout "clear" or "slow" during your opponents' speeches if you need to.

Points of Order/Protecting the flow:

I don't protect the flow (meaning I won't discount new arguments in the rebuttals unless you call a Point of Order). Please call as many POOs as you think necessary. There were several times as a competitor when I didn't call POOs because I was worried about the judge getting annoyed, and I don't want you to feel that way. If you think they're making a new point, let me know. I will rule on every POO as "well-taken," "not well-taken," or "under consideration." After maybe the 5th well-taken POO, I will just ask you to stop calling them and announce that I am going to start protecting the flow for that speech, in order to save time. The exception is on panels, in which case I will not rule verbally on POOs.

Non-Technical Debate:

I am absolutely willing to hear a non-technical round, as long as this doesn't mean it's an unorganized round. I don't want you to feel like I will be biased against you if you don't have technical debate experience. If you are a non-technical debater and feel intimidated by theory, kritiks, and spreading, I encourage you to watch this round in which a team of non-technical debaters beat a team spreading and running a kritik, just with logic and good argumentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoQ9kiCi1ho

Real-World Impacts:

If you win any real-world impacts in the round, one of two things has to happen for me to vote on them. Tl;dr at the bottom.

1. If you win in-round that voting for you will affect the real world, and I believe personally that voting for you will affect the real world, then I have to personally believe your impacts are good to vote for them. This is because if I believe that voting for you will actually affect the world in a negative way, the result of the round matters less than the negative effects that voting for you creates. So, for example, if you argue that voting for you increases the chances of a Marxist revolution, and I believe that is true, I will vote against you because I personally think a Marxist revolution would be bad, and I can't let my ballot increase the chances of that, even if you win the argument in round. Just as you would argue that actual good done to the outside world comes before in-round or in-debate impacts, actual bad done to the outside world comes before in-round and in-debate impacts, and I have to do what I believe is best for the world first.

2. If you win in-round that voting for you will affect the real world, but I don't personally believe that voting for you will affect the real world, then I will just vote on the flow, because there's no moral imperative for me to affect the real world if I don't actually think voting for you will affect the real world. So, for example, if you argue that voting for you increases the chances of a Marxist revolution, and I don't believe that's true, but you win that it's true in-round, I will vote for you even though I think a Marxist revolution would be bad, since I don't actually think that voting for you will cause one.

Tl;dr: So basically, if you want to win a real-world impact argument, you need to either:

1. convince me personally that you have real-world solvency and convince me personally that your impacts are good, or...

2. Win real-world solvency in round, but fail to convince me personally that you affect the real world.

Political Spectrum:

I highly value viewpoint diversity. I think that there's a lot more room in debate for politically diverse arguments than we usually hear. I encourage you to make arguments from political perspectives different than your own.

Non-verbals in round:

I'm a somewhat reactive judge. If I'm nodding when you're talking, you're doing well. If I look confused, please explain further until I nod or otherwise indicate that I understand you. If you talk really fast, I will have to sacrifice some or all reactiveness to focus on flowing. I will also be less reactive when I'm on a panel.

Speaker Points:

I assign speaker points based on persuasive speaking abilities. This doesn't mean don't spread, I've seen many people maintain persuasiveness while speaking fast, but if spreading causes a detriment to your persuasiveness, then it will be reflected in your speaker points. What is persuasiveness? Hard to define, but it includes smart argumentation and the effective delivery of that argumentation. I know this is subjective, but I don't know how it's any more fuzzy than whatever standards most flow judges use. If I'm nodding my head a lot while you speak, you're probably doing a good job. Major points for humor.

I won't intentionally doc you speaker points or the win for making racist, sexist, etc. arguments unless the other team gives me a reason to...I think it's pretty weird that this is a norm since it is clearly judge intervention. I will, however, doc speaker points for being rude or demeaning to your opponents in round.

If you speak exclusively in double and triple negatives, I will give you a 30 and personally seek out your other judges for the rest of the tournament and encourage them to give you 30s as well.

I'm anti plagiarism- so it feels ethically wrong to do so without asking- but if I could copy Mike Bietz's paradigm word for word, I would (can be seen here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=4969) except I'm ok with flex prep. In addition to everything in here I have a few additional pieces of information.

Note: If you have any questions about how to interpret my paradigm, ask me pre-round. If any of the terminology is something you're unaware of or curious about, feel free to ask me either before or after the round. If you want to look anything up, wikipedia has surprisingly thorough indexes of debate terminology (especially when you're starting out!)

For all Debate:

• Disclosure is good and should be done. Sharing cases is good for fairness in debate. As someone who was in a small program during my high school debate career, the sense that the round was unwinnable because the opponent had 8 coaches giving them prep and resources to my none was incredibly frustrating, and while disclosure doesn't fully solve that, giving people from smaller programs access to evidence, cases and formats from bigger programs helps the health of the debate scene.
• General disclosure rules: Share case right before the speech (aff shares case before their first speech, neg shares case after the aff finishes speech)
• I flow the rounds, and catch what I can. If I don't catch it, it doesn't show up on my flow. Speaking quickly (and even spreading on a circut level) is fine, but you have to recognize your personal limits as a speaker when you do so. Intonation enables the spread, so training yourself as a speaker to be intelligible while spreading is on you.
• When sharing cards, please do so equitably and fairly. Ideally, include myself (and the other judges) on the document sharing doc to ensure that we know the documents are shared fairly, and to prevent frivolous fairness theory being read in the round.
• Debate is, in general, a format for education first and foremost. Fostering an environment that promotes education means that you must enter a round with empathy for your judge, opponent and audience. If a person is confused in a debate round, spend a moment to explain what you mean to them. Creating a debate environment that is inclusive and mindful of diversity gives people an opportunity to meet, learn from and grow with a diverse group of people.
• Related to this, people who push a "old boys club" mentality within debate round, who seek to bully out wins on newer debaters by reading fringe argumentation, or are excessively combative to people who are clearly not comfortable in it don't have a place in debate in my opinion. Remember, although competitive this should be an environment that values being collaborative as well. Debate isn't an environment to get your rocks off and feed your ego by bullying the less experienced, and people who treat it as such will get negative outcomes on ballots from me.
• Above all, remember that debate is an activity that is for fun more than it is anything else. That fun is not just your own; the priority to make everyone enjoy the experience to the best degree you can is important.

For Public Forum:

• PF is not meant to be theory heavy. Philosophy has a useful basis in backing an argument, but being topic-centric is the essence of the debate format.
• Exception: Any independent voters (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, etc.) will be weighed heavily, and if any happen, it will result in an automatic loss.
• On Cross: Being aggressive is good (and encouraged), but you need to give your opponent space to speak. Cutting them off occasionally is reasonable to guide the conversation, but if you ask a question and don't give the opponent space to answer or attempt to railroad a CX by turning it into a soliloquy that will be noted for speaks.
• Impact calculus outweighs argument volume down the flow. If you seek to win on a line by line on argument volume, your opponent will win the debate (if you prove 9 different people will die in 9 arguments, you will lose to the person who proves 90000000 will die in one argument).
• I do flow Crossfire and weigh it as a speech, so cross matters to me as a judge. Don't assume a vote that will be cross-exclusionary. Someone can win in spite of a bad cross, but cross will be weighed in how the outcome is perceived.
• Dedicate summary to expressing Voting Issues and dropped arguments. Extend to why you are winning currently on the flow.
• Dedicate FF to weighing mechanisms and impact calculus.

For LD:

• On Theory: Theory is fine to read, and often makes debate better. One important thing about theory is that I view it as a "pact" that both debaters have to agree on.
• On RVIs: I believe in RVIs as a way to counteract frivolous theory. In general, especially on a circut level, I believe the anti-RVI stances a lot of judges hold on is a portion of what creates the neg skew on the circut. Beyond "fairness" I think that, conceptually, theory takes time and mandates a response and having theory's worst case be net neutral for the team that reads it lacks fairness.
• On Ks: Kritiks are good for debate, but I have a clear line in the sand:
• Topical Ks: Good, make debate better, force flexibility in thought and challenge our implicit biases. Topical Ks further education in round and create a space where we challenge our baseline assumptions in a way that challenges the way we look at the world.
• Non-topical Ks: The only context where I view non-topical Ks as a voter is if an independent voter manifests. Reading "debate is a male-skewed environment and societal burdens placed on women creates inherent unfairness in the debate environment" may be true, something I agree with, and something I prioritize in how I judge, but is not something that I will vote on unless the opponent is engaging in behavior that is exclusionary to that group. And as the debater, you must highlight the infringement.
• On Perms: Perming is good and should be done often. In order to successfully perm in round, you must demonstrate the lack of conflict between the counterplan and the aff.
• Advantages/Disadvantages: All disads and advantages need every plank in order to be considered (uniqueness, link and impact).
• NO NEW ARGUMENTS IN THE 2AR
• Tricks should be called out as tricks if ran against you. If a trick is identified and demonstrated to be a trick successfully, it will be treated as a voter.

Hello debaters,

As your judge I value clear, concise and polite speakers. Content and presentation are both equally valuable, and I will be carefully observing the quality of your speeches and questions asked. During crossfire, I expect questions and answers to be straight to the point.

I am a parent judge. I prefer clear and logical speech. Make sure you explain your argument very clearly. Respect your opponents. Please do not interrupt your opponents during crossfire.