Background: I have debated in Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, and Parliamentary for four years in High School. I am currently a Senior at Oak Park High School and still compete in league tournaments and local invitationals.

Preferences: Stick to the rules of debate. I am a traditional judge. I will not consider plans, theories, kritiks, or other policy strategies in Lincoln Douglas or Public Forum debate. Parliamentary is fair game for these, but under no circumstances do I consider K's. Debate isn't a safe space, so I expect debates to get heated and controversial topics to be discussed, just don't be rude.

Speaking: I absolutely hate spreading. If my pen is down, I'm not listening. I highly appreciate signposting during your speeches and off-time road maps are always welcome. Speak clearly.

How I Vote: I am big on framework debate in Lincoln Douglas. Typically, the debater who wins the value debate wins the debate. I will, however, not connect the dots for you. Tell me why things matter. Do the impact calculus for me, I won't do it for you.

Hi! I am a lay judge.

I dislike spreading and value interacting with your opponent's arguments well.

2017-2019 LAMDL/ Bravo

2019- Present CSU Fullerton

Please add me to the email chain, normadelgado1441@gmail.com

General thoughts

-Disclose as soon as possible :)

- Don't be rude. Don't make the round deliberately confusing or inaccessible. Take time to articulate and explain your best arguments. If I can't make sense of the debate because of messy/ incomplete arguments, that's on you.

-Speed is fine but be loud AND clear. If I can’t understand you, I won’t flow your arguments. Don’t let speed trade-off with the quality of your argumentation. Above all, be persuasive.

-Sending evidence isn't prep, but don't take too long or I’ll resume the timer. (I’ll let you know before I do so).

Things to keep in mind

-Avoid using acronyms or topic-specific terminology without elaborating first.

-The quality of your arguments is more important than quantity of arguments. If your strategy relies on shallow, dropped arguments, I’ll be mildly annoyed.

-Extend your arguments, not authors. I will flow authors sometimes, but if you are referencing a specific card by name, I probably don’t remember what they said. Unless this specific author is being referenced a lot, you’re better off briefly reminding me than relying on me to guess what card you’re talking about.

-I don’t vote for dropped arguments because they’re dropped. I vote on dropped arguments when you make the effort to explain why the concession matters.

- I don’t really care what you read as long as you have good reasoning for reading it. (ie, you’re not spewing nonsense, your logic makes sense, and you’re not crossing ethical boundaries).

Specific stuff

[AFFs] Win the likelihood of solvency + framing. You don't have to convince me you solve the entirety of your impact, but explain why the aff matters, how the aff is necessary to resolve an issue, and what impacts I should prioritize.

[Ks/K-affs] I like listening to kritiks. Not because I’ll instantly understand what you’re talking about, but I do like hearing things that are out of the box.

k on the neg: I love seeing teams go 1-off kritiks and go heavy on the substance for the link and framing arguments. I love seeing offense on case. Please impact your links and generate offense throughout the debate.

k on the aff: I like strategic k affs that make creative solvency arguments. Give me reasons to prefer your framing to evaluate your aff's impacts and solvency mechanism. The 2ar needs to be precise on why voting aff is good and overcomes any of the neg's offense.

[FW] Choose the right framework for the right aff. I am more persuaded by education & skills-based impacts. Justify the model of debate your interpretation advocates for and resolve major points of contestation. I really appreciate when teams introduce and go for the TVA. Talk about the external impacts of the model of debate you propose (impacts that happen outside of round).

[T/Theory] I have a higher threshold for voting on minor T/Theory violations when impacts are not contextualized. I could be persuaded to vote on a rebuttal FULLY committed to T/theory.

I am more persuaded by education and skills-based impacts as opposed to claims to procedural fairness. It’s not that I will never vote for procedural fairness, but I want you to contextualize what procedural fairness in debate would look like and why that’s a preferable world.

[CPs] CPs are cool as long as you have good mutual exclusivity evidence; otherwise, I am likely to be persuaded by a perm + net benefit arg. PICS are also cool if you have good answers to theory.

[DAs] I really like DAs. Opt for specific links. Do evidence comparison for me. Weigh your impacts and challenge the internal link story. Give your framing a net benefit.

I am more persuaded by impacts with good internal link evidence vs a long stretch big stick impact. Numbers are particularly persuasive here. Make me skeptical of your opponent’s impacts.

I'll happily listen to anything you have to say.

Background

I competed in Public Forum on the National Circuit for all 4 years of High School. I’ve qualified for Gold TOC, Nationals, and placed 5th at state, so I’ll flow don’t worry. I’m a fan of public forum being for the public so I prefer you to stay away from theory and technical debates and focus on the real, tangible impacts of the resolution.

General

Warrant your arguments well. If you read something, explain why it happens/its true. This applies to blocks in rebuttal as well as case arguments. I’ll be writing down evidence cards so if you’re gonna carry something across the flow mention it by name.

Please weigh. Love that.

Signpost. This also makes everyone's life a lot easier and if you do it well, I'll reward you with higher speaker points.

Time yourself but I probably will too because I hate when teams go like 30 seconds over.

I believe public forum should be accessible to everyone. I’m big on the idea that it was made for the public and should be treated as such. I will probably not vote off of theory unless there is a serious abuse. If you do decide to run theory, don't run it as a cheap way to win.

Evidence

Preferably read dates

Don't misconstrue evidence.

Usually I won’t judge the evidence myself unless what you say sounds absolutely ridiculous.

I will not call for a card unless I am explicitly told to or both teams read conflicting evidence and neither team weighs one over the other.

Case/Rebuttal

Warrants are mega important. If there's an x% increase in _____, tell me why.

Second rebuttal doesn't have to respond to defensive responses but I highly suggest using the advantage of speaking second and responding to offense in the first rebuttal (case turns and offensive overviews). I don't require any kind of time-split (2-2, 3-1, etc). However, I won't buy a brand new response (to a turn) made in second summary unless the turn came in first summary.

Arguments that are not responded to are considered conceded but only if the team brings up that it was dropped. If the summary calls the argument conceded, and it is, then they will probably win the round unless you can outweigh the argument effectively.

If you're turning something label it as a turn, I'll probably figure it out on my own but it just visually makes it easier on my flow.

Offensive Overviews

I will only evaluate offensive overviews if they are read in first rebuttal. Case turns and general responses/defensive overviews are permitted in both rebuttals.

To clarify, don't run random DA's or new contentions in 2nd rebuttal and call it an"Overview." I think this is unfair as it gives the first speaking team almost no time to respond.

Summary/Final Focus

You don't need defense in first summary unless there was frontlining in second rebuttal. You do need turns.

Don't read any new evidence in second summary unless you're responding to new arguments from first summary.

I will not evaluate arguments in the Final Focus that weren't in the summary.

Don't go for everything on the flow, condense the round and give me a narrative. Give me 1-2 voters in final focus.

weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh. I want magnitude, time scale, all of that good stuff.

Crossfire

My attention to crossfire will usually be solely for speaker points. I don’t weigh it highly unless it’s brought up in a speech.

How I vote

I'll look at what offense was extended through summary and final focus then vote for the argument/narrative that was weighed best. If no one weighs then I'll do my own weighing and that means there's a good chance you will be upset with the outcome. If both teams weigh and it's still very close, I will take the path of least resistance i.e. the cleanest piece of offense in the round.

evan.sp.jensen@gmail.com

*Flow everything, especially feedback.

*Always signpost and provide road maps. Slow down when reading tags and authors. I want to understand what you are saying and organize it; help me out.

*DO NOT steal prep time. I will subtract stolen prep from your time remaining and it will count against your speaker points. When you or your opponent are not running prep time pencils must be down and do not play with your laptop. I give a reasonable amount of time to send files which I do not count as prep. If you are having trouble uploading or sending let both myself and your opponent know. Be fair and courteous to your opponent.

*If you spread and I cannot understand you, I will not be able to fully comprehend your argument. Start slower and work into your spreading so I can adapt to how your sprea.

*Voters - from the beginning of the debate you should be telling me how to frame my vote. What does my vote do and why is your definition of it to be preferred.

Evidence - Use and extend your evidence, but don't just blanket extend all your cards.

Impacts and solvency are key for me. I enjoy real world impact arguments, as rare as they may be. You need to really make me believe you are changing something for the better and tell me exactly how much and why I should vote for you over your opponent.

Topicality arguments must be well explained or run when there are clear violations; explanation must be concise and valid.

CX

I love a respectful CX. If your case is good you will want to educate your opponent and myself about what your case does well. Disrespectful or rude CX will be given less weight.

If the questioner moves on to another question reasonably DO NOT just speak louder to take up cx time. You would probably find it uncool as well if done to you.

Don't make claims if you're the one asking, form a question and ask it. CX is not a time to be making arguments; save that for your speeches. CX gives me a good idea of how knowledgeable you are of your case.

Ask questions with a final end goal in mind.

Overall: Don't panic, just breathe and you will be fine. I look forward to see everyone debate.

(Pronouns: She/hers)

Howdy!

I have limited experience debating Parli but I have both competed and judged - my only requests: please don't spread (speaking moderately fast is totally fine, so long as I can understand you through the online format) and thoroughly explain progressive args if you will be using them (I am very open to learning and will do my absolute best to understand the args presented to me!!). I was a PF debater all four years of HS (for Riverside STEM) and haven't had much exposure to progressive arguments or speed. I will be flowing thoroughly and appreciate both line-by-line and narrative-centered debates (balancing both = probably winning my ballot) - please debate in a way that makes you comfortable.

Misc:

Love brink args!! But if you want to win them on my flow - at least 2-3 well warranted links (more for war/nuke wars)

Least familiar w/ K debate, comfortable w/ theory, plans, CP, PICs, fiat, presumption, V/VC framing etc. (If you want to know my familiarity with a brand of argumentation, feel free to ask before we start or assume no prior knowledge)

Will do my best to limit intervention - make it easier for me by: being very explicit (don't make me assume something is wrong/BAD, tell me why) and giving me comparative weighing (or other path to ballot analysis) starting from the first neg and extended cleanly.

Speaks all start at 29, make me laugh and I will boost.

I have the utmost respect for y'all debating through this online format and want to create a welcoming in-round environment.

Racist, sexist, or otherwise clearly offensive/problematic args will automatically lose my ballot.

Max Wiessner (they/them/elle)

Put me on the email chain! imaxx.jc@gmail.com

- please set up a chain ASAP so we can start on time : )

email chain > speech drop/file share

*****

0 tolerance policy for in-round antiblackness, queerphobia, racism, misogyny, etc.

I have and will continue to intervene here when I feel it is necessary.

*****

about me:

4th-year policy debater at CSUF (I also do IEs: poi, poetry, ads, ca, and extemp). I've coached BP, PF, LD, and policy. Currently coaching LD and policy, so my topic knowledge is usually better in these debates. I would consider myself a K debater, and I do a lot of performance stuff, but I’ve run all types of arguments on both sides and have voted for all kinds of arguments too

• Debate is about competing theorizations of the world, which means all debates are performances, and you are responsible for what you do/create in this round/space.
• More than 5 off creates shallow debates. Don't feel disincentivized to add more pages, just know better speaker points lie where the most knowledge is produced. clash/vertical spread >>>>>>

coaches and friends who influence how I view debate: DSRB, Toya, Travis Cochran, Beau Larsen, JBurke, Tay Brough, Vontrez White, Brayan Loayza, JMeza, Bryan Perez, Diego Flores, Cmeow

"Education is elevation" -George Lee

DA/CP combo:

CPs are fun. Impact calc is key, how does the impact of the DA supersede AFF solvency claims?

K’s:

I usually run/most familiar with arguments relating to set col, antiblackness, racial cap, bio/necropolitics, and/or queer/trans theory, so those are the lit bases I know best. Just EXPLAIN your theory as if I know nothing bc I might not (pls don't just namedrop a philosopher and expect me to know them)

• Are we having a debate about debate? survival methods? education models? life? make that clear

• K on the NEG: don't fall behind on the perm debate. Contextualized/specific links good. Severance is definitely bad, both on a theory level and an ethics level, but you have to prove that it happened.
• Performance K: If you can explain how the performance is key to the aff, I love to see it and will probably offer extra speaker points for a good performance where you are not rushing
• Policy v K: I love judging clash debates. I think these are maybe the best for topic education (unpopular opinion). FW should be a big thing in these debates. What's my role? What's urs?
• KvK: I love a method v method debate, but they can get messy and unclear, especially in LD so please focus on creating an organized story. I will never undermine your ability to articulate theory to me, so I expect a clear explanation of what's going on to avoid the messiness/unclearness

FW v K’s:

I’m pretty split on these debates. I think in-round impacts matter just as much as the ones that come from a plan text bc debate is ultimately a performance.

Education is probably the only material thing that spills out of debate. That means fairness isn’t an auto-voter for me. Clash, role of the neg, and education are standards that are more debatable for me.

• Counter-interps are key for the AFF to win the education debate. So is some sort of "debate key" or "ballot key" argument

I have a pretty low bar for what I consider "topical", and I looove creative counter-interps of the res, but I think the AFF still has to win why their approach to the topic is good on a solvency AND educational level

Debates ranked by preference

A. Policy vs K/CP

B. K v K (I feel like these debates can get messy & unclear in LD)

C. Policy vs Policy

D. Policy vs Theory

F. Trix

This is mainly just a preference of what I feel best/most interested in judging. Like where I give most feedback and can evaluate deeper vs where I'll be more shallow. Don't change ur strat, just vibe

if I’m judging PF:

I think the best way to adapt to me in the back as a LD/Policy guy is clear signposting and emphasizing your citations bc the evidence standards are so different between these events

- also… final focus is so short, it should focus on judge instruction, world-to-world comparison, and impact calc

Misc:

• DO NOT steal prep. The timer goes off, stop typing/writing, and (depending on the format) send the doc or get ready to start speaking/flowing.

• I will not connect things that are NOT on the flow, I'm gonna quote Cmeow's paradigm here bc they got a point "I read evidence when I'm confused about something, and I usually will do it to break the tie against arguments, or I will read ev if it's specifically judge instruction and something I should frame my ballot on. But, I will never ever make decisions for debates on arguments that have not been made."

• yellow is the worst highlight color. Don't feel like you need to re-highlight everything before the round, you won't be marked down. Just know if I make a weird face, it's the yellow...

and most importantly, slay

Hi everyone!

I'm excited to be judging your tournament today! I'm currently in college and was a part of Cypress High School's Speech and Debate in high school. (Impromptu, Expos, LD) With the form of online tabroom tournaments, I understand the difficulties that may come with this so no worries about technical difficulties, cameras, microphones, or disruptions. We're all trying our best. I don't mind if you sit or stand for your speeches/ debates, or if you decide to have your camera off. However, if you are able to turn it on, it's appreciated and makes my job a lot easier to put a name to the face and will enhance your speech.

For speech: I like to see projection, not reading from your screen, hand movements/ and proper body language to enhance your points.

For debate: P.O.Is and P.O.O.s are fine just unmute yourself or raise your hand. I look for well constructed arguments with a clear roadmap for your plain and well cited/ well reasoned contentions. Clear definitions at the start are nice as well just to set the context for the debate. (affirmative) Presentation wise: try to project your voice rather than just talk. I also will be flowing!

If I have my debate decision made my the end of this debate I will release it if both sides agree to it.

Good luck everyone & feel free to ask me any questions before or after the debate! :)

Kindest regards,

Liz