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

About me:

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

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

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

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

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

Paradigm:

1. Non-negotiable:

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

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

- Anything evidence ethics related: clipping, reading falsified evidence, reading evidence not accessible publicly, anything inauthentic or deliberately intended to deceive. If someone makes an evidence ethics claim, the round will be decided on the claim, and I will stop the round if I am the only judge. Automatic L 25 to the loser of the claim, W 30 to the winner. If no claim is made but I notice it, the debate will still be decided on ethics, but I will let the debate continue because I think practicing speeches in a competitive setting is still valuable. In an elim, my decision will hinge on evidence ethics regardless of what happens in the rest of the debate.

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

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

- Competing interps for T

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

- Affs must advocate for a shift from the squo

- Counterplans must at least be functionally competitive

- ROB = vote for the better debater

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

- Textual + functional vs functional alone

- Plantext in a vacuum

- Affs get the case against the K

- Judge kick and judge choice

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

- Fairness > skills

4. Other stuff:

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

- T-substantial and T-subsets are not the same argument and should have different caselists, different offense (hint: 1 argument is a lot better than the other)

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

- Explain what your interpretation of textual and functional competition is

Note// I am a very expressive judge. If I do not like or buy an argument, you will see it on my face. Do what you will with this information

TLDR:

Edited mid-Harvard Tournament: after reading a few other judges paradigms I have come to the conclusion that I will add this, I do not like args that say "I can do x because I am y identity group", especially when the x that you want to do is "abusive". This does not mean I won't vote on it, it just means that my threshold for responses is lower than most other arguments.

Dont like: really messy substance debates, blippy 1ar theory that is collapsed to in the 2ar (no 10 second shells!), tricks, performance affs that drop their performance in the 1AR/2AR, new in the 2 >:(, speaking past time, etc.

Likes: clarity, overviews + why you are winning; weighing & IMBEDDED weighing; if running k, on THEME K debates (w/prefiat analysis); EXTENSIONS, etc.

I want to be on the email chain- kristenarnold1221@gmail.com

Run anything except tricks! How to pref me:

Reps/K: 1

T/Theory: 1 (Lower if you are going to spread through all your analytics)

Larp: 1-3

Phil: 2-4 (I love Phil but not when you spread analytics)

Tricks: strike

Hi y'all! A lil background on me: I debated for Pinnacle High School in Phoenix, AZ for 4 years from 2015-2019. I currently attend the University of Pennsylvania. I at-larged to the TOC my Senior year and debated almost entirely locally my freshman and sophomore year so I am comfortable with more traditional style debating as well as progressive. I have run every type of argument that exists in LD debate so I will try my best to adjudicate rounds as tab as possible but I will provide a disclaimer to you that I tend to give more weight to Reps than most judges because I very often ran Reps myself as a debater- that does not mean reading reps is an auto win so just make good args.

Things to keep in mind: I will let you know by saying "Clear" 3 times before I start docking speaks. Also when switching between flows: say 1, 2, .., etc so I can keep my flows separate. I am generally a messy flow-er and I do not think that will change. If I miss something because you didn't listen to me when I cleared you, that is on you. Also if something is really important, SLOW DOWN. You do not want me to miss your ballot story.

General thoughts on Progressive vs Traditional debates: I do not think you should have to go out of your comfort zone to try to match a traditional debater. If they ask you to slow down, please do. If they ask you to explain your arguments, please do. I will not hurt your speaks for your strategy but being not nice warrants at the highest a 27. If you both explain and maintain a slower pace, I will be a points fairy.

How I view rounds:

Layers of debate (obviously negotiable- but my defaults- pls do weighing and change my mind)

Reps

T

Theory

K

Substance

My defaults on theory: Drop the debater & Competing interps

Phil: I did this a lot in high school but if you are running a less well-known philosopher in debate, please take time to slow down and explain how the framework operates. I ran a lot of tricky framework args in high school to auto-win framework so I am fairly well versed in how these debates run. Default epistemic confidence.

Aff K's: I ran these but also debated them so I have no default opinion. I have both read and responded to T against these but if it is the type of debate you are most comfortable with or feel like you have a strong message, please read them. Just make sure to give me a ballot story or I don't know how to evaluate your AC.

K: I love the K but pls if you don't understand your K and cannot give a 2N on it, do not run it. Your speaks will be very disappointed in you. Other than that, give me a ROTB and prove that the alt solves the impacts you read and I will evaluate your K. Pretty well versed on almost every K- legit all reps, Cap, Anthro, Antiblackness (mostly ran Wilderson), Set col, Nietzsche (wouldn't suggest running it unless you are very confident because I have pretty low threshold for responses to it), Fem, Security, Baudrillard (but really just who on heck* is Baudrillard), etc. K's I don't know much about: Psychoanalysis (tried to avoid these debates by uplayering) and Bataille. God, please stop reading Deleuze and Baudrillard with me as a judge. I do not like it, and you do not explain it well.

T: I love T and imbedding reps into it-- Shoutout to the OG Sai Karavadi for being an icon at doing this. That being said, I would run 3 T shells if the aff violated so I love these debates. 2N should collapse and weigh. I don't have any defaults but Nebel T is kinda funny although I ran it all the time so I think it's a legit arg (or time suck). RVIs are great, go for them.

Theory: I mean go for it. I will vote on bad args if they win. Just pls read paradigm issues. RVIs are great, go for them.

1AR theory: I do not like the 5 second condo bad shells, please read something that you can grandstand on in the 2AR without making a ton of new args. That being said, please read 1AR theory because I will vote on it if you win it and win weighing.

DISCLOSURE: PLEASE DISCLOSE. I have been both pro and anti disclosure through my debate career but by the end of my senior year, I can say that I am a very strong advocate of disclosure. If your opponent does not have a wiki, find them on facebook or in person and ask for their case. If they are a traditional debater, they are still required to give it to you. I think disclosure theory is always valid if you have asked and they have declined to give it to you (Esp if they know what the wiki is). However, if you could not find your opponent and their case is very traditional and you have blocks to it, please read those instead.

Tricks: No pls no. If you do read them, I believe in new in the 2 responses and will provide a very low threshold to responses. Auto 26 speaks if you ask, "What's an a priori?" to someone asking if you have any a prioris.

Larp: Go for it! I love love love when debaters make it easy with weighing (prob, mag, duration, tf, etc) and also if you weigh between them (Prob vs mag) I will love you and your speaks will notice.

CP: I default condo and I do not judge kick.

Long U/V: Go for it.

Speaker Points Scale (I tend to evaluate this more on strat than how you speak because I would never dock points for a stutter or speech impediment).

30: You'll win the tournament IMO -OR- you did everything I wanted you to and I have no constructive criticism

29.5-29.9: Clear win, my ballot was written in 3 seconds, thank you for your service.

29-29.4: Great strategy, you won, but it wasn't crystal clear at the end of the round.

28.5-28.9: More muddled but I knew what you were going for.

28-28.4: Round was messy and it was hard to evaluate.

27.5-27.9: You really had no idea what your strat was but pulled something together.

27-27.4: I wanted to rip my hair out writing this ballot.

26: You are not nice.

Grant Brown (He/Him/His)

Millard North '17, currently a PhD student in Philosophy at Villanova University^

Head of Debate at the Brearley School

^ [I am more than happy to discuss studying philosophy or pursuing graduate school with you!]

Email: grantbrowndebate@gmail.com

Conflicts: Brearley School, Lake Highland Preparatory

Last Updates: 9/26/2023

Scroll to the bottom for Public Forum

The Short Version

As a student when I considered a judge I usually looked for a few specific items, I will address those here:

1. What are their qualifications?

I learned debate in Omaha, Nebraska before moving to the East Coast where I have gained most of my coaching experience. I qualified to both NSDA Nationals and the TOC in my time as a student. I have taught numerous weeks at a number of debate summer camps and have been an assistant and head coach at Lake Highland and Brearley respectively.

2. What will they listen to?

Anything (besides practices which exclude other participants) - but I increasingly prefer substantive engagement over evasive tactics, tricks, and theory cheap shots.

3. What are they experienced in?

I coach a wide variety of arguments and styles and am comfortable adjudicating any approach to debate. However, I spend most of my time thinking about kritik and framework arguments, especially Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, and Deleuze.

4. What do they like?

I don’t have many preconceived notions of what debate should look, act, feel, or sound like and I greatly enjoy when debaters experiment within the space of the activity. In general, if you communicate clearly, are well researched, show depth of understanding in the literature you are reading, and bring passion to the debate I will enjoy whatever you have to present.

5. How do they adjudicate debates?

I try to evaluate debates systematically. I begin by working to discern the priority of the layers of arguments presented, such as impact weighing mechanisms, kritiks, theory arguments, etc. Once I have settled on a priority of layers, I evaluate the different arguments on each, looking for an offensive reason to vote, accounting for defense, bringing in other necessary layers, and try to find an adequate resolution to the debate.

The Longer Version

At bottom debate is an activity aimed at education. As a result, I understand myself as having in some sense an educational obligation in my role as a judge. While that doesn't mean I aim to impose my own ideological preferences, it does mean I will hold the line on actions and arguments which undermine these values.

I no longer spend time thinking about the minutia of circuit debate arguments, nor am I as proficient as I once was at flowing short and quickly delivered arguments. Take this into consideration when choosing your strategy.

Kritiks

I like them. I very much value clarity of explanation and stepping outside of the literature's jargon. The most common concern I find myself raising to debaters is a lack of through development of a worldview. Working through the way that your understanding of the world operates, be it through the alternative resolving the links, your theory of violence explaining a root-cause, or otherwise is crucial to convey what I should be voting for in the debate.

I am a receptive judge to critical approaches to the topic from the affirmative. I don't really care what your plan is; you should advocate for what you can justify and defend. It is usually shiftiness in conjunction with a lack of clear story from the affirmative that results in sympathy for procedurals such as topicality.

Theory

I really have no interest in judging ridiculous tricks and/or theory arguments which are presented in bad faith and/or with willfully ignorant or silly justifications and premises. Please just do not - I will lower your speaker points and am receptive to many of the intuitive responses. I do however enjoy legitimate abuse stories and/or topicality arguments based on topic research.

Policy Arguments

I really like these debates when debaters step outside of the jargon and explain their scenarios fully as they would happen in the real world. For similar reasons, good analytics can be more effective than bad evidence - I am a strong judge for spin and smart extrapolation. I tend to like more thorough extensions in the later speeches than most judges in these debates.

Ethical Frameworks

I greatly enjoy these debates and I spend pretty much all of my time thinking about, discussing, and applying philosophy. I would implore you to give overview explanations of your theory and the main points of clash between competing premises in later speeches.

If your version of an ethical framework involves arguments which you would describe as "tricks," or any claim which is demonstrably misrepresenting the conclusions of your author, I am not the judge for you.

Public Forum

I usually judge Lincoln Douglas but am fairly familiar with the community norms of Public Forum and how the event works. I will try to accommodate those norms and standards when I judge, but inevitably many of my opinions above and my background remain part of my perception.

Debaters must cite evidence in a way which is representative of its claims and be able to present that evidence in full when asked by their opponents. In addition, you should be timely and reasonable in your asking for, and receiving of, said evidence. I would prefer cases and arguments in the style of long form carded evidence with underlining and/or highlighting. I am fairly skeptical of paraphrasing as it is currently practiced in PF.

Speaks and Ethics Violations

If accusations of clipping/cross-reading are made I will a) stop the debate b) confirm the accuser wishes to stake the round on this question c) render a decision based on the guilt of the accused. If I notice an ethics violation I will skip A and B and proceed unilaterally to C. However, less serious accusations of misrepresentation, misciting, or miscutting, should be addressed in the round in whatever format you determine to be best.

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

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

I do not flow off the doc.

Evidence:

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

Theory:

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

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

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

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

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

Email: rexyman212@gmail.com

Santa Monica High School 2020

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

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

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

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

Updated for Northwestern: It occurs to me I haven't touched this thing in awhile. They often feel quite self-aggrandizing, so I'm hoping to keep this short and informative.

For college debates, please add

caldebatechain@gmail.com

For HS, please add

nathankarlfleming@gmail.com

Ks & Framework: I like clash. I think debate is special because of the depth of debate it allows. That means if your K aff is only for you, I'm not. If your K aff defends topic DAs and has a cool spin on the topic though, I'm your guy. I don't believe that heg good isn't offense, and people should feel comfortable going for impact turns against the K in front of me, because it's cleaner than T a lot of the time. Fairness is an impact, but it's way worse than skills.

Theory: the primary concern is the predictability of the interp. In order for it to be predictable, it needs to be based in a logical interpretation of the resolution. This precludes the vast majority of theory arguments. People seem to be souring on conditionality --- I am not one of those people. I've yet to hear an objection to it not solved by writing and reading higher quality arguments.

A few closing comments: unsorted

-I'm kind of an ev hack. I try not to read cards unless instructed, but if you read great ev, you should be loud and clear about telling me to read it, and if it's as good as you say, then speaker points may be in order.

-Sometimes recutting the other team's card to answer their argument is better than reading one of your own. If you want me to read their card on your terms, include highlighting in another color so we're on the same page on what part you think goes the other way.

-Arguments I won't vote for

-X other debater is individually a bad person for something that didn't happen in the debate

-saying violence to other people in the debate is a good idea

-speech times are bad or anything that literally breaks the debate

-new affs bad

Lincoln Douglas

I judge this now, but I'm still getting used to it, so go easy on me. So far, my policy debate knowledge has carried me through most of these debates just fine, but as far as I can tell these are the things worth knowing about how I judge these debates.

-Theory doesn't become a good argument because speech times are messed up. Dispo is still a joke. Neg flex is still important. That doesn't mean counter plans automatically compete off certainty/immediacy, and it doesn't mean topicality doesn't matter. It does mean that hail-marry 2AR on 15 seconds of condo isn't gonna cut it tho.

-Judge instruction feels more important than ever for the aff in these debates because the speech times are wonky.

-I generally feel confident w/ critical literature, but not all of the stuff in Policy is in LD and visa-versa. So if you're talking about like, Kant, or some other funny LD stuff, go slow and gimme some time.

-This activity seems to have been more-or-less cannibalized by bad theory arguments and T cards written by coaches. I will be difficult to persuade on those issues.

-I don’t flow RVIs.

Public Forum

Copy-Pasting Achten's.

First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence.

This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence. The only exception to this is if one team chooses not to participate in the email thread and the other team does then all time used for evidence exchanges will be taken from the prep time of the team who does NOT email their cases.

For the email chain: noah0036@gmail.com

2024 MN Sections/State:

-For speed: I can flow the high end of rapid conversational pace and the lower end of true spreading. If you are double clutching while spreading, that is likely too fast. I will give verbal "Slow" or "Clear" instructions if needed.

-I'll vote on pretty much any argument (but tricks might not be arguments).

-Signpost Signpost Signpost. I prefer "Contention x, subpoint x" or other language that describes where in the case I should be looking over the use of only card names when extending arguments.

-Engaging in warrant comparison, describing your argument in straightforward terms, and doing specific weighing between impacts makes me happy. Quality over quantity for warrants. Write my ballot for me and you will get good speaks.

-If you are running non-traditional arguments, please read this

1. Distinct offs are highly preferred to "layified" cases where C1 is a DA and C2 is a CP ect.
2. I hold the debater that introduces the non-traditional argument to a higher standard of structure. (i.e. if you read a K, I expect labeled FW, alt, ect. but your opponent can read competition args and I will treat those as perms even if they don't say the word "perm").
3. Overall higher bar if you are reading circuit args into a traditional debater. I think theory, counterplans, and Kritiques are good for debate, but when those strategies are used to confuse and exclude your opponent that makes me sad. Don't be evasive in CX about how arguments function, and I require a more explicit delineation of why pre-fiat arguments come first in order to vote on them. The brightline will be if a typical JV debater who has never seen your argument couldn't follow why your uplayer comes first, you didn't explain it enough.

Who am I:

I'm a debater who graduated in 2018 and got a whopping total of 0 bids and competed in 0 bid rounds. I still enjoyed circuit debate, but this means I am probably not the best judge for late outrounds. Graduated from Lakeville North High School with 4 years of LD and did four years of Parli at the University of Minnesota. That most recent Parli experience shapes a lot of what I think about debate. The other important disclosure is I do not keep up with the circuit generally so I am not going to be as up on the current LD meta.

Things I like:

Engagement! I'm going to like rebuttals that don't just sail past the prior speech based on some prewritten frontlines, but instead address the core issues that the other side brings up.

Respect also goes a long way. Debate is an important space and when people act in good faith it makes me happy.

Analytic extensions. I debated in Parli where carded evidence isn't a thing, I find it much easier to follow a straightforward couple sentence explanation than words cut from different parts of a paper where they might not reach the same conclusion that the powertag on top of the card would suggest they do.

Things I don't like:

Being deliberately difficult to engage with. Dodging CX questions with vague answers when in the next speech you all of a sudden can articulate the thesis of your arguments in very concise and definitive language is not debating, it's running from engagement (and cowardice is a voting issue). Don't rely on your opponent not understanding your arguments well enough so you win.

Relying on the speech doc to get arguments across. My personal belief is that the speech doc is to make sure you don't clip cards and give the judge and opponent something to look back on as a record of what was said, but I see it be used more and more as something that lets debaters artificially inflate their WPM by decreasing the clarity by which they speak and letting the doc pick up the slack. The doc doesn't argue, you do.

Specific arguments:

These are all just preferences. I think saying "I'm Tab" doesn't mean anything, but I will try to intervene as little as possible. That being said here are some mindsets I have coming into the round. Unless otherwise noted I can and will vote on any argument presented, some bars just might be higher than others.

LARPing - This is how I debated most of the time, so I like to see it done well, and a CP 2DA neg strat is always fun to watch.

Tricks - If you rely on aprioris or weirdly worded spike that are extended as game over issues I'm probably not your judge. I won't reject you on face but my interp of the burden of rejoinder (the thing that makes dropped args true) is that if the first reading of an argument was shifty or arbitrary, even if none of that argument was addressed in the following speech by your opponent, a new characterization or explanation of that argument is just that: new. This means I am significantly more lenient to responses to blips that get blown up. However, if these arguments are clearly labeled as voting issues the first speech that they are read then a lot of my reservations about this style of debate are alleviated. This goes back to prior notes about avoiding engagement.

Phil - Label everything. I probably don't understand Kant or whoever as well as you do so implicating the important parts of the case as soon as possible make it a lot easier for me to track. I think well done phil can be leveraged well against anything but making these arguments as clear as possible helps me a lot. I think phil is often used by tricky debaters so see above to make sure I don't get sad with you.

Ks - Ks are cool! I didn't read a lot of them in high school, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't read them in front of me. What is does mean is that I don't know the lit and buzzwords are useless. I am familiar with some Cap, Ableism, Anti-blackness, Setcol and Neocol lit bases (in that order) but mostly in a conceptual level not a "I've read the book" level. I know some surface level info about a tiny bit of pomo things, but that please do not assume I know what your buzzwords mean. To make me love you and your K, explain it to me in simple, concise terms. I would prefer a paragraph analytic tag about what it means to find lines of flight than a D&G card cut in language I don't understand. This also applies to alts, I'd really like to know what the alt does. If it's a mindset shift, cool let me know. If it's micropol rejection, cool tell me that's what it is. I think the best alts also incorporate post fiat offense i.e read "Endorse Violent Socialist Revolution" in front of me instead of "Interrogate the epistemology of the aff through a lens of historical materialism."

Role of the Ballots- I find it really hard to frame any offense out of the debate. I default to "Vote for who did the better debating. Everything else is just impact weighing." That being said, if you are winning reasons why your role of the ballot is good it make it a lot easier for your impacts to outweigh those of your opponents, but I don't think it moots them entirely absent arguments that the impacts for their RoB don't matter (i.e. conceded fiat illusory claims means without arguments about how fiated impacts have importance outside of the imaginary will let me completely ignore the extinction claims of an aff)

Theory - Multiple frivolous theories are not good, you can read your spec args or whatever theory shell that might be strategic but probably doesn't actually impact the meta model of debate but reading more than one of these just seems like you are reading a lot of low risk uplayering offence that skirts clash in favor of dropped tidbits. I default to Competing Interps, Theory is top layer, no RVIs but my bar for aff getting RVIs is much lower than neg getting RVIs. Condo is on a round per round basis, but multiple condo are probably not the best, PICs can be good or bad, spec is boring.

Non-Topical/K Affs - I used to absolutely hate these, but I most certainly do not now. I think they are a good part of debate and allow people to take back power, so I will absolutely vote for a non-topical aff but see my notes on Ks and K lit. If you happen to be debating an affirmative that is not topical, FW will work if you win it even if I'm not happy that you read it, but if the aff is disclosed please at least answer some of case. That being said I don't think theory is inherently violent and that means there are smarter interps that don't have to indite the ability of these types of affs to exist in debate but can challenge the specific implementation of a given non-t aff. I.e. must defend fiat but not necessarily resolutional fiat, may not garner offense off a rejection of the resolution (but can off non resolutional things), no Utopian fiat ect. I would also recommend counter methods (and I am a bit partial to the argument that there are no perms in a methods debate) or method piks as long as you actually engage in questions of the affirmative I will probably be happy.

Misc:

Speed - I can listen to you if you are clear. I'd put myself at about 6/10 of top speed, but this being said be careful with blippy args. Not only would I rather hear 2 actually warranted case turns, I probably will not flow half of your twelve point case dump if each of the twelve are only one sentence answers.

Ways to boost your speaker points in front of me -

1. Know what you are talking about. Being well versed in the lit is a great way to make me like you.

2. Jokes. Tournaments are long and can get boring so if I laugh that is a good thing.

3. Be nice.

4. Be organized, if you are all over the place that is a bad thing

5. Creativity will also make me happy.

I will judge your debate by determining which arguments have been preserved to the final speeches and are adequately supported by evidence or persuasive explanation. Then I will compare your arguments, hopefully with instruction from you which frames the important issues and tells me how to make close calls.

Judge philosophies are a bit silly because it is the exceptionally rare case where an issue must be resolved with reference to the judge’s arbitrary preferences. Usually the debaters make their arguments, one side presents a more comprehensive approach to the important issues and frames the close calls, and then judge votes for that team. That being said, I include the following as my thoughts on issues which many teams seem to base their judge preference decisions on.

1. In an ideal world, the affirmative will read a plan that is topical. I do not feel the need to impose a hard rule here; the arguments against affirmative topicality are bad. A debate between equally competent teams should not produce the sentence: “I voted affirmative despite them being untopical.” I do not think debate would function if everyone disregarded the topic, and I think debate—a thing we all do—is good.

2. The arguments against negative conditionality are equally unpersuasive. Again, no hard rule. But I struggle to imagine an affirmative team that convincingly defends an arbitrary limit on the number of a certain type of argument that the negative may read after the 1NC has already occurred, and also that that limit requires the negative team lose the debate. If you think CPs are not “kickable,” then just say that.

3. Cross-examination answers should be binding on the team which made them. Possible exceptions include intricate clarifications of plan mechanism for the purposes of competition (which may not be suitable for on-the-spot Q&A) and promises about how the debate will unfold (e.g., whether a CP will be kicked or whether you will impact turn something if given the chance; I do not think debaters can reasonably rely on advance notice about their opponents’ strategy).

4. Initial constructives should be flowable. Rebuttals should be thoroughly understandable.

5. Speaker points are a composite of argument strategy (ultimately successful or not), clarity in speaking, cross-examination tactics, and organization.

6. I reserve the right to handle ethics challenges on an ad hoc basis to best facilitate the continuation of a fair debate. Sometimes this is impossible.

call me m.c., or you could attempt my actual name too if you feel like it (i might give you an awkward look if you get it wrong tho)

she/her or they/them

email: mcguodebate@gmail.com. set up the email chain before round

tldr

k - 1/2

policy - 1/2

theory - 2/3

phil - 3/4

tricks - strike

– be a good person

– disclosure is good

– i don't flow the doc during a speech, clarity is *highly* recommended

– prep time includes the time to compile the file

– prep time can be cx, cx time cannot be prep

– argument quality is *important* (your arg quality and speaker points exist on a sliding scale)

– Read whatever. But I am not the best judge for very dense or niche phil vs phil or tricks vs tricks debates. That doesn't mean you shouldn't run those positions in front of me, it just means that they need extra explanation

for online debates

keep a recording of your speech in case the internet connection tweaks

misc thoughts

– I enjoy creative counter-interps (but not interps. no shoe theory ok? ok ty :D)

– If you spend more than 1'30" reading underviews I'll just stop flowing and do my homework

– I tend to evaluate the interp/counter-interp similarly to plan/counter-plan. I think this POV allows more creativity in theory debates. Conditional/delay/consult counter-interp is kinda fun to judge

– Tech > truth is weird way to put it??? Tech is SUUUUPER important, but these two are not mutually exclusive. The truth of arguments is determined by the quality of the links/internal links and evidence, which is a key aspect tech. And "[y]our arguments do not start at 100% risk—they start at whatever risk your justifications for them imply. This means the implications of your arguments in front me will not be derived from the claim, but the warrant"(Ishan Bhatt). This means

a) I don't auto assign 100% risk to your arguments. For example, I don't consider "condo bad––strat skew" to be an independent voter and I probably won't care that much about a dropped one-line a priori

b) I have a much lower threshold for responses against blippy arguments

c) I re-read the warrants in your evidence to decide in a tough round

– I don't vote on out-of-round stuff except disclosure. It forces me into an awkward position. If something problematic has happened, taking it to the tournament tabroom or your coach is much better than trusting a teenager to be your arbiter

– For Ks, I find preclusion/root cause/perfomativity arguments to be a little sketchy and circular, and that time is better spent on answering/turning case

– Quality links are part of a good neg strat (*cough* e.g., kritiks *cough*), other wise the debate is sloppy

– I'm down for non-t affs. But if you know your affirmative is non-topical, admit it. "Pseudo-topical" affirmatives don't make much sense to me and it just makes it seem like you are scared of framework lol. And be sure to defend why reading it on the aff is uniquely valuable

Hi! I’m Christian. I did traditional LD in high school and debated for two years on the ASU policy team. I used to coach the LD team at Minnetonka High School. I really enjoy judging debate, and I hope you enjoy having me as a judge.

- Put me on the email chain: hilgemannc@gmail.com

- I'll evaluate any properly extended claim that has a warrant and impact/implication as long as it isn't bigoted or a personal attack.

- That being said, I place a lot of value on argument quality and explanation. This means that rather than assuming that every argument starts at 100% risk, the weight I give each of your arguments is dependent on how well you've justified them. If you want me to evaluate something, you should make sure that it has a clear warrant and implication in every speech that you bring it up.

- I've decided that I'm going to stop evaluating spreading. Now that tournaments are online, how well I can understand you is dependent on whether or not you can afford high-speed internet access and a nice microphone in addition to how skilled you are, which is bad. Considering this, I don't think I can justify trying to keep up with anything beyond a fast conversational pace - if you exceed what I see as reasonable I'll stop flowing and say "speed" until you slow down. If you don't slow down, I'll eventually just give up and stop listening to your arguments altogether.

- If you're a progressive/circuit debater and you're debating a traditional debater/someone who is significantly less experienced than you, you should adjust your style so that there can be an actual debate. You're going to have to use your best judgment here, but if you read arguments that your opponent clearly won't be prepared to engage with, I'm likely to drop your speaks or intervene against you. The same thing applies if you're super condescending or rude.

Theory:

- I default to reasonability, and it will be tough to convince me otherwise. I'm almost never going to vote for theory that I think is frivolous, but if you think there's legit abuse you should go for it.

- I'm pretty bad at judging a lot of the more technical aspects of theory debates in LD. I'd recommend focusing primarily on the standards level and not assuming that I'm already familiar with the content of your arguments / the jargon you're using.

Kritiks:

- I mostly debated Ks in college, but don't assume that I'll fill in gaps for you or that I'm familiar with your lit (I'm probably not). Basically, make sure that you can fully explain your arguments in terms that a normal person can understand.

- I think that K affs should defend some sort of departure from the status quo (unless you have a really dope explanation for why you don't need to). If I don't know what the aff does at the end of the round, I'm very open to voting on presumption.

Tricks:

- These are bad please stop.

- I'm unlikely to vote on skep because there's usually a risk of offense.

- New implications are new arguments and can be responded to as such.

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

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

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

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

Conflicts: Chapin, Lake Highland

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

Not well-read on the topic.

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

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

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

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

-----------

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

Other important things:

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

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

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

-----------

Misc. notes:

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

***I've only judged a couple of tournaments this year, so I won't be as used to some of your top speeds***

Kyle Kopf (He/Him/His)

West Des Moines Valley High School ‘18 || University of Iowa '22 || Iowa Law '26

I want to be on the email chain (but I do my best to not flow off of it): krkopf@gmail.com

Conflicts: Iowa City West High School, West Des Moines Valley High School

Bio: I coached Iowa City West LD for 5 years. I debated LD for Six Years. Received one bid my junior year and 3 my senior year.

I don't like long paradigms so I did my best to keep this as short as possible. My opinions on debate aren't what matters anymore. I try to be as tech as possible and not intervene.

OVERVIEW:

I won’t automatically ignore any style of argument (Phil, Theory, K, policy, T, etc), I will only drop you for offensive arguments within that style (for example, using a policy AC to say racism is good). That being said, I am more familiar with certain styles of arguments, but that does not mean I will hack for them. Shortcut for my familiarity with styles:

Phil – 1

Theory/T – 1

K - 1

Policy - 2

Tricks - 3

Online Debate:

-Please speak at like 70-80% of your top pace, I'll be much more likely to catch your arguments and therefore vote for you if you actually slow and don't rely on me shouting "slow" or "clear" a lot. Also, slow down extra on underviews, theory, and author names because I'm extra bad at flowing those.

-Please keep a local recording in case your speech cuts out to the point where I miss arguments. If you do not there is no way for me to recover what was missed.

-I find myself flowing off the doc more with online debate than I do normally

-If you think there are better norms for judging online I should consider, feel free to share before the round!

-I will always keep my camera on when debaters are speaking. Sometimes I turn my camera off during prep time. Feel free to ask me to turn my camera on if I forget.

SPEAKS:

Based on strategy, quality of discourse, fun, creativity etc. NOT based on speaking style. I will shout “clear” as needed without reducing speaks.

SPEED:

Don’t start speech at top speed, build up to it for like 10 seconds. Slow down significantly on author names and theory underviews.

IDENTITY AND SAFETY:

Firstly, I've stuttered for my entire life, including the 6 years I was in debate. Speech impediments will not impact speaks or my evaluation of the round whatsoever. I default shouting “clear” if needed (I always preferred being told to clear than losing because the judge didn’t understand me) so please tell me if you prefer otherwise.

Secondly, If there is anything else related to identity or anything else that might affect the round, please let me know if you feel comfortable doing so.

Ks:

This is what I primarily read in high school. I’m familiar with K strategy, K tricks (floating PICs need to be in some way hinted at in the 1N), etc.

Theory/T:

I read some theory although significantly less than Ks. Since I've started coaching I've become a lot more familiar with theory strategy. Assuming literally no argument is made either way, I default:

- No RVI

- Competing Interps

- Drop the debater on theory and T

- Text of interp

- Norms creation model

- “Converse of the interp/defending the violation” is sufficient

Phil:

I started reading phil in high school and I coach a lot of phil now. I'm comfortable in these debates.

Tricks:

I'll vote on just about anything with a claim warrant and impact.

Policy:

While I never debated policy arguments in high school, I've judged a lot of policy-style rounds and am much more comfortable with them now.

Postrounding:

I think post-rounding is a good norm for debate to encourage good judging, prevent hacking, etc. Always feel free to post-round me. I'll be VERY strict about starting the next flight/round, allowing debaters to be on time, etc but feel free to find me or email me later (email at top).

Misc:

*If you're kicking a CP or K, you need to explicitly say "kick the CP/K", not extending is not sufficient to kick

*All arguments must have some sort of warrant. The warrant doesn’t have to be good or true

*If an argument is new in the 2, I will disregard it even if it’s not pointed out. To clarify, you still should point it out in case I missed it.

Priya Kukreja (she/they)

priyapkukreja@gmail.com

Hello! My paradigm was wiped (sigh) so here is a TLDR for NYC PF:

Background - I debated in Lincoln Douglas in Nebraska and on the National Circuit from 2014 to 2017. I have experiencing judging PF but I am not an expert with the format - please carry arguments through and articulate why I should vote for you clearly at the end of the round. I cannot do any work for you on the flow, so clash and impacting your arguments is key!

Westside LD:

I feel most comfortable judging critical and phil/framework debate. I'm happy to evaluate T/theory or policy arguments too, but you'll have to slow down, be clear about every part of the argument, and be explicit about the function it serves in the round. Please give me a way to weigh the impacts, e.g. value/criterion, standard, ROTB, etc.

Clash! Engage with your opponents argument. Impact your arguments to your fw/rotb. Take the last few seconds of your final speech to tell me why I should vote for you.

Speed - Stay around 6/10 and you should be just fine. Slow down on tags and author names. Please don't be rude.

Debate is a wonderful opportunity to learn and build community, please treat it as such!

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

--

About me:

she/her

policy coach @ damien: spring 2022 - present

ld coach @ loyola: fall 2023 - present

--

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

I am comfortable evaluating arguments that are commonplace in policy (cx) debate; less comfortable evaluating nonsense trick-blip-phil-paradox-skep-word-soup quirks of lincoln douglas. This means that any CX team that debates in a coherent and well-researched manner (whether policy or k) should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read real arguments should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read "eval after 1ar" should strike me before they strike a parent judge.

General note about reading my paradigm - most things are phrased in terms of policy debate structure & norms (2nr/2ar being 5 minutes, "team" instead of "debater," "planless aff" = "non-t k aff," etc). If I'm judging you in LD and you have questions about how something translates to LD, feel free to ask!

--

email chains:

ld email chains: loyoladebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

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

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

--

flowing: it is good and teams should do it

stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow. i recently witnessed a 2ac that answered a whole k that was not read in the 1nc. it nuked my value to life. this is my attempt at remedying it:)

--

All of my deal-breakers/hard and fast rules/moments of "I won't vote on this" are dependent on four things:

1 - protecting the safety of the participants in the round (no harrassment, no physical violence, etc).

2 - voting for things that meet the minimum standard to be considered an argument (it needs to have warrants & make some amount of logical sense).

3 - rules set forth by the tournament (speech times, one team wins and one team loses, I have to enter my own ballot, etc).

4 - i will only evaluate the debate after the end of the 2ar. this is 0% negotiable. i did not think i would have to say this, but i guess i do.

--

My voting record is roughly 50-50 on most major debate controversies (yes, even planless affs vs framework). As long as your argument doesn't violate the above four criteria, go for it!

I think that warrants are hard to come by in many debate rounds these days, even ones with “good” teams. Err on the side of a little too much explanation, because if your arg is warrantless, you will be ballotless. Extensions need to include warrants, not just taglines.

Independent voters need warrants and an articulation of why they should be evaluated before everything else. These debates could generally benefit from more judge instruction and weighing. Simply calling something an independent voter doesn’t mean I vote for you if you extend it.

Disclose or lose. Non-new affs should be on the wiki & should be disclosed to the neg team a minimum of 30 min before round. Neg offcase positions that have been read before should be on the wiki. Past 2nrs should be disclosed to the aff team a minimum of 30 min before round. New affs don't need to be disclosed pre-round. I am 1000000% done with teams that don't disclose. I have zero belief that there is any good reason for non-disclosure. If your opponent engages in any disclosure nonsense, read theory and there's a 95+% chance I vote for you, regardless of how good they are at the theory debate. Don't like disclosing? Pref someone who is willing to tolerate your nonsense (not me).

note: i am far more lenient on disclosure with novices/debaters who haven't debated at national-circuit tournaments before. the grumpiness of the above section is directed at people who know how to disclose and purposefully avoid it. you know who you are:)

--

Some general notes

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

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

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

I am not comfortable evaluating out-of-round events. The only exception to this is disclosure. I will vote on reasonable and good faith disclosure theory (yeah you should probably disclose on opencaselist, no you probably shouldn't lose for forgetting one round report). I will not vote on arguments about random out-of-round events, things that happened in another round, things that happened on a team's pref sheet, or any other arguments of this nature.

--

Speaker points:

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

I try to give points as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

Case:

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

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

Planless affs:

I've been on both sides of the planless aff debate, and my strongest opinion about planless affs is that you need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.

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

T/framework vs planless affs:

I'm roughly 50-50 in these debates. I don't have a strong preference for how framework teams engage in these debates other than that you should be respectful when discussing sensitive material.

I think that TVAs can be more helpful than teams realize. While having a TVA isn't always necessary, winning a TVA provides substantial defense on many of the aff's exclusion arguments.

I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness (or something else). I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponents' strategy.

I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.

Theory:

The less frivolous your theory argument, the better I am for it.

Please weigh! It's not nearly as intuitive to make a decision in theory debates - I can fill in the gaps for why extinction is more impactful than localized war more easily than I can fill in the gaps for why neg flex matters more/less than research burdens.

default to no rvis <3 medium uphill to change my mind on this one

Topicality (not framework):

I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are your friend.

Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.

Tricks (this is mostly an LD thing):

I used to say that I would never vote on tricks. I've decided it's bad to exclude a style of argumentation just because I don't enjoy it. Here are some things to know if you're reading tricks in front of me:

1 - I won't flow off the doc (I never flow off the doc, but I won't be checking the doc to see if I missed any of your tricks/spikes)

2 - The argument has to have a warrant in the speech it is presented

3 - The reason I've been so opposed to voting on tricks in the past is that I've never heard a trick that met the minimum threshold to be considered an argument

Kritiks (neg):

I tend to like K teams that engage with the aff and have a clear analysis of what's wrong with the aff's model/framing/epistemology/etc. I tend to be a bit annoyed when judging K teams that read word-salad or author-salad Ks, refuse to engage with arguments, expect me to fill in massive gaps for them, don't do adequate weighing/ballot analysis/judge instruction, or are actively hostile toward their opponents. The more of the aforementioned things you do, the more annoyed I'll be. The inverse is also true - the more you actively work to ensure that you don't do these things, the happier I'll be!

Disads:

Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.

Counterplans:

I don't have strong ideological biases about how many condo advocacies the neg gets or what kinds of counterplans are/aren't cheating. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.

Judge kick - you've gotta tell me to do it. I'm not opposed to it, but I won't assume that you want me to unless the 2nr tells me to. No strong opinions for/against judge kick.

currently no strong opinions on things like normal means or counterplan competition on the fiscal redistribution topic. this means you can probably get away with more in front of me as long as you warrant it/read good evidence.

--

Arguments I will NEVER vote for:

-arguments that are actively discriminatory or make the round unsafe ("misgendering good," "let's make the debate about a minor's personal life," other stuff of that nature).

-any argument that attempts to police what a debater wears or how they present (this includes shoes theory/formal clothes theory).

-any argument that denies the existence/badness of oppression (i don't mean i won't vote for "extinction outweighs." i mean i won't vote for "genocide good.")

--

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! if there's anything i can do to make debate more accessible for you, let me know! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.

"It’s one thing to study something, but it’s an entirely different thing to actually experience it." -- Dr. Shani Tahir Mott

i value debate for its ability to teach students about issues and literature that are unlikely to come up otherwise. i hope that this activity shapes the activities and education you pursue outside of it!

-------

i debated in a small region with many outdated practices and graduated with no accomplishments. i'm currently the head policy coach at georgetown day school. outside of debate, i'm studying public health and africana studies at johns hopkins university.

if you’re an asian debater looking for community and resources, i welcome you to apply for the asian debate collective!

-------

i am exhausted and frustrated with how long rounds take, and it's usually avoidable. prep time ends when the email has been sent. document compilation and attaching the file is not free time.

the 1ac should be sent by start time, even if i am not in the room. if it is not, the aff's speaker points will suffer. if the neg has failed to be present and offer their emails in a timely manner, the neg's speaker points will suffer.

-------

quick and easy: i am mediocre to bad at straight policy, theory, and topicality debates. i will try my best though! on the other hand, i am much better at evaluating kritikal and clash rounds.

good and better debating > any of the preferences i list below.

-------

general:

georgetowndaydebate@gmail.com — add me to the email chain.

simdebates@gmail.com — for other inquiries.

go as fast as you want. i will clear each speech no more than twice and if you fail to adapt, you’ll just have to accept that my flow will have missing pieces.

if you want me to flow something, it needs to be read out loud — this includes re-highlighted evidence.

everyone needs to weigh and layer more.

clear extensions for core parts of an argument are absolutely necessary — if you jump straight into the line by line, don’t expect me to extend the rest of the argument for you.

-------

kritiks & fw:

i believe that judges use ballots for kritikal arguments to remedy racial guilt/anxiety, but that is not me. if your only response to any argument read against you is to call it racist, particularly when it relies on unwarranted or circular claims, i am not a good judge for you. for some reason, the disease of anti-intellectualism is rampant in k debate nowadays, and i am uninterested in listening to rounds where arguments would not even be defended by the authors of evidence.

being of a specific identity is not a standalone reason for anyone to get the ballot.

there needs to be far more substantive explanation in these rounds and far less jargon/made-up words.

framework always determines these rounds — at the end of the round, i need to have a clear way to evaluate between the 1ac’s impacts and criticisms of their scholarship.

specific links to the aff’s mechanisms are fantastic, and i love it when there’s evidence that shows you clearly researched and strategized against a specific aff.

you do not need an alt in the 2nr to win. if you are going for one, please give me a reasonable explanation of what it does rather than vague grandstanding.

i think debate is a game, one that have epistemological implications and consequences, but you can debate otherwise.

both teams need to provide a workable model of debate with clearly defined roles of aff/neg teams.

i have a mild preference for clash and education impacts over fairness, but i’ve voted both ways. just weigh well and explain why procedural fairness is an independent good.

a lot of k affs read DAs to fw that are functionally the same thing — labeling arguments differently does not make it a different argument. have distinct and explained warrants.

-------

policy:

this is not my forte so i definitely have a higher bar for explanations.

impact turns are very fun.

-------

theory & topicality:

i evaluate t violations using the plan text and nothing else.

explain very well and don’t be blippy — not fantastic at judging these.

hidden aspec is fine as long as it’s not hidden to me. i flow by ear and won’t go back to the speech doc to double check if it’s there.

EMAIL: mcgin029@gmail.com

POLICY
Slow down; pause between flows; label everything clearly; be aware that I am less familiar with policy norms, so over-explain. Otherwise I try to be more-or-less tab.

LD

I am the head coach at Valley High School and have been coaching LD debate since 1996.

I coach students on both the local and national circuits.

I can flow speed reasonably well, particularly if you speak clearly. If I can't flow you I will say "clear" or "slow" a couple of times before I give up and begin playing Pac Man.

You can debate however you like in front of me, as well as you explain your arguments clearly and do a good job of extending and weighing impacts back to whatever decision mechanism(s) have been presented.

I prefer that you not swear in round.

Carroll High School '19

UT Austin '23

Email: samir.smohsin@gmail.com (add me to the email chain pls)

----- if you are flight 2 pls have the email chain already set up!-----

If the round starts early or on time I'll bump both debater's speaks.

Don't call me judge etc. its awkward, just call me Samir.

-If you want a marked/cut version of a doc that comes out of your prep/CX - just flow

Background: Hey, I'm Samir. I debated for 4 years at Carroll High School and qualified to TFA State and the TOC my senior year. I debated on the national and local circuit so I have no preference between progressive and traditional debate.

General:

- most comfortable with policy args, some theory (as long as its not absurd/concerns what your opponent is wearing or how they dress), and basic phil

-I don't have the greatest understanding of Ks - explain them to me as if I were a 5 year old - same thing goes with more complex/less common phil

-I find myself getting lost or confused often in k aff vs framework debates - don't blitz thru every arg on the lbl and breaking the debate down in later rebuttals will help me be not as confused

-wont vote on args that are blatantly offensive

-s l o w d o w n with online debates, I can't follow super high speed over zoom calls so start off at 60% and work your way up to 80%

-I think reasonability almost always needs a brightline and am not really sure how to evaluate it without one

Other stuff to note:

-I think disclosing at a minimum level is important (first 3, last 3) but for other types of disclosure (full text, open source etc.) I'll just evaluate the arg like a normal theory shell.

-I'll flow along with the doc but don't use it as a crutch to be unclear. If I have to yell clear a couple of times I won't drop speaks but if there's no effort to improve clarity I will.

-please be kind to your opponent, some sass is fine just don't be rude

-compiling the doc is prep but emailing it isn't

-friv theory/tricks are fine and I'll evaluate them like any other argument but I'll have a lower threshold for responses to them

-Super long overviews always mess up my flow bc I'm not sure where to put them; either tell me where to flow them or just make them shorter

-If you've already sent cards in a doc for ur constructive then just send later cards in that same doc

-China authoritarianism good args are kinda iffy for me as a Muslim, feels like they justify the ongoing Uighur oppression and that's not something that sits well with me personally.

How to get better speaks:

-good weighing

-ethos

-having a good understanding of the args ur reading

-good strategy/collapse

-nuanced argument interaction

-being funny

-tasteful adlibs

Updates for 2020:

-I'm a bit new to the format of online debating but here are a few things to keep in mind: 1. Record your speeches locally (on your phone, laptop etc.) in the event the call drops/wifi issues - I think allowing debaters to redo speeches/guess how much time they had left is kinda sketchy. 2. If your mic is unclear, its not your fault. I'll do my best to let you know by saying "clear" and won't penalize you for it.

-Go a bit slower bc online

My email is alex.mork@harker.org. Please add me to the chain

General:

1. An argument is a claim, warrant, and impact. I will not vote on anything that does not meet this threshold and I will vote on basically anything that does. The fact you say the word "because" after your claim does not mean what follows is a warrant.

2. I won’t vote on any argument that I cannot explain back to your opponent after the round. I need to be able to explain it back based off your explanation, not my prior knowledge of the argument.

3. Assuming they meet the threshold set in #1 and #2, I’m willing to vote on “bad” arguments. However, the less intuitive/worse that I consider an argument to be, the lower the threshold I have for the response.

4. If something is conceded, I grant it the full weight of truth. If I did not realize that an argument was being made, then I will not consider it to be conceded.

5. I will attempt to err on the side of least intervention. I think it’s the job of whoever presents an argument to prove the argument is true. So, for example, if the NEG team says “X card is a link to our K because it’s gendered” and then the AFF team says “no link, X card is actually criticizing gender norms, not perpetuating them,” I would consider both these explanations to be lackluster and have no way of resolving the question, but instead of reading the card and coming to my own conclusion, I would err AFF and assume there’s no link because it is the job of the NEG to prove a link to the K, not the job of the AFF to disprove it.

6. **********Debaters have an obligation to flow. You should send a marked version of the doc indicating where cards were cut immediately after the speech, but you should not delete the cards that weren't read. If your opponent wants to know what was/wasn't read, they must take prep or CX time. I will deduct speaks for debaters who don't adhere to this.

7. **********Slow down on analytics. This is especially true now that I don't judge very often! I rarely miss entire arguments but I have recently judged several debates in which I didn't flow a 1ar warrant for an argument that the 2ar collapsed to. I am sympathetic to the difficulty of the 1ar as a speech, but I think the way to navigate this challenge is by making less arguments that are more robustly explained, not vice versa

8. Theory defaults: drop the team for T (or other arguments about the plan), condo, disclosure; drop the argument for everything else; no RVIs; competing interps. These are admittedly very arbitrary and I only created them so that I would have a consistent way of evaluating rounds in which neither side establishes paradigm issues - these defaults can and will change as soon as one team makes an argument to justify their paradigm issues. In fact, I would almost always suggest making a reasonability argument (especially against 1ar theory if you have specific warrants!)

9. I think good evidence is important in so far as it allows debaters to make arguments about author qualifications, recency, the methodology of their studies, quality of warrants, etc... but the onus is on you to make these arguments. I don't decide rounds based on my own readings of evidence unless there is a specific dispute about what a card says.

10. I don’t flow author names

Ethics:

I will end rounds in which I witness clipping because to the best of my current knowledge not clipping cards is an NDCA “rule,” and doc speaks when I see miscut evidence because to the best of my current knowledge, properly cut evidence is a “norm” (although reading theory about miscut evidence or ending the round for an evidence ethics challenge are still fair-game).

At its core, debate is your game. I really don't care what you do as long as you aren't offensive. I do not like intervening. I enjoy good framework and theory debates where both debaters actually clash the most but ultimately, do what you want.

I've been out of debate for almost 2 years so please slow down on tags/interps/numbered lists/anything you think is important and want flowed accurately

Random

· I do not like disclosure- I will vote for it if it is won with warranted arguments but really you couldn't come up with a better argument? cmon son

· Speaks are based on strategy and usually start at a 28.5 and go up or down from there (down if you read disclosure)

· If you win affirming/negating harder, TELL ME WHAT THAT MEANS. This is true for a lot of arguments… explain the implications

· Doc compilation is not prep

Extensions: Low threshold for conceded args. If they concede the voter section of your theory shell, you have to say “extend the voter section” at least. If you extend through a lot of ink, your speaks will drop.

Defaults: Truth testing, competing interps, yes rvi, drop the debater, and theory before the k. Obviously making args will change my evaluation.

Tricks: yeaaaaaaaaaa

Ks: I don't understand a lot of the lit, but a well executed K is impressive. I think K vs. framework debates are interesting. My advice if you want to run a K is to overexplain the implications of the arguments you're running and don't assume I understand all of it. I view role of the ballot debate in a similar fashion to framework debate. That means that you should be doing interaction between your role of the ballot and your opponent’s role of the ballot or framework. If you lose the role of the ballot debate, the impacts of the K only matter if you explicitly link them to your opponent’s role of the ballot or framework.

Theory: I dislike reading dumps and will allow a low threshold for weighing against dumps. Please weigh between warrants for paradigm issures instead of 15 blippy arguments. Deflationary strategies are kewl. Independent voters cool. PLEASE WEIGH BETWEEN STANDARDS

LARP: THE WAY TO WINNING IS WEIGHING, SO WEIGH WAY MORE. Compare arguments. Please do not just read blocks and actually respond to their links and stuff. Counterplans are kewl. Be careful that the turns and blocks you read on the AC make sense with regard to whatever you read.

Framework: Love it. COMPARE AND INTERACT. A good framework debate with weighing and preclusion is really fun to watch. However, weigh between preclusion arguments and explain why yours operates on a higher level instead of just going "I preclude." Also, number arguments so they're easier to flow. Framework vs. ROTB debates are cool to watch. Please explain the card and don’t just repeat the tag. Good explanation shows your understanding and prolly higher speaks.

WDM Valley '20, Williams College '24

As a debater, I did mostly LD and debated framework, tricks, and theory, but I will vote on any argument so long as it is not blatantly rude or offensive. I also have experience with traditional debate.

For online debates: Do not go your top speed! 80-85% is fine

Add me to the email chain -- bella.nadel@gmail.com

Framework>>>>>Theory>>Tricks>K's=LARP>>>High theory

***The only debates I do not enjoy judging are bad tricks debates. Also full-on LARP debates but to a lesser extent. So yes, I do enjoy watching/evaluating K debates, even though I am probably less qualified to evaluate them. I am the least comfortable with high theory positions***

General stuff:

1) I believe debate is a game with real-world implications for its participants, so have fun with whatever you're reading but be conscious of other people present

2) "The way to win is weighing, so weigh way more"

3) Disclosure theory = not a fan. It will make me sad :( Exceptions for very obvious violations like lying about the aff

4) I will say clear or slow if I can't understand you, but at I'll eventually just stop flowing if you don't make adjustments

5) Don't be rude. (Note: There is a fine line between being aggressive and rude. If you have to question which, you're probably being rude)

6) Defaults: no RVI, competing interps, drop the debater on T, drop the arg on theory, presume aff, permissibility negates, truth testing, theory > K. I will ONLY use these if there are no in-round arguments read one way or another.

Speaks:

1) Things that will boost speaks: a) not reading off a doc, b) NC/AC strats, c) good, substantive framework debates, d) otherwise clever, well-executed strategic decisions, e) quality puns, f) if there is a significant, noticeable skill difference between you and your opponent and you win the round in a way that they are able to understand and learn from--that shows strategic flexibility

2) Things that will decrease speaks: a) obviously pre-written 2n’s, b) being abusive in rounds where there is a significant, noticeable skill difference between you and your opponent

3) Things that will not affect speaks: in-round arguments telling me to give you high speaks

Just ask me any other questions before the round/over messenger!

updated for cal '24

email chain: nsaniruth@gmail.com

Aniruth Narayanan (He/Him/His), Berkeley M.E.T. '24, C. Leon King High School '20. Picked up a bid in LD, quartered at states, blue key, sunvite, and elims a couple places my junior year, took senior year off. Although it has been some time since I've debated, I have been judging varsity LD - Cal every year, Glenbrooks, Blue Key, Valley, etc - so I consider myself able to judge most debates. In the past few years it's been primarily LARP debates.

If you make good arguments with good strategy, you win. Go for whatever you're best at.

Prefs Shortcut

Phil/Theory/T - 1

LARP - 1/2 (used to be a 2, but all the debate I've judged in the past 2 years has been LARP so am more familiar with it)

K – 3 (explain warrants and taglines)

NonT/Performance - 4

General Stuff

I will listen to any argument except those that are exclusionary - if you find yourself asking "is this exclusionary?" it probably is. Explain complicated ideas well.

All defaults are super loose; the round is yours. I'm about as close to tabula rasa as you can get. I don't default to a side, do default to comparative worlds, layers can be weighed against each other unless you tell me why not, layers aren't a wash.

Strategy is important. Pick the right arguments to read and collapse well.

Tech > Truth if there is some semblance of truth to an argument (is that actually truth > tech? No idea. I never understood this anyway). No, this doesn't mean you can't read bad arguments, but they still have to be arguments. The worse the argument, the lower the threshold for response and the more work you have to do to justify it.

I will say "clear" and "slow" as many times as need be - but it might get annoying after a while. If you don't clear/slow when I say it, your speaks will reflect that. If it's earlier in the day, ramp up your speed. I flow by ear and I will not flow off the doc (though I will have it open).

CX is not prep, but prep can be CX. I don't flow it, but I do pay attention.

You can read a lot of evidence if you want, but I would prefer that you do comparative analysis with warrants in evidence.

Whatever you want to grill me on, I honestly don't really mind, but I'd prefer it (and I think you would too) if you just clarified the arguments in your last speech how you would after the round is over. The more you grill me, the more brazen I'll be.

When time stops, you stop.

Theory

No shell is "frivolous" to me. Some shells are just bad, others are very strategic because there's no offense to the counter-interp. Read the latter kind.

If a debater justifies competing interps, and the other debater concedes it but fails to provide a competing interp, I will assume (on their behalf) that they defend the violation.

I will vote on disclosure theory. I like creatively planked disclosure shells that make it really hard to justify that particular combination of actions - especially when someone violates their own disclosure interp.

Phrasing things as "voting issues" such as when reading condo bad need to be clear theory arguments for me to evaluate them as theory for uplayering - with a voter.

If paradigm issues (drop the debater, no rvi, competing interps, fairness/education - although you can add more by mention/warrant) are conceded, they don't need to be extended (I'll consider it implicit agreement).

Topicality

Variations of T are welcomed - like extra-topicality. Just make sure you explain as needed.

Spikes/Tricks

Creative tricks are good; bad tricks are bad. If someone catches you being sketchy, be upfront and honest about it. If someone asks you where tricks are i.e a prioris, and you respond with the nc you read and not the a priori you put in the truth testing section above where it says "now negate", I think your answer in cx is binding in the sense it makes me hesitant to vote on the a priori because of the way that it's framed in cx. Just be upfront. Winning arguments is cool. Being shady is not.

If you read a trick that implicitly relies on truth testing but then you don't justify truth testing, I won't justify it for you.

Clearly number spikes, space them, do whatever you need to.

Any argument asking me to grant new responses or evaluate the debate after that speech must be made at least in a speech prior to it (i.e. new 2n responses should be justified in the 1n, not the 2n). I default to evaluating the whole round (I can't believe this is a real sentence I'm writing).

Philosophy

This was my go to as a debater. I don't think as much about authors any more, so I've forgotten the nuances. Include how offense is filtered under a given framework (i.e. is it consequentialist? if not, what matters and why does it matter? when your opponent tries to implicate their offense under your framework, is that legit? why? etc.).

Fine with voting on skep triggers, also good with them being used as framework justifications. I like seeing metaframeworks, framework conditions, takeouts, hijacks, etc.

Kritiks

If you use big words in the tagline that the average high school teacher would not understand, I probably won't either. Give me clear overviews and go through the 2NR in a systematic and strategic manner for high speaks. The 2NR shouldn't be just an overview or a 6 minute blip storm; do a mix of both that responds to the arguments efficiently and in an organized manner. Extensions through ink make me sad, particularly when they're accompanied by a pre-written generic overview.

LARP

If there's a lot of cards in the round like the 1ar reads new cards and the 2nr reads a new card or two, make the weighing as clear as you possibly can. Ex. If you say author qual, make sure you tell me what that qualification is or if you tell me your evidence is more recent, something that changed that explains why the recency matters.

Do more than just strength of link weighing. Please. Include the warrants of why claims authors make are true.

I'm fine with analytics against empirics. This means I won't intervene and say, this person has a card and you don't so you must be wrong; it's just that I'll evaluate it. In my opinion, it normally is easier to win if you have a card since empirics probably do need empirical warrants, but sometimes causal analysis to beat back a card analytically if it misunderstands something is fine in my book as long as you warrant it.

If you say things like "this thumps the disad" include like one sentence of what it is you're meaning by that in plain english. I remember some things, but debate has changed since when I was debating.

NonT Affs

I'm good with these. Articulate a clear ballot story of why you should win the round. I list myself as a 4 however as I haven't judged these rounds and didn't read these myself but I'm not biased against these.

If something is an independent voter, do some work explaining why it is an independent voter and weigh it in the context of the round. Just (read: only) saying a phrase like "perfcon - it's an independent voter. It's pre-meditated murder" is the opposite of this.

Flashing/Emailing/Stealing Prep

Prep ends when the flash drive leaves the computer or when the email has been sent. Putting the document together is prep. Stealing prep is wack.

Speaks

I'll disclose speaks - ask me if I forget.

Strategy is the main factor. Creative positions will also get boosts. I still think debate is about making persuasive arguments, so the more persuasive you are, the higher speaks I'll give you. Using CX well will also boost speaks.

If you had a bunch of ways to win the round, and you pick a bad option (i.e. none of them) and give your opponent more outs than they should've gotten, I will still give you the win, but your speaks will reflect the missed opportunities.

Scale depends on the tournament, in general I'll (try) average a 28.5 but I'm very sympathetic to the screw as it's happened to me.

Email: spencer.orlowski@gmail.com

please add me to the email chain

New Paradigm 4/26/24

Top level thoughts

I have voted on pretty much everything. I prefer depth and clash to running from debate. Engaging will be rewarded.

Don’t be a jerk to your opponent or me. We are all giving up lots of free time to be here. I won't vote on oppressive arguments.

I think preparation is the cornerstone of the value this activity offers. You shouldn’t rely on theory to avoid reading.

I don't think it’s possible to be tab, but I try not to intervene. Arguments must have a warrant or they aren’t an argument. This applies to all debate styles. (Ex. "6-7-4-6-3" is not a full argument)

I shouldn’t have to have background on your argument to understand it. I have read and seen a lot, but that will be irrelevant to my decision. I won’t fill in gaps for you.

I think most debates are way closer and more subjective than people give them credit for.

Collapsing is a good idea generally.

I will not flow off the doc. That is cheating.

Don’t let my preferences determine your strategy. I’m here for you! Don't over adapt to me.

General thoughts on arguments

Ks: My favorite literature. I have a fair bit of experience with most lit bases commonly read and I really enjoy clash and k v ks debates. I wish I saw more K v K debates. I dislike long overviews and super generic links. I think critical literature is great, but I think you should at least attempt to tie it to the topic if possible. Spec advantage links are great. I will vote on non-T affs and I will vote on T.

Policy Args: I have the most experience evaluating these arguments (I debated them for 8 years). I think comparing evidence and links is more important than generic impact weighing. Turns are OP, and I will vote on smart analytics. I only really read evidence if debaters don’t give me a good mechanism to avoid it. I tend to default to offense/defense paradigm, but I’m open to whatever framing you want to read.

Frameworks: I find phil frameworks interesting and fun. I wish these debates were a bit deeper and used actual phil warrants instead of just extending tricky drops. I think LD is a really great opportunity to get into normative ethics.

Theory – I find frivolous theory a bit annoying (despite what my pf teams might have you believe), but I flow these debates pretty thoroughly and evaluate them pretty objectively. I will accept intuitive responses even if they are light on proper terminology. (i.e not explicitly saying the word counter-interp)

Tricks – Lots of different tricks that I view differently. Things like determinism and skep are better than mis-defining words or 15 spikes. I find good apriories interesting. I have a fairly low bar for intuitive responses. I will probably not vote on “evaluate after x speech”. If I cant flow it I wont vote on it. Hiding one-line paradoxes in tiny text after cards is obviously a waste of everyone's time

For PF

2^nd rebuttal should collapse and frontline

If it takes you longer than a min to produce evidence, it doesn't exist. I think you should just send all cards before you read them.

If I think you inappropriately paraphrased, I will ignore evidence. Read cards to avoid me thinking your paraphrasing is bad.

Use email chains. Send cases and cards before you start your speech. Stop wasting everyone's time with outdated norms

~Updated for Feb 2022~

FYI I have not judged in approximately a year and I have not interacted with debate in just as long. I would recommend taking this into account while prepping strats and speaking MUCH SLOWER than you usually would.

Conflicts: Walt Whitman, Lexington, Hunter, Hamilton RM

Send docs: 19.prasadm@gmail.com

I did LD and PF at Lexington HS (MA) 2015-2019.

Disclaimers:

Hello! This is ZOOM debate which means it is GLITCHY and GROSS pls SLOW down!

Used to be Yale 2020, now thoughts on e-debate in general: I'm tired, I am burned out, and I get very bored listening to badly explained Baudrillard Ks multiple rounds in a row. If you do pref me, know that double flighted tournaments make my eyes *burn* and I will be flowing on paper for most rounds if it's a double flighted tournament. I used to care a lot about the things listed below. To some extent I still do, but I haven't taught/intensely thought about debate since summer 2019 so at the moment I'm not very invested in specific types of arguments or up to speed with whatever is trendy this season. Judging over Zoom is exhausting and it's honestly pretty hard for me to flow that well with little voices screaming out of my laptop. Please, please, please, for the love of all things good, SLOW DOWN. At least for tags. I'm begging.

PLEASE TRIGGER WARN APPROPRIATELY!!! If you don't know how please ask!

Postrounding is a no <3. Questions about strats are fine, but you won't change my ballot.

LD:

Short version.

Ks we love. LARP/policy is solid. Traditional is also good. Phil is kinda meh, you'd need to explain it very well. Please leave your tricks, skep, and frivolous theory at home, I don't trust myself to evaluate them. Probably okay at evaluating T/theory if there is a persuasive abuse story. If you read T/theory the shell needs to have an impact. Disclosure and email chains are good. When you extend or make new arguments don't forget to implicate them! Tell me what comes first and why.

Long version.

I used to vibe p hard with Mina's paradigm and I share a lot of her views on debate. I was also heavily influenced by Paloma O'Connor, CQ, and David Asafu-Adjaye. As a result, I'm not a fan of the whole "debate is a game" mindset and doing whatever it takes to win a round. Debate is about education, not about your record. Also -- I'm sorry, fairness is not a voter.

Kritiks/Non-T K affs/Performance

I mostly ran these as a debater so these are my favorite arguments. I really like hearing performance affs but you also need to be able to point to something the aff actually does.

That being said, don't read random Ks in front of me just because of my paradigm. I need to see a clear link and know what the alt does. Links of omission are ~questionable~ and I'm sympathetic to args against them. I'm also extremely picky when it comes to people reading and other kritiks relating to indigenous scholarship. I think a lot of authors are bastardized and commodified in debate and I see this the most with indigenous scholarship. Not uber familiar with all K lit, especially newer pessimism arguments.

New microaggression independent voter args that seem to be trendy and function on some sort of level between theory and K, but probably above policy?

Impact these out if you're reading them. I'm not going to vote off of a blippy one line claiming something is an "independent voter" or a "voting issue" and no implication of the argument. Also, don't just drop all the other flows because you think something is an independent voter -- I don't think this is very strategic; explain how it interacts with the other flows and which layer of the round it should be evaluated on. I don't really enjoy voting off these arguments...tbh they make me kinda uncomfy, but if they're warranted and impacted I will.

Plans/CPs/DAs/LARPy policy stuff

These are cool, low key would like to judge more of them. Just be wary of super long link chains. I default to comparative worlds in most debates (esp when framing becomes murky) so this is probably the type of debate best equipped for that.

T/Theory

I did not like these arguments as a debater and I generally do not enjoy judging them. I'm also not very good at judging them so PLEASE make the abuse story very clear and SLOW DOWN A LOT.

Post Big Lex 2020 edit: I'm honestly starting to hate these arguments less. I'm not completely opposed to T and would probably be down to judge more non-T K affs vs T rather than bad/awkward K v Ks.

Yale 2020: Idk if this is a new thing but y'all aren't impacting your shells. Like great you just spent a minute reading T, but didn't tell me what to do about it. DTD or DTA, but if not idk what I'm supposed to do with the shell lol.

Blake 2020: If you read disclosure against a trad/small school debater who is not familiar with the wiki I will probably not vote on the shell,,, like bruh why?

T v K

I went for K over T a lot as a debater but I'm gonna try to be tab about this and say both sides are gonna need hella warrants and hella weighing when making these arguments.

Tricks/a prioris/friv theory

just no <3.

Speaker Points

I start at a 28.5 and then move up or down depending on what y'all do. Go slow at first and let me get used to you before you go full speed. I'll say clear 2-3 times but if nothing changes don't expect my flow to be that great and I'm not gonna check the speech doc to play catch up. Be strategic and don't be rude and you'll probably be happy with your speaks. Read: adapt to your opponent if they have considerably less experience than you. I am not afraid of giving a mean debater with a good strat a 26.

PF:

I didn't do a ton of PF because I don't think it's very nuanced/not well-structured. Biases aside, just make good extensions, do a good amount of weighing and READ ACTUAL CARDS.

email: cr30505@gmail.com - yes, add me to the email chain. please feel free to reach out by email/fb (I'm more likely to respond on fb) if you have questions.

I debated circuit LD at WDM Valley for four years and qualified to the TOC, receiving four bids, during my senior year. I have taught at NSD Flasgship (2018,2019), NSD Philadelphia (2018,2019), and TDC (2019) and I've been coaching LD since graduating in 2018.

tl;dr - it's your round, debate it how you want to.

I will evaluate the round on the flow, everything here explains my defaults but if you make arguments as to why the round should be adjudicated in a particular way I will evaluate debate through your lens. please make the round as clear as possible - weighing is your friend, give clear overviews, justify everything, and explain. tell me the implications of your arguments.

I have the most experience with framework debate, identity K debate, and theory debate.

defaults: (this only matters if no one makes arguments to the contrary)

• epistemic confidence
• competing interps, no rvis
• theory > k > substance
• pragmatics > semantics
• truth testing > comparing worlds

misc:

• I’ll say ‘slow’ or ‘clear’ if necessary.
• I am fine with flex prep.
• I love a good framework/identity k debate, it makes my heart happy (you will probably get good speaks).
• I very much think you need an impact mechanism (a standard text, a ROB, etc.) -- otherwise, i will be left to evaluate impacts as I see fit which probably won't make you happy.
• extensions need warrants and impacts, even if you are extending a conceded argument. If you are extending a case that is conceded, it isn't sufficient to say "extend my whole case."
• if you are debating a novice or someone who lacks a lot of circuit experience, please make the round educational and inclusive. this does not necessarily mean go full-on traditional (although that's definitely fine), but it does mean don't go full speed and a bunch of offs (your speaks will go way down).
• please be ready to debate when you walk into the room – this means pre-flowing during your opponent's prep if you need to and having the AC speech doc ready to send.

theory:

• theory violations need to be verifiable. just provide screenshots please! if someone makes an i meet to an unverifiable shell with no verification (i.e. a disclosure shell without screenshots or a coin flip shell that's just word of mouth), i will default to the 'i meet' being true.
• feel free to read theory for strategic reasons (i.e. friv theory) or because there’s actual abuse.
• if you go for reasonability, please provide a brightline. if you don't provide a brightline, or provide a brightline of gut check, i will probably gut check to competing interps.

Valley HS '14, University of Chicago BA '18, JD '21

I was a national circuit debater and later a coach at West Des Moines Valley. Since 2018, my involvement in debate has been limited to semi-regular judging. I am now a lawyer practicing in Des Moines.

I am fine with almost any warranted argument, run what you want to run. However, I won't vote for an argument that I don't understand. I don't pretend to understand stuff that doesn't make sense. You should thus think hard before reading "high theory" or bad tricks. In general, I probably judge like a rustier version of my former students and colleagues at Valley.

If you are one of the faster (or less clear) debaters on the national circuit, it is probably a good idea to be a touch slower than your top speed, especially online. Slow down a lot on theory interps and plan texts. I'll let you know if I can't understand you. I don't flow off speech docs, and I don't vote on arguments that I don't understand, so clarity is in your self-interest and hiding gimmicks is not.

I like: (1) Analytic philosophy. (2) Creative arguments of any style. Read your weird stuff. (3) NC-AC and straight ref 1NCs. (4) Weighing on all layers, including framework. (5) Good traditional rounds.

I don't like: (1) Reading for a full rebuttal, especially a late one. Your speaks are inversely correlated to your time spent reading. (2) Being mean, rude or exclusionary. Don't frivolously uplayer or spread versus inexperienced or traditional debaters. Generally be the sort of person in round that you want to be out of round. (3) Blippy, purportedly game over arguments, including most tricks and independent voters. I need to actually understand the arg, why it means you win, and the warrants for both. (4) Unreasonable disclosure theory. If you think your interp might be unreasonable, either because of your opponent or the violation (no new affs bad please), read something else.

Affiliation: Woodrow Wilson High School (DC- 2015-2020)

Other Coaching positions: T.A. Edison High School (VA -1993-1997), W.T. Woodson High School (VA--1997-2000).

Email: tim.stroud@k12.dc.gov. Please use the File Share function on NSDA Campus if it is available over an e-mail exchange.

Coach of 25+ years at the high school level. Coached debaters throughout the years who have excelled at the TOC, nationals, invitationals, etc. I think of myself as a tabula rasa judge. Beware when I have to do more work than the debaters in the round I am far less inclined to vote in a debater's favor. Simply put, the better debater is one who presents, defends, and ends their advocacy with a clear logical/analytical position based upon solid research and an understanding of the proposed resolution.

Avoid at all costs: Flex prep, tricks, non-topical positions, wasted time in rounds doing doc exchanges, long roadmaps, time suck arguments, cond args in LD (if the intent isn't to debate it throughout the round, then don't put it out on the flow...), generic shells with absolutely no links to the resolution--Baudrillard, etc. IF YOUR advocacy IS TO DISRESPECT, QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF, OR MAKE A MOCKERY OF DEBATE please change your tactics OR consider finding another activity to engage in.

Framework/Standards Debate--Set a standard for the round that makes sense in terms of the activity. If you are debating policy, make a policy argument and support it accordingly. If you are debating LD, let's hear about the resolution. Tangential theory arguments that lack a clear link make the purpose of the resolution suspect. I vote on whether to affirm or negate the resolution...not a critique on the consequential outcome of forced policy parameters.

Case Structure: Contentions should be carefully crafted, contain warrants and impacts and link back to the standards in order to provide a well researched/reasoned case position. A case position that is founded upon theory arguments that is without research or evidence to support the basic claims are simply assertions and will be treated as such. If they are run and the opponent fails to point that out they are passing up an opportunity for an easy ballot. Same goes for warrantless case/plan spikes that are advocated for in the constructive and then neglected/punted for the remainder of the round which serve merely as a strategic time suck for the opponent. I am not a judge that will pretty much ever vote for tricks, time suck arguments, or spreading intended to overwhelm the opponent. If you are offering 6 off case arguments in LD then I am probably listening to poorly constructed, warrentless claims that don't have a chance of overcoming affirmative presumption. Yup, I've actually voted on presumption arguments offered by the aff in the last year.

Neg: if the only thing run is a structural security K or overly general CP shells then be prepared to prove and defend specific links to the resolution. Aff debaters who can chip away at uniqueness, internal links, impacts, or alternatives are greatly rewarded.

Speed--I can flow it if you can get it out...however, if it is unintelligible or full of debate jargon that doesn't either further the argument or advance your position then I will be far less compelled to write it down, understand it, or vote for it at the end of the round. Simple lines of analytics are not arguments...they should be explained.

Flowing--I do

Time--Feel free to time yourselves, but excessive road maps, getting set up, outside of CX card checks, and things that should have been accomplished in CX or during prep time are a waste of time. Unless there are a slew of arguments that need to be reorganized for some reason at the top of the speech, simply sign-post as you speak.

RFD: If the tournament allows it I will provide my decision at the end of the debate. It is based upon the debater that provided--throughout the round--a logically sound set of arguments that are presented in a cogent manner. I have little tolerance for high school students who continue their advocacy during the RFD. If you would like to engage in a dialogue about the round during breaks in the tournament feel free to approach me in the hallway or cafeteria.

Speaking: This is a communication activity that carries with it standards for decorum. If you are appearing before a judge for the first time, I coach my debaters to always put their best foot forward. That goes towards always defaulting toward the norm that the judge expects you to stand for CX, address your advocacy toward the judge, and show a level of courteousness that one might encounter in any professional work environment. Speaker points reflect all of these elements.

I debated LD for three years for Strake Jesuit (after a brief period in PF). I qualified for TFA State and TOC in LD, and I have instructed at TDC and NSD. I am conflicted with Strake Jesuit. Contact me/add me to docs at jpstuckert@gmail.com

You can call me "JP." "James," "Mr. Stuckert" or "judge" are fine but weird to me.

For online rounds:

1. Keeping local recordings of speeches is good. You should do it.
2. If I or another judge call “clear” video chat systems often cut your audio for a second. This means (a) you should prioritize clarity to avoid this and (b) even repeat yourself when “clear” is called if it’s a particularly important argument.
3. I don’t like to read off docs, but if there's an audio problem in an online round, I will glance to make sure I at least know where you are. I would really prefer not to be asked to backflow from a doc if there's a tech issue, hence local recordings above.
4. You should probably be at like 70% of your normal speed while online.

· I aim to be a neutral party minimizing intervention while evaluating arguments made within the speech times/structure set by the tournament or activity to pick one winner and loser for myself. Some implications:

o The speech structure of LD includes CX. Don't take it as prep and don't go back on something you commit to in CX (unless it's a quick correction when you misspeak, or is something ambiguous). I generally flow cx and factor it into speaker points, but arguments must still be made in other speeches.

o The speech structure also precludes overt newness. Arguments which are new in later speeches should be implications, refutations, weighing or extensions of already existing arguments. Whether 2N or 2AR weighing is allowable is up for debate and probably contextual. Reversing a stance you have already taken is newness -- e.g. you can't kick out of weighing you made if your opponent didn't answer it. (Obviously you can kick condo advocacies unless you lose theory.)

o I won't listen to double-win or double-loss arguments or anything of the sort. You also can't argue that you should be allowed to go over your speech time.

o Being a neutral party means my decision shouldn't involve anything about you or your opponent that would render me a conflict. If I were involved in your prefs, I would consider myself to essentially be a coach, so I won't listen to pref/strike Ks. If other types of out-of-round conduct impact the round, I will evaluate it (e.g. disclosure).

o Judge instruction and standards of justification on the flow are very important, and if they are not explicit, I look to see if they are implicit before bringing to bear my out-of-round inclinations. If two debaters implicitly agree on some framing issue, I treat it as a given.

o Evidence ethics: I will allow a debater to ask to stake the round on an evidence ethics issue if it involves: (1) brackets/cutting that changes the meaning of a card; (2) outright miss-attribution including lying about an author's name, qualifications, or their actual position; (3) alterations to the text being quoted including ellipses, mid-paragraph cutting, and changing words without brackets. Besides these issues, you can challenge evidence with theory or to make a point on the line-by-line. For me, you should resolve the following on the flow: (1) brackets that don't change meaning; (2) taking an author's argument as a premise for a larger position they might not totally endorse; (3) cases where block quotes or odd formatting makes it unclear if something is a mid-paragraph cut; (4) not being able to produce a digital copy of a source in-round. If another judge on a panel has a broader view on what the round can be staked on, I'll just default to agreeing it is a round-staking issue.

· Despite my intention to avoid intervention, I am probably biased in the following ways:

o On things like T framework and disclosure I think there is an under-discussed gap between "voting on theory can set norms" to "your vote will promote no more and no less than the text of my interp in this activity."

o I will be strongly biased against overtly offensive things (arguments which directly contravene the basic humanity of a marginalized group). I don’t think it’s prima facie offensive to read moral philosophy that denies some acts are intrinsically evil (like skep or strict ends-based ethical theories) or which denies that consequences are morally relevant (like skep or strict means-based theories). I also don't think generic impact turns against big stick impacts are innately offensive. But I will certainly listen to Ks or independent voters indicting any of those things.

· Other:

o Speaks: each speech counts, including CX. Strategy and well-warranted arguments are the two biggest factors. My range typically doesn't go outside 28 to 29.5. I adjust based on how competitive the tournament is. I don't disclose them.

o Be polite to novices, even if you can win a round in 20 seconds it’s not always kind to do so. Just be aware of how your actions might make them feel.

o I am usually unpersuaded by rhetorical appeals that take it for granted that some debate styles (K, LARP, phil, theory, tricks) are worse than others, but you can and should make warranted arguments comparing models of debate.

.

Old paradigm, I will no longer give extra speaks for anything listed as extra speaks, but I think this paradigm is a classic: https://tinyurl.com/yyhknlsn

[Updated 3/3/2021] In fact, here is a list of things I dislike that I will probably not be giving good speaks for: https://tinyurl.com/55u4juwp

Email: conal.t.mcginnis@gmail.com

Tricks: 1*

Framework: 1

Theory: 1

K: 6

LARP: Strike

To clarify: I like K's and LARP the LEAST (as in, you should rate me a 6 if you like Ks and strike me if you LARP a lot) and I like Tricks, Framework, and Theory the MOST (you should rate me a 1 if you like Tricks, Framework, and Theory a lot).

Util is bad enough to be beaten by sneezing on it

Overall I am willing to vote on anything that isn't an instance of explicit isms (racism, sexism, etc.).

Other than that, here's a bunch of small things in a list. I add to this list as I encounter new stuff that warrants being added to the list based on having difficulty of decision in a particular round:

1. Part in parcel of me not being a great judge for LARP due to my low understanding of complex util scenarios is that I am not going to be doing a lot of work for y'all. I also will NOT be reading through a ton of cards for you after the round unless you specifically point out to me cards that I should be reading to evaluate the round properly.

2. I know it's nice to get to hide tricks in the walls of text but if you want to maximize the chances that I notice something extra special you should like slightly change the tone or speed of delivery on it or something.

3. If you have something extremely important for me to pay attention to in CX please say "Yo judge this is important" or something because I'm probably prepping or playing some dumbass game.

4. I will evaluate all speeches in a debate round.

"Evaluate after" arguments: If there are arguments that in order for me to evaluate after a certain speech I must intervene, I will do so. For example, if there is a 1N shell and a 1AR I-meet, I will have to intervene to see if the I-meet actually meets the shell.

Update: In order for me to evaluate "evaluate after" arguments, I will have to take the round at face value at the point that the speeches have stopped. However, as an extension of the paradigm item above, the issue is that many times in order for me to determine who has won at a particular point of speeches being over, I need to have some explanation of how the debaters thing those speeches play out. If either debater makes an argument for why, if the round were to stop at X speech, they would win the round (even if this argument is after X speech) I will treat it as a valid argument for clarifying how I make my decision. Assuming that the "evaluate after" argument is conceded/true, I won't allow debaters to insert arguments back in time but if they point out something like "judge, if you look at your flow for the round, if you only evaluate (for example) the AC and the NC, then the aff would win because X," then I will treat it as an argument.

Update P.S.: "Evaluate after" arguments are silly. I of course won't on face not vote on them, but please reconsider reading them.

Update P.S. 2: "Evaluate after" causes a grandfather paradox. Example: If "Evaluate after the 1NC" is read in the 1NC, it must be extended in the 2NR in order for me as the judge to recognize it as a won argument that changes the paradigmatic evaluation of the round. However, the moment that paradigmatic shift occurs, I no longer consider the 2NR to have happened or been evaluated for the purposes of the round, and thus the "Evaluate after the 1NC" argument was never extended and the paradigmatic evaluation shift never occurred.

5. "Independent voters" are not independent - they are dependent entirely on what is almost always a new framework that involves some impact that is presumed to be preclusive. I expect independent voter arguments to have strong warrants as to why their micro-frameworks actually come first. Just saying "this is morally repugnant so it's an independent voter" is not a sufficient warrant.

Also - independent voters that come in the form of construing a framework to an implication requires that you actually demonstrate that it is correct that that implication is true. For example, if you say "Kant justifies racism" and your opponent warrants why their reading of the Kantian ethical theory doesn't justify racism, then you can't win the independent voter just because it is independent.

6. I will no longer field arguments that attempt to increase speaker points. I think they are enjoyable and fun but they likely are not good long term for the activity, given that when taken to their logical conclusion, each debater could allocate a small amount of time to a warranted argument for giving them a 30, and then simply concede each others argument to guarantee they both get maximal speaks (and at that point speaker points no longer serve a purpose).

7. My understanding of unconditional advocacies is that once you claim to defend an advocacy unconditionally you are bound to defending any disadvantages or turns to that advocacy. It does not mean you are bound to spend time extending the advocacy in the 2NR, but if the aff goes for offense in the 2AR that links to this unconditional advocacy and the neg never went for that advocacy, the aff's offense on that flow still stands.

Update: Role of the Ballots are frameworks and do not have a conditionality.

8. Don't like new 2AR theory arguments.

9. I don't time! Please time yourselves and time each other. I highly recommend that you personally use a TIMER as opposed to a STOPWATCH. This will prevent you from accidentally going over time! If your opponent is going over time, interrupt them! If your opponent goes over time and you don't interrupt them, then there's not much I can do. If you are certain they went over time and your opponent agrees to some other way to reconcile the fact that they went over time, like giving you more time as well, then go ahead. I do not have a pre-determined solution to this possibility. I only have this blurb here because it just happened in a round so this is for all of the future rounds where this may happen again.

10. If you do something really inventive and interesting and I find it genuinely funny or enjoyable to listen to and give good speaks for it, don't run around and tell any teammate or friend who has me as a judge to make the same arguments. If I see the exact same arguments I will probably consider the joke to be stale or re-used. Particularly funny things MIGHT fly but like, if I can tell it's just a ploy for speaks I will be sadge.

11. In general, for online events, say "Is anyone not ready" instead of "Is everyone ready" solely because my speaking is gated by pressing unmute, which is annoying when I have my excel sheet pulled up. I'll stop you if I'm not ready, and you can assume I'm ready otherwise. (However, for in person events, say "Is everyone ready" because I'm right there!)

12. I will not vote for you if you read "The neg may not make arguments" and the neg so much as sneezes a theory shell at you.

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

For traditional rounds: speak and argue however you want (bar racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other ism or phobia)

*WHEN YOU READ TRICKS: I PREFER BEING UP FRONT ABOUT THEM. Pretending you don't know what an a priori is is annoying. Honestly, just highlight every a priori and tell your opponent: "here are all the a prioris"**.

**Seriously, I have yet to see anyone do this. Do it, it would be funny, I think.

My email is beccatraber (at) gmail (dot) com. I want to be on the email chain. I don't disclose speaks.

I am a debate coach and former teacher at Lake Highland Prep school. I help run NSD Flagship on site. I'm currently a law student at Texas.

Added Nov 19, 2022: Several recent rounds made me think I needed to make something clear. I probably won't find your arguments that funny--I am old, I've certainly seen it before. Please don't waste my time with meme rounds stuffed full with things like shoes theory or other outrageous offs. Particularly don't run things where the joke basically depends on it being funny to care about something related to social justice. I have no aversion to tricky or clever arguments, but I do strongly care about argument quality and if it's something that's been floating around since 2004, I've definitely seen it too many times to actually find it clever. Your speaks will suffer if you don't take this seriously.

MJP Shorthand:

I predominately coach k, phil, and theory debaters. I'm comfortable judging any given round. I regularly vote for every type of case/debater. If you want to know what my preferences are, the following is pretty accurate:

K - 1

Phil - 1

Theory - 2

Tricks - 3

Policy - 3** (see details below, in the circuit section)

(My debaters told me to add those numbers, but it bears repeating: I can and will judge whatever round you want me to have. This is just what makes me happiest to judge)

Traditional LD Paradigm:

(If you are reading this at a CFL, this is what you should focus on. You can read the circuit thing if you want, but this overrules it in a very non-circuit context.)

Overall, I want to judge the debate you want me to judge, so you do you. A few thoughts about what I think on things:

1. Please don't go new in the second speeches, especially the 2AR. I will not evaluate new evidence or new framing that your opponent doesn't have a chance to answer.
2. If an argument is dropped and unresponded to in the first chance it has to be responded to (eg, the NC doesn't respond to something in the AC), I consider it true. You can't respond to it directly, but you may frame the argument or weigh against it. You can contest the implications.
3. I flow the whole round on my computer. That's how I make my decision. That's why I am typing the whole time.
4. I would prefer if you time yourself--I am very out of the habit of time signals. Tell me if you want them.
5. In general, I think the value/criterion is crucial for LD. You must normatively justify a criterion that is capable of serving as a measuring stick for what impacts matter in the round. This means that ideally for me, your criterion should be warranted in terms of why it is the right way to think about morality, not just defining it. This has the effect of me generally preferring criteria that are specific actions ("not treating people as a means to an end") than broad references to the intellectual history of the idea ("Kant's categorical imperative.") To generalize: criteria should have a verb.
6. I am willing to exclude consequentialist impacts if the framework is won explaining why I should.
7. Comparative impacting is very important to me. I want to know why your argument is good/true, but I want to know that in terms of why your opponent's argument is bad/false.
8. Be extremely clear about what you think is aff ground and what is neg ground and why. I've judged a lot of CFL debates lately where there has been intense disagreement about what the aff could defend--be clear when that's happening and try to explain why your approach is more consistent with the literature. Part of that involves looking for definitions and sources in context: avoid using general dictionaries for technical terms.
9. If you raise issues like the author qualifications or any general problem with the way that your opponent warrants something, I need an argument from you as to why that matters. For instance, don't just say "this evidence is older than my evidence," point out the intervening event that would make me think the date matters.
10. I am fine with speed in theory, but it is very important to me that everyone is on the same page. If your opponent is not used to flowing full spreading, please don't. You may speak quickly, you may sit down, you may do whatever jargon you like--as long as you prioritize sharing the space and really think about explaining your arguments fully.
11. I don't mind you reading progressive arguments, but it is very important to me that everyone understand them. What that means is that you are welcome to read a k or topicality, but you have a very high burden of articulating its meaning and function in the round. I'll vote on T, for instance, but I'm going to consciously abandon my assumptions about T being a voting issue. If you want me to vote on it, you must explain it in round, in a way that your opponent understands. The difference between me and a more traditional judge will mostly be that I won't be surprised or off-put by the argument, but you still have to justify it to me.
12. I tend not to be allowed to disclose, but I will give oral feedback after the round. You don't have to stay for it, but I'm happy to answer any questions you have!

Circuit LD Paradigm:

Qualifications: I debated on the national circuit for the Kinkaid School, graduated 2008. It's a long time ago, but I finaled at the TOC and won several national tournaments. I've been coaching and teaching on the national circuit since. I am finishing my dissertation at Yale University in Political Theory. In Fall 2020, I started working as a full-time teacher at Lake Highland Prep in Florida. I've taught at more camps than I care to think about at present, including top labs at NSD and TDC.

Shorthand:

K - 1

Phil - 1

Theory - 2

Tricks - 3

Policy - 3** (see details below)

Some general explanations of those numbers & specific preferences, roughly put into the categories:

K

I am well-read in a wide variety of critical literature. I'm familiar with the array of authors commonly read in debate.

I like k-affs, both topical and non-topical. I generally buy method links, method perms, advocacy links, advocacy perms, and so on. I can and do buy impact turns. That being said: I also regularly vote against ks, and am willing to hear arguments about acceptable and unacceptable k/link/perm/alt practices.

I think it is important to be able to articulate what the alt/advocacy looks like as a material practice, but I think that's possible and persuasive for even the most high theory and esoteric ks.

The critical literatures I've coached or read the authors myself include (but aren't limited to): ableism, a variety of anti-capitalisms/marxisms including Jodi Dean, anthropocentrism, a variety of anti-Blackness literatures, Baudrillard, semiocapitalism, ecology critiques, securitization/threat construction, nationalism critiques, a variety of queer theories, Heidegger, Deleuze, Laruelle, Lacan, Derrida, Foucault, Bataille, and others. I'm old and I read a lot. I'm comfortable in this space.

Ontological Pessimism: I am uncomfortable with debaters reading ontologically pessimistic positions about identity groups that they do not belong to. I won't auto-drop the debater reading it, but I am an easy get for an argument that they should lose by the opponent.

As a general thing, I would like to strongly remind you that these are positions about real people who are in the room with you, and you should be mindful of that when you deploy narratives of suffering as a way to win the round. And yes, this applies to "invisible" identities as well. If you're reading an ontologically pessimist position, especially if the thrust of the debate is about how things that are or are not consistent with that identity, and things that identity cannot or can do--I completely think it's fair game for your opponent to ask you if you identify in that way.

If you're not willing to answer the question, perhaps you shouldn't be running the case. I've sat through a lot of disability debates recently and I'm starting to get very frustrated with the way that people casually talk about disabled people, without any explicit accountability to disabled humans as people in the space and not just figures of Lacanian abjection. I will vote on it, but try not to be a jerk. This isn't just a debate argument.

If you read a slur or insult based on an identity that doesn't apply to you (race, gender, ability, class...anything), I am not voting for you. You lose. There's no debate argument that I'll listen to justifying it. Even if it is an example of a bad thing: I don't care. You lose. Cut around it. Changing letters around isn't redacting it if you still read it.

Policy FW/T-Must-Be-Topical: I regularly vote both that affs must be topical and that they don't have to be. I regularly coach in both directions. I think the question is very interesting and one of my favorite parts of debate--when done with specific interaction with the content of the aff. I particularly like non-standard T-FW and TVAs which aren't the classic "must defend the hypothetical implementation of a policy action."

Accessibility note for performances: If you don't flash the exact text of your speech, please do not play any additional sounds underneath your speaking. If there is sound underneath your speaking, please flash the exact text of what you are reading. I do not want to undermine the performance you want to engage in and whichever option you prefer is fine for me. It is fine to have part of your speech be on paper with music underneath and then turn the music off when you go off paper. I struggle to understand what is being said over noise and I'm uncomfortable being unable to know what is being said with precision.

Phil

I am well-read in a variety of philosophical literature, predominantly in the post-Kantian continental tradition and political theory. I also enjoy a well-constructed phil case. Some of my favorite debates are k v phil, also--I see them generally as dealing with the same questions and concerns.

For phil positions, I do think it is important that the debater be able to explain how the ethical conception and/or the conception of the subject manifests in lived human reality.

I am generally more persuaded by epistemic confidence than epistemic modesty, but I think the debate is usually malformed and strange--I would prefer if those debates deal with specific impact scenarios or specifics of the phil framework in question.

I prefer detailed and well-developed syllogisms as opposed to short and unrelated prefer-additionalys. A good "prefer-additionally" should more or less be a framework interaction/pre-empt.

In general, I've been in this activity a long time. The frameworks I've coached or read the authors myself include (but aren't limited to): Kant, Hegel, Marx, alienation, Levinas, Butler, Agonism, Spinoza, Agamben, Hobbes, contractualism/contractarianism, virtue ethics, testimony... I'm really solid on framework literatures.

Theory

I'm willing to listen to either reasonability or competing interpretations.

I don't assume either fairness or jurisdiction as axiomatic voting issues, so feel free to engage on that level of the theory debate.

I'm suspicious of precision/jurisdiction/semantics as the sole thing you extend out of a T-shell and am generally compelled by reasonability in the form of "if they don't have any pragmatics offense, as long as I demonstrate it is compliant with a legit way of interpreting the word, it doesn't have to be the best interpretation."

I do really enjoy a well-developed theory argument, just make sure you are holding to the same standards of warranting here that I demand anywhere. Internal links between the standards and the interpretation, and the standards and the voter, are both key.

I love a good counter interp that is more than defending the violation--those result in strategic and fun rounds.

I'm willing to buy semantic I-Meets.

I find AFC/ACC read in the 1AR annoying and unpersuasive, though I have voted for it.

I am willing to vote on RVIs. I don't generally think K-style impact turns are automatically answered by RVIs-bad type arguments, unless there is work done.

Disclosure: Is by now a pretty solid norm and I recognize that. I have voted many times on particular disclosure interps, but in my heart of hearts think the ways that most people handle disclosure competing interps tends to lead to regress.

Tricks

I enjoy when debaters are substantive about what it means to prove the resolution true/false and explain how that interacts with the burdens of the round. I am more inclined to vote for substantive and developed tricks/triggers, and even if you're going for a short or "blippy" argument, you'd be well-served to do extensive interactions and cross-applications.

I want a ballot story and impact scenario, even with a permissibility trigger. (Even if the impact is that the resolution is tautologically true, I want that expressed straightforwardly and consistently).

I have a fairly high gut-check for dumb arguments, so I'm not your best bet if you want to be winning on the resolved a priori and things that are purely reliant on opponents dropping half-sentences from your case. But if you can robustly explain the theory of truth under which your a prior affirms/negates, you're probably okay.

Also: you know what an apriori is. Or you know what they mean. If you want to hedge your bets, answer in good faith -- for instance, instead of saying "what does that mean?" say "many of my arguments could, depending on what you read, end up implying that it is impossible to prove the resolution false/true. what specifically are you looking for?"

"Don't Evaluate After The 1ar": Feel free to run these arguments if you want, but know that my threshold is extremely high for "evaluate debate after [speech that is not the 2ar]." It is very difficult to persuade me to meaningfully do this. A better way to make this argument would be to tell me what sort of responses I shouldn't permit and why. For instance, new paradigm issues bad, cross-apps bad, no embedded clash, no new reasons for [specific argument] -- all fine and plausible. I just don't know what it means to actually stop evaluating later speeches. Paradigmatically, speech times are speech times and it makes no sense to me why I should obviate some of your opponent's time for any in-round reason. If you have a specific version of this argument you want to check with me, feel free to do so before round.

Policy Debate

I have policy as a 3 only because I often find myself frustrated with how inane and unsubstantive a lot of long impact stories in LD are. If you have good, up to date evidence that compellingly tells a consequentialist result of a policy: I'm all in, I love that.

I really enjoy specific, well-researched and creative plans. I find a well-executed policy debate very impressive. Make sure you're able to articulate a specific and compelling causal story.

Make sure you know what all the words mean and that you can clearly explain the empirical and institutional structure of the DA/plan. As an example of the sort of thing that annoys me: a DA that depends on a Supreme Court case getting all the way through the appellate system in two weeks to trigger a politics impact before an election will make me roll my eyes.

There's also a disturbing trend of plans that are straight-up inherent--which I hate, that doesn't make any sense with a consequentialist/policymaking FW.

I am absolutely willing to buy zero risk claims, especially in regards to DAs/advantages with no apparent understanding of how the institutions they're talking about work.

I find the policy style affs where the advantages/inherency are all about why the actor doesn't want to do the action and will never do the action, and then the plan is the actor doing the thing they'd never do completely inane--that being said, they're common and I vote on them all the time.

I am generally compelled by the idea that a fiated plan needs an actor.

Assorted Other Preferences:

The following are other assorted preferences. Just know that everything I'm about to say is simply a preference and not a rule; given a warranted argument, I will shift off of just about any position that I already have or that your opponent gave me.

Speed: I have no problem with spreading -- all I ask is that you are still clear enough to follow. What this means is that you need to have vocal variation and emphasis on important parts of your case, like card names and key arguments.

Threshold for Extensions: If I am able to understand the argument and the function of it in the context of the individual speech, it is extended. I do appreciate explicit citation of card names, for flowing purposes.

CX: CX is really important to me, please use it. You have very little chance of fantastic speaker points without a really good cross-x. I would prefer if y'all don't use CX as prep, although I have no problems with questions being asked during prep time (Talk for at least three minutes: feel free to talk the rest of the time, too). If you are getting a concession you want to make absolutely sure that I write down, get eye-contact and repeat to me what you view the concession as.

Do not be unnecessarily mean. It is not very persuasive. It will drop your speaks. Be mindful of various power-dynamics at play in the room. Something I am particularly bothered by is the insistence that a marginalized debater does not understand their case, particularly when it is framed like: [male coach] wrote this for you, right [female debater]? Or isn't there a TVA, [Black debater], you could have used [white debater's] advocacy. Feel free to mention specific cases that are topical, best not to name drop. I can't think of an occasion when it is appropriate to explicitly challenge the authorship or understanding of a particular argument.

When debating someone significantly more traditional or less experienced: your speaks will benefit from explaining your arguments as straightforwardly as you can. I won't penalize you for the first speeches, but in whatever speech happens after the differences in experience level becomes clear, you should treat them almost as a pedagogical exercise. Win the round, but do so in a way where you aren't only trying to tell me why you win the round, but you're trying to make sure your opponent also understands what is happening.

Presumption: I don't default any particular way. I am willing to listen to presumption arguments which would then make me default, given the particular way the round shakes down, but my normal response to a round where no one meets their burden is to lower my standards until one person does meet their burden. Now, I hate doing this and it makes me grumpy, so expect lower speaker points in a situation where nobody meets their burden and nobody makes an argument about why I should presume any which way. This just points to the need to clearly outline my role and the role of my ballot, and be precise as to how you are meeting it.

Paradigm: LD

Traditional parent judge, was not a debater as a student but I work in policy communications and advocacy so I know a thing or two about how to put together a persuasive argument and appreciate well-crafted messaging.

Good:

Clear statement of contentions and clean construction of argument.

Crystallization points.

Moderate speaking pace and tightly-written arguments: pick your best evidence and state it clearly, rather than drowning me with irrelevant information just to pile on the cards.

Courtesy to your opponent and respectful demeanor.

Bad:

Spreading: if you need to speak too quickly it shows me you have poor command of the material and cannot choose your best points. More isn't necessary better, as long as you've been careful not to drop issues.

Absurdity: I appreciate cleverness and wit in debate, but don't appreciate you throwing out red herrings or engaging in gimmickry just to send your opponent off in an irrelevant direction. Try to win without doing things that are technically fine but actually ridiculous.

Good luck!

Email: asw263@cornell.edu

Hey! I'm Arthur Wayne and I did LD for Millburn High School for 4 years and was team captain my junior & senior years. I have extensive experience in both circuit and traditional debate, so I am receptive to literally any type of argument and would consider myself to be tab (won't carry any assumptions coming into the round).

Judging:

- K, Phil, tricks, theory/T, policy, traditional are all a-ok! Just have fun, flesh out your args, and be respectful of others

Speaks:

- in tech rounds, I will grant speaks based on strategy, efficiency, and I'll give extra speaks for any unique strategy/positions/arguments

- in traditional rounds, I will grant speaks based purely on your ability to persuade

- sign posting and overviews are v nice :)

James Bowie 19

Tulane 23

email: theduke144@gmail.com

I debated on the Texas circuit for 4 years and qualified for the TOC my senior year.

I'm teaching (or have taught at) NSD Flagship/Texas, TDC, and Flex Debate.

TLDR- I like most arguments. I read mostly critical positions but would prefer you to just read whatever you are best at- persuasion is important to me because i don't want to be bored.

Speaks-

They start at 28.5. I will evaluate speaks based on strategy but also ethos and knowledge of your position. I'll also index to the quality of the pool and if you keep me interested the entire debate I will reward +++. I'm not going to disclose them-- chill you infomaniacs.

K affs and T FW-

I like them but I'd prefer them to be grounded in the topic. I don't care if you are sketchy initially but please make the 1ar overview or something clear. Judging vs T FW-- I have no biases here, but would prefer substantive engagement with a c/i or something in addition to impact turns. Also, impact turns need to be fleshed out and specific. If you're reading T fw im more persuaded by fairness arguments and a TVA.

Policy args--

These are fine, I never really read these. But I can prob judge them fine, just don't assume I understand the intricacies of the topic. Also please weigh. I believe in 0% risk. I don't like dumb perms. Please collapse.

K's--

Read what you like. I am familiar with a lot of the lit but will just go along with whatever your spin/interpretation is. the 1NC needs to answer in some capacity prempts in the 1AC. Good debates here are what will get the highest speaks.

KvK--

I have found myself judging a lot of these debates so I added this section. I like big-picture overviews that are clear. These dont need to be very long but i want to clearly be able to identify the tension point of the debate. I also want synthesis in the 2nr- this means i want you to not just extend particular parts of your critique but explain them in context with 1ar args-- implicit clash will only go so far.

Theory--

default - DD, CI, no rvi. Weigh in the 2NR/ar. I was never in love with theory debate and am probably not the best judge for multiple shell debates. I will evaluate k first args but default to theory first.

Phil and tricks--

will judge these styles of debate but will not promise to judge them well. NOTE-- for me to vote on dumb arguments i require you to have a high amount of ethos ie if i am not feeling like your argument is persuasive in this context i will not be inclined to vote for it. I also wont feel bad randomly deciding im not voting for your argument if it is akin to must [insert random thing] theory.

Extra-

-If you are debating a novice or person you are way better than just read what you would normally read but a little slower and be nice to them-- these debates were always awkward for me.

- fine with speed, sit where you want, flex prep is fine.

- I will give you a 28.9+ if you sit down early and win-- tell me if your sitting down early bc i wont be timing- i dont want to hear you ramble.

- 2NR/2AR overviews are v persuasive to me - don't expect me to piece together a ballot story - collapse and tell me in 10secs at the beginning of your speech what my RFD should be

Influential Judges: Kris Wright, Sam Azbel, Momo Khattak, and Saeshin Joe

Hi I'm Jalyn (she/her/hers), I go to UCLA and debated for WDM Valley in LD for ~7 years. I now coach LD at Millburn HS.

pre-PF TOC: i have very few paradigmatic preferences in PF, other than evidence must be carded, have proper citations (MLA is fine), and accessible to your opponent/judge should they ask for it.you should expect that i'll judge PF like I'm an LD judge.

____________

I honestly think that my paradigmatic preferences have gotten less and less ideological. I'll vote for anything that constitutes an argument. yes you can read policy stuff, tricks, and kritiks in front of me. i like phil but i'd rather judge anything else over bad recycled kant. I've left my old paradigm (written as a FYO) below as reference, cuz i still have the same takes, but to a lesser extent.

i give high speaks when you make me enjoy the round and drop speaks by like 0.3 every 30 seconds of a bad (read: unstrategic and not thought through) 2nr/2ar.

If there's an email chain, put me on it: wjalynu@gmail.com. In constructives, I don't flow off the doc.

TLDR - LD

Please note first and foremost that I am not that great with postrounding. To clarify, please ask questions about my decision after the round--I want to incentivize good educational practices and defend my decision. However, I really do not respond well to aggression mentally, so please don't yell at me/please treat me and everyone else in the round with basic respect and we should be good!

quick prefs (but please read the rest of the TLDR at least)

1- phil

2- theory, id pol k/performance, stock k

3- pomo k, LARP

4- tricks

for traditional/novice/jv debate: I'm good with anything!

i honestly do not care what you read as long as the arguments are well justified. less well justified arguments have a lower threshold for response.

I am fine with speed. At online tournaments, please have local recordings of your speeches ready in case there's audio issues/someone disconnects. Depending on tournament rules, I probably can't let you regive your speech if it cuts out, so be prepared. I will say clear/slow.

I rate my flowing ability a 6/10 in that messy and monotonous debates are difficult for me to flow but as long as you're clear in signposting, numbering, and collapsing, we shouldn't have any problems.

I view evaluating rounds as evaluating the highest framing layer of the round as established by the debaters, then evaluating the application of offense to it. In messy debates, i write two RFDs (one for each side) and take the path of least intervention.

i assign speaks based on strategic vision and in round presence (were you an enjoyable person to watch debate?). However, if you make arguments that are blatantly problematic, L20.

Many judges say they don't tolerate racism/sexism/homophobia/ableism/etc, but know that I take the responsibility of creating a safe debate space seriously. If something within a round makes you feel unsafe, whether it be my behavior, your opponent's behavior, or the behavior of anyone else present in that round, email me or otherwise contact me. I'll do my best to work with you to address these problems together.

LONG VERSION - LD

Ev ethics

- If a debater stops the round and says "I will stake the round on this evidence ethics challenge" I will follow tournament/NSDA rules and evaluate accordingly (generally resulting in an auto win/loss situation). However, I usually prefer ev ethics challenges are debated out like a theory debate, and I will evaluate it like I evaluate any other shell.

- I really am not a fan of debates over marginal evidence ethics violations. like i really do not care if a single period is missing from a citation.

Disclosure

- I don't hold strong opinions on disclosure norms. Disclosure to some extent is probably good, but I don't really care whether it's open sourced with green highlighting or full text with citations after the card.

- reasonability probably makes sense on a lot of interps

- I strongly dislike being sketchy about disclosure on both sides. Reading disclosure against a less experienced debater without a wiki seems suss. Misdisclosing and lying about the aff is also suss.

- disclosure functions at the same layer as other shells until proven otherwise

Theory

- I strongly dislike defaulting. If no paradigm issues or voters are read by either debater in a theory debate, this means I will literally not vote on theory. I don't think this is an unfair threshold to meet, because for any argument to be considered valid, there needs to be a claim, warrant, and impact.

- You can read frivolous stuff in front of me and I will evaluate it as I would any other shell, but more frivolous shells have a lower threshold for response. For more elaboration, see my musings on the tech/truth distinction below.

- Paragraph theory is fine, just make sure that it's clearly labeled (i flow these on separate sheets)

- Combo shells need to have unique abuse stories to the interp. generally speaking, the more planks in a combo shell, the less persuasive the abuse story, and the more persuasive the counterinterp/ i meet.

- "converse of the interp" has never made much sense to me/seems like a cop out, if you say "converse of the interp" please clarify the specific stance that you're taking because otherwise it's difficult to hold you to the text of the CI

- overemphasize the text of the interp and names of standards so i don't miss anything

- you can make implicit weighing claims in the shell, but extend explicit weighing PLEASE

T

- RVIs make less sense on T than they do on other shells, so an uphill battle

- T and theory generally function on the same layer for me but I can be persuaded otherwise

- Good/unique TVAs are underutilized, so make them. best type of terminal defense on T IMO

- altho I read a ton of K affs my jr year, I fall in the middle of the K aff/TFW divide.

- if you're going to collapse on T, please actually collapse. don't reread the shell back at me for 2 minutes.

- see above for my takes on defaults

K

- I am more familiar with asian american, fem, and cap (dean, marx, berardi), but have a decent understanding of wilderson, wynter, tuck and yang, deleuze, anthro, mollow, edelman, i'm sure theres more im forgetting, but chances are I've heard of the author you're reading. I don't vote on arguments I couldn't explain back at the end of the round. if the 1ar/2nr doesn't start off with a coherent explanation of the theory of power, I can't promise you'll like my decision.

- buzzwords in excess are filler words. they're fine, but if you can't explain your theory of power without them, I'm a lot less convinced you actually know what the K says.

- some combination of topical and generic links is probably the best

- i find material examples of the alt/method more persuasive than buzzwordy mindsets. give instances of how your theory of power explains subjectivity/violence/etc in the real world.

- floating piks need to be at least hinted at in the 1n

- idc if the k aff is topical. if it isn't, i need a good reason why it's not/a reason why your advocacy is good.

- you should understand how your lit reads in the following broad categories: theory of the subject, theory of knowledge, theory of violence, ideal/nonideal theory, whether consequences matter, and be able to interact these ideas with your opponent

Phil

- the type of debate I grew up on. NC/AC debates are criminally underrated, call me old school

- I'm probably familiar with every common phil author on the circuit, but don't assume that makes me more amenable to voting on it. if anything i have a higher threshold for well explained phil

- i default epistemic confidence and truth testing (but again. hate defaulting. don't make me do it.)

- that being said, I think that winning framework is not solely sufficient to win you the round. You need to win some offense under that framework.

- i like smart arguments like hijacks, fallacies, metaethical args, permissibility/skep, etc.

- sometimes fw arguments devolve into "my fw is a prereq because life" and "my fw is a prereq because liberty" and those debates are really boring. please avoid circular and underwarranted debates and err on the side of implicating these arguments out further/doing weighing

Policy

- Rarely did LARP in LD, but I did do policy for like a year (in 8th/9th grade, and I was really bad, so take this with a grain of salt)

- All CPs are valid, but I think process/agent ones are probably more suss

- yes you need to win a util framework to get access to your impacts

- always make perms on CPs and please isolate net benefits

- ev>analytic

- please weigh strength of link/internal links

- TLDR I'm comfortable evaluating a LARP debate/I actually enjoy judging them, just please err on overexplaining more technical terms (like I didn't know what functional/textual competition was until halfway through my senior year)

Tricks

- well explained logical syllogisms (condo logic, trivialism, indexicals, etc) (emphasis on WELL EXPLAINED AND WARRANTED) > blippy hidden aprioris and irrelevant paradoxes

- i dont like sketchiness about tricks. if you have them, delineate them clearly, and be straightforward about it in CX/when asked.

- Most tricks require winning truth testing to win. Don't assume that because i default TT, that i'll auto vote for you on the resolved apriori--I'm not doing that level of work for you.

- warrants need to be coherently explained in the speech that the trick is read. If I don't understand an argument/its implication in the 1ac, then I view the argument (if extended) as new in the 1ar and require a strong development of its claim/warrant/impact

TLDR - CX

I have a basic understanding of policy, as I dabbled in it in high school. Err on the side of overexplanation of more technical terms, and don't assume I know the topic lit (bc I don't!)

Misc. thoughts (that probably won't directly affect how I evaluate a specific round, but just explains how I view debate as a whole)

- tech/truth distinction is arbitrary. I vote on the flow, but truer arguments have a lower threshold for being technically won (ex. the earth is round) and less true arguments have a higher threshold for being technically won (ex. the earth is flat)

- I think ROB/standard function on the same layer (and I also don't think theres a distinction between ROB and ROJ), and therefore, also think that the distinctions between K and phil NCs only differ in the alternative section and the type of philosophy that generally is associated with both

- I highly highly value adapting to less experienced debaters, and will boost your speaks generously if you do. This includes speaking clearly, reading positions and explaining them well, attempting to be educational, and being generally kind in the round. To clarify, I don't think that you have to completely change your strategy against a novice or lay debater, but just that if you were planning on reading 4 shells, read 2 and explain them well. It's infinitely more impressive to me to watch a debater be flex and still win the round than to make the round exclusionary for others.

- docbots are boring to me. I just don't like flowing monotonous spreading for 6 minutes of a 2n on Nebel, and it's not educational for anyone in the round to hear the same 2n every other round. lower speaks for docbots.

- I will not evaluate arguments that ask me to vote for/against someone because they are of a certain identity group or because of their out of round performances. I feel that oversteps the authority of a judge to make decisions ad hominem about students in the activity

- pet peeve when people group permissibility/presumption warrants together. THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS.

- i'm getting tired of ppl asking "what did you read" "what didn't you read" during cx/prep but ESPECIALLY after the speech before prep. like please just flow. it's kinda silly to just ask "what were your arguments on ___" for 2 min of prep cuz like just tell me you weren't flowing then!

- this list will keep expanding as I continue to muse on my debate takes

email: imeganwu@gmail.com

--

note for blue key '22: i haven't judged/coached consistently since the 2020-21 school year. please assume that i am unfamiliar with the topic, topic-specific jargon/knowledge, the current meta of debate, etc. when i judged frequently, a large majority (>~80%) of the rounds i judged involved phil fw, t/theory, or tricks to some extent. this is my wiki from senior year.

--

i debated on the national circuit for a couple years and qualified to the toc as a senior ('19). i taught at nsd flagship '19, nsd philadelphia '19, tdc '19 & '20, and legacy debate '20, and i coached hunter college high school in the '19-'20 season (see hunter sk, hunter nk). in the '20-'21 season, i coached hunter md and lindale pp. i currently attend swarthmore college ('23), where i study philosophy and math.

my coaches and biggest influences in debate: alisa liu, kris wright, katherine fennell, xavier roberts-gaal. as a debater, my favorite judges were sean fahey and mark gorthey.

in the interest of full disclosure, i am profoundly deaf in both ears and have bilateral cochlear implants. i do not believe that this significantly impacts my ability to judge, as i debated on the circuit and wasn’t horrible at it; you should be clear, give overviews, slow down for anything important, and explain to me how i should write your rfd—as you should with any judge. i will use speech docs in the 1ac/1nc, but will not in rebuttals for anything besides advocacy texts and interps. i will call clear or slow in your speech if i can’t understand you.

i do not have any preferences for style of debate; my only preference is that you debate in the way you choose, as opposed to what you think i’d like to see. i will vote for any argument so long as it is fully warranted, won, and implicated. i won’t vote on links/violations that i can’t verify. i am most familiar with philosophical framework and theory/t debates and least familiar with policy/k debate. i won’t supplement a debater’s explanation of arguments with things i know that weren’t on the flow, so it should not matter if i’m unfamiliar with literature that is read because it is the job of the debaters to fully explain and implicate their arguments—nor will i help you out even if you read a framework that i know well.

i will attempt to operate under the shared assumptions held by both debaters—e.g. if both debaters collapse to theory shells in the 2n/2a but forget to read voters, i will act as if a voter had been read rather than ignore theory and vote on a random substance extension. however, it will always be to your benefit to debate in a non-messy way: even if the 2n collapses to T, concedes substance, and it is assumed by both debaters that substance flows aff, the 2a should still quickly extend the ac. you should also attempt to extend interps & violations. the more i have to think about what the shared assumptions of the round are (and the less clear you are about your ballot story), the more your speaks will suffer.

if i am unable to determine what the shared assumption is, and if no argument has been made on the issue, i will assume the following defaults:

• theory is drop the debater, no rvi, competing interps, fairness and education are voters, fairness > education
• strength of link to weigh between layers, and theory > t > k if strength of link is irresolvable
• epistemic confidence
• presumption and permissibility negate
• tech>truth

---

ethics issues:

• evidence ethics, clipping: you need to formally stake the round for me to call tab in & i will defer to tournament policy when that happens. otherwise, i will adjudicate this like any other theory debate.
• in-round safety: if you judge that the round needs to be stopped, please ask me to and i will call the equity ombudspurson or tab in & defer to tournament procedure/tab's judgment. i am highly unlikely to stop the round unprompted, or vote on an in-round conduct issue if it is not made into a voting issue by the other debater. my policy on this is intended to place the judgment of the affected debater in higher regard than my own.

---

speaker points: higher when you utilize judge direction, make creative strategic choices rather than spamming args, and are good at cx. lower when you clearly haven't read my paradigm, comport yourself in an uncompassionate way, and read largely prewritten args. i average around 28.6 and i don't disclose speaks.

important notes, especially for west coast debaters:

• if you read reasonability without a brightline, say only that “good is good enough,” or tell me to “gut check,” i will gut check competing interps. reasonability should have a brightline that tells me how to differentiate between abusive and nonabusive scenarios.
• i would really prefer it if you read and normatively justify a rob/standard/vc, even if it's short. i tend to think that normative ethic spec is a true argument, and if neither debater indicates a framework and there is not a clear shared assumption of a certain framework, i will be forced to default to my intuitions to frame offense—which you likely don’t want because i’m not a utilitarian.
• i will vote on an rvi if won.
• i will vote on framework preclusion of impacts if won.
• i don’t care if your theory shell is frivolous. "this is frivolous" is not an argument.
• i think epistemic modesty is weird and have never understood it. (if it means strength of link, just say that instead?)
• ethos is created through persuasion/passion/showing you have a ton of knowledge about the subject—not snarky taglines and personal jabs—and good ethos never comes at the expense of safety in the round.

ask me if you have any questions (especially if you're a small school debater). good luck and have fun debating!

full paradigm