my email address is:

Talmstedt@fjuhsd.org

Please include me on email evidence chains and case sharing.

For WSD, I will focus more on the Style aspect. WSD, I feel, is not a regular debate round, but a way to promote and share your ideas. If a team starts talking about why they won and not showing me, and the other team is showing me, I'll lean towards the other. If you're making me laugh, you are doing something right. I've judged tons of speech, PF, LD, and Policy, so I can handle anything ya got.

I am a head coach of a Speech and Debate Team. When it comes to PF & LD, I am lay judge but can understand tech-type jargon. I do not flow, but take shorthand notes. If you give me a verbal outline, I can track it.

These are do’s and Don’t for me judging your round:

• Please do not use ‘K’’s to win your round, or run anything progressive, as you probably won’t win.

• I appreciate off time road maps. Sign Posting is also very helpful for me to track your arguments

• I will defer to the tournament organizers as to disclosure at the end of the round. If there are no instructions, I will disclose at the end of the round

• A disrespectful team will most often lose the round

• Trigger warnings are appreciated, but must be followed if asked to

• I default to most lives affected/saved if no other framework is presented

• Please do not spread, I asked nicely.

• Make link chains as clear as possible, with clear warranting, especially when they are lengthy

• Evidence is important. Accurate evidence is even better. Valuable evidence is best. This means if your opponent is using faulty or poor evidence call them out on it. Thus, ask for evidence.

• As a lay judge, crossfire allows me to see the caliber of each team. Respectful, meaningful, and purposeful crossfire will help me decide the victor of the round.

• Post round questions are helpful for my growth as a judge, so please ask for reasoning. However, your obligation is to beat your opponent, not argue with the judge, so clarifying questions will be entertained, but attempts to change my mind will not.

Lily Cai
Edgemont 2019

Conflicts
Edgemont High School

Major Influences

Matt Malia

Brian Manuel
Michael Antonucci

General

I see debate as an educational game. You can do whatever you want to as long as you don’t/aren’t
- Offensive
- Exceed speech time
- Misrepresent/clip cards

To me, being a judge is simply being a listener of your arguments.

Anything can be debated, there is no "moral bottom line" so to speak, where certain arguments cannot be made (death good, cap good, racism good-but I might give you really weird looks and your speaks might be seriously impacted). If you win the argument you win, I won't intervene and drop you on some non-existent moral bottom line.

I don’t necessarily abide by truth > tech or tech > truth. I follow the flow, but truth makes the flow more compelling.

I think argument flexibility is good and important. At least attempt to be ideologically flexible, as in be accepting of other arguments, if you don’t have the technical abilities to be argumentatively flexible.

An ideal debate involves good communication, creativity, and clash. I think the role of ballot is who did the best debating, the rest are self- serving and arbitrary.

The aff should at least have something to do with the topic and defend some form of departure from status quo. There should be an advocacy that the aff can be held to and the advocacy should be supported by academically sound evidences. (If you read 10 random cards about things like dark matter cards and call that a 1AC I won't like it very much) I also want to have a topical aff, if you do read an advocacy I am very lenient with frame work.

TKOs are in play, quoting Brian Manuel's judge philosophy:

"T.K.O (Technical Knockout) basically means that at any point of the debate you believe you've solidly already won the debate, beyond a reasonable doubt, (dropped T argument, double turn, strategic miscue that is irreparable by the other team) you can invoke a TKO and immediately end the debate. If a team chooses this path and succeeds, I will give them 30 speaker points each and an immediate win. If the team chooses to invoke this but its unclear you've TKO'd the other team or in fact choose wrong, you obviously will lose and your points will be severely effected. Who dares to take the challenge?"

I don’t feel super qualified judging high level T debates. If they are reading a plan I will have a high threshold for T arguments.

Biases
- Cross ex wins debates. It’s also the only time I know for sure you aren’t reading blocks.
- I don’t like theory debates, but theory arguments can be strategic.
- 2 conditional advocacies is totally fine, 3 requires the neg to do some work justifying it.
- Overviews are useful but only do so if arguments cannot be answered on the flow.

K Affs vs Framework
I am not as much a fw but if it is planless then I will be more than happy to vote for it.
of well-run framework arguments.

I think K/performance affs are definitely valuable but can sometimes get a little ridiculous.

Affs should defend some sort of an advocacy that they can be held to, unless they have a good reason as to why they shouldn't be held to an advocacy. If you read two poems and talk about yourself and say "vote me" that won't go well.

Impact out well and really explain.

T
Again,
I don’t feel super qualified judging high level T debates.
I am more lenient with the AFF if they are topical and you just read it so you an exclude them. But feel free to run it and I will evaluate it.

DA/Case Debate
- Impact framing determines most of these debates.
- I will vote on zero risk of case/DA/whatever if framed as such.

This is pretty bread and butter, nothing much else to be said about here.

CP
I'm fine with it but please make it clear to me what exactly the counterplan does and how it differs from the aff.
PICs are totally fine, aff winning theory arguments generally at most means rejecting the argument instead of rejecting the team.
Competition is the important
Also, you should have a Net Benefit or I will be more than happy to vote on perm

K
I am more a K debater

- Link magnitude is super important - if you only go for a Crenshaw silence link and don't explain how that specifically leads to your Wildersonian ontological impacts, I won't give you that impact.
- Sometimes you don't need to win an alternative.
- I am fine with them but some really high theory needs a lot of work and explanation then just: they are something and we win
-Specific links matter to me, don't just do generic links and stuff. If that's the case then I won't just give it to you

Email: kassdebates@gmail.com (note: I don't monitor this email outside of tournaments--- its possible I will not forward you speech docs unless i'm judging that weekend)

Hola,

I was a policy debater at Fort Lauderdale High School (2012-2016) and in college at WVU (2016-2019). While competing in college, I made it to elims at a few national/regional tournaments before I stopped debating and found joy coaching teams to the NDT and TOC and teaching novices. I have a B.A. in Latin American Studies, Women's and Gender Studies, and Geography from WVU.

Outside of judging debates, I work full-time in the movement as the National Organizer for Education and Justice Transformation at The Center for Popular Democracy

I'm a pretty flex judge. I want you to do what you're good at and be a decent human while you're doing it. I keep to a tight flow which means I can keep up with plan-debate but I found more competitive success with kritikal/performance. I've been in debate for over a decade sooo you do you, and I'll keep up.

here are some things worth noting tho :)

general stuff

• I center my debate on the flow and make a decision from it
• An argument has a claim, warrant, and impact.
• I'm ok with flex speeches and cross-ex.
• I love good evidence that I can vote on.
• I'm pretty immersed in debate's kritikal lit and can understand most of it, but I'm in the movement and legislative world, so I witness what policy and organizing tactics can do and not do. :')
• I love an impact debate.
• card docs at the end of the debate are helpful (especially for policy throwdowns)
• It's possible I will briefly close my eyes while flowing you -- this is especially true if you're incredibly fast or its the first few rounds of a tournament -- I promise I am listening, when I do this, I am adjusting to your speed/voice/rhythm, listening more intently (there's so much happening in a debate and this helps a bit with auditory processing), and just making sense of the debate. I will type everything you say!

Affs/case

• I prefer that aff's have a mechanism that does something whether that's hypothetical implementation, a material action, mindset shift. I want to know at the end of the debate "what do we do or not do?", and why is that good.
• performance is a-okay with me :) -- I want to know what arguments are embedded in your performance during the 2AC and in later speeches.
• if you're reading high-theory (bauldriard type ppl) give me examples to ground what you're saying. I can read your evidence, but oftentimes in these debates, I ask myself "what does adopting this theory of power lead to?" or "what?" in general, so having examples and full warrants that apply and explain your theory is helpful.
• Impacts are important to me. Tell me the story of the impacts and how they outweigh.
• Case Debates are a lost art. Bring it back.
• I need you to go to the case page in the block or be very clear when you're cross applying arguments to the case flow. The 2NR and 2AR must also go to the case page and isolate what key arguments you're winning. For affs, I want impact work here. I am very persuaded by negative case turns.

FW

• ill vote on it if you win it, this goes both ways! vs K affs, Im a better judge for plan = policy advocacy skills fw versus traditional must defend a plan because debate is a game, but can be persuaded if you're winning tech.
• Impact turns <3
• My decision normally gravitates to whose model of debate is best for Education with any/all DAs or offense you have against the Aff or FW.
• ROBS and ROJs are a good way to help me funnel offense and frame my ballot.
• I'm not really persuaded by fairness as an impact but if you win it, I'll vote on it. I am more persuaded that fairness is an internal link to an education impact

T

• I'd often give 6 min 1NRs on T if that's helpful at all.
• I like T debate and want more specificity here -- sometimes I feel these debates can become technical messes with no substance -- I want competing interps, impact turns, clear TVAs, talking about limits.
• most of my thoughts here are similar to FW

DAs

• I'm good with these
• I love a ptx DA throwdown
• I need clear links and internal link story on how the aff triggers the impact of the DA

CPs

• Tell me how the CP solves, what the NB is, and why the perm isn't an option

Theory

• Please don't read condo if there's 1-2 conditional advocacies

online judging tech/accessibility

• will most likely keep camera off while speeches are going to focus better and get best connection, will give verbal affirmation Im there and try to be on during CX.
• I’m a quick thinker, but sometimes I need more time to pause and think through my thoughts, this is especially true for RFD and questions

If you have specific questions, feel free to ask me before the round or send me an email at kassdebates@gmail.com. My only request is that you put me on the email chain, be open to learning/growing together, and give me enough pen time to flow everything (start speeches slow then speed up, take a second to breathe before switching flows, etc.). Debate is supposed to be a fun and educational activity, so show me what ya got and I'll do my best to keep up! :)

Good luck!

Coach @ Asian Debate League

Debated 4 years at Kapaun** Mount Carmel in Wichita, Kansas, 2017

Debated 4 years NDT/CEDA/D3 at University of Kansas, 2021

Email chain: gaboesquivel@gmail.com

I treat judging debate with the same love and care that I treat my job. I love what we do.

My biases:

I lean aff for condo. Some might say too much. I might expect a lot from you if you do go for it.

I didn't go for K's much but I really like debating them vs my policy aff. More than policy v policy debates. Links are the most important thing for me. Impacts are a close second. I value consistency between the scale of the links and impacts i.e. in round impacts should have in round links.

I strongly bias toward "The K gets links and impacts vs the aff's fiated impacts" unless someone delivers a very persuasive speech. I can be persuaded that making a personal ethical choice is more important than preventing a nuclear war.

I lean toward affs with plans. Fairness concerns me less than usual nowadays. I like research/clash impacts.

I will read evidence and vote for evidence in debates where things are not settled by the debater's words. This happens frequently in T debates and impact turn debates.

Status quo is always an option=judge kick

How I judge:

I work hard to listen and read your evidence. I am honest about what I don't understand. I am patient with novices.

Be clear or go slower (7 or 8/10) for online debate otherwise I'll miss the nuance in your arguments. I clear twice before I stop flowing.

I flow and use everything I hear in my decision, and overemphasize what is said in the rebuttals. I'll reference the 1AR speech to protect the 2NR on a 2AR that "sounds new" and I'll reference the block on a 2NR that claims the 1AR dropped something. I'll reference a 2AC on a 1AR that claims the block dropped something, etc.

For a dropped argument to be a true argument it must have been a complete claim and warrant from the beginning. I am not a fan of being "sneaky" or "tricky". Unless you are going for condo ;)

I am persuaded by ethos and pathos more than logos. I find myself wanting to vote for a debater who tries to connect with me more than a debater who reads a wall of blocks even if they are technically behind. When both teams are great speakers I rely more on tech and evidence.

I try to craft my decision based on language used by the debaters. I reference evidence when I cannot resolve an argument by flow alone. PhD's, peer reviewed journals, and adequate highlighting will help you here. If I can't resolve it that way I'll look for potential cross applications or CX arguments and might end up doing work for you. If I do work for one team I will try to do the same amount for the other team. It might get messy if its close, that's what the panel is for, but please challenge my decision if you strongly disagree and I'll tell you where my biases kicked in.

**Pronounced (Kay-pen)

Things I am looking for:

* Speak clearly and slowly with no spreading

* Counter the arguments of your opponents

* Present a clash of ideas

* Display solid logic, reasoning and analysis

Student USC but not involved in their debate program. I graduated from Head Royce School in 2019 and debated all 4 years there.

I have no problem judging policy or k debates - run whatever you want to run. When I was a debater I leaned towards K debate, so do with that info what you will. But, I am also in the process of applying to law school and all that jazz, so I'm not totally ignorant to policy leaning things. Regardless, I'm not going to be up to date on your politics DA scenario.

I will be slightly sad if you read 8 off in the 1NC, because that's unnecessary and usually means the arguments lack depth, but I won't vote you down for it.

I think judge intervention is bad. All i ask is that your 2AR/2NR makes very clear why i should vote for you - basically write my ballot for me. This means I'm fine with any argument that's not racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

please add me to the email chain: tynavarro3@gmail.com

After retiring as a speech and debate coach to focus on classroom teaching, I am a semi-regular judge after 18 years of coaching and competing in both high school and college debate. I also spent 20 years cutting, compiling, and editing debate handbooks and running a summer debate institute across three different debate formats.

In all debate events, I have high standards for using evidence in debate due to the modern media landscape and wide availability of junk information sources. All forms of debate should include properly cited and read evidence. I expect sources to be cited, along with their credentials. I am very open to arguments regarding the quality of a source and bias; however, if you can explain why citing various hacks from TruthOut or NewsMax makes sense in the context of your argument, I’m open to it. Don’t misrepresent evidence, and also don’t cherry-pick conclusions out of a card without including the analysis behind it. I dislike the trend of "cutting short" reading of a card when the cut substance is the warrant or justification for the claims, and I simply give little-to-no credibility to evidence that is paraphrased by debaters.

My preference is for evidence-centered debate in constructives, with analysis-centered debate in rebuttals.

In Policy Debate, I am an open-minded judge willing to listen to any type of argument. I prefer policy-oriented arguments over other styles of argumentation. I am also inclined to weigh impacts at the end of a debate. For example, if an affirmative team presents a case and plan and the negative’s only standing argument at the end of the round is that the affirmative plan isn’t as effective as stated, but there is nothing to weigh that against (a disadvantage, a case turn, etc.), I will likely vote Affirmative. I am also more likely than a typical 202X judge to listen and weigh on-case argumentation. I am open to K/framework arguments, but you'll need to explain more how you want me to judge these and weigh them for me in the round.

The final two rebuttals need to crystalize why you believe you would win the round. If you don't present a straightforward narrative on filling out my ballot, you leave that power to me (and potentially your opponent).

In Lincoln-Douglas Debate, I tend to be more open to the policy implications than a traditional Lincoln-Douglas Debate judge. However, I will still happily listen to a conventional LD analysis on both sides of a debate. I am open to balance negative positions, in part due to the poor wording of some topics. I abhor name-dropping philosophers. If you use Kant or Wollstonecraft or Locke or Mill or Rand or Foucault, be prepared to show me (and your opponent) that you understand their philosophy before explaining how it applies to the given topic or argument.

In Public Forum Debate, I want teams to build a narrative and decision calculus FOR me since the theory behind this format seems to be ever-evolving. Be sure to spend time in the Final Focus periods giving me at least one minute of telling me how I should vote and why, and then let me do the rest.

Stuff I Like

I like respectful, inclusive debaters that love participating in debates as much as winning them. I like clear signposting of arguments and taking time to explain to me a clear sense of how you think I should judge this particular debate.

Stuff I Don’t Care For

I can handle speed (maybe less than I could 20 years ago), but it isn’t a replacement for smart argumentation. The smart, slow team will beat the speedster team with shallow analysis (almost) every time. Also, remember… there is a decent chance that debating over Zoom diminishes your clarity. Speed itself is often misunderstood: the point of speed is to offer more argumentation while not diminishing communication. If I'm not getting it because you are speeding through things you shouldn't be (signposting, card tags, analytical arguments), that's your fault, not mine.

Other sundries… I was a 1st Affirmative policy debater back in the day and believe the 1AR should cover all arguments, though a dropped argument alone doesn’t justify a negative ballot; research is the base of all good debate arguments in all formats, you should know what you are talking about because you did the work; in Policy and Public Forum Debate, please be nice to your partner, along with your opponents… there is nothing more awkward than watching a debater verbally berate their partner during prep time; good T debates are fun and educational… bad T debates are not.

The students I debated with and against in high school and college are all doing amazing things in their adult lives. The debaters I coached are all doing amazing things in their adult lives. Debate is fun and competitive, yes, but it is about developing a skill set that will pay you back over and over again for the rest of your life. I suspect that is why you do this.

amanda072086@gmail.com
Speak clearly. Any speed is fine as long as you slow down and read your tag lines and main points very clearly. Spreading is fine. Give clear indication of when you have reached the burden you set out.

LD: I am a true values debate judge in LD. Tabula rasa judge. Flexible to any kinds of cases and arguments as long as they are respectful. If your case is not topical or abusive and your opponent argues and proves that in their speeches then I am willing to vote based on topicality, education and abuse.

PF and CX: Be respectful and cordial to your opponent. I’m open to most anything in Policy rounds. Always stay on the debate topic, don’t wander off onto an irrelevant subject because it’s more enjoyable to argue about than the topic is. Always allow your opponent the opportunity to complete their sentence before continuing to cross.
I’m a Tabula rasa Judge especially in Policy debate. If you don’t tell me how you want me to weigh the round and set a minimum burden for each side to have to meet within the round to win then I will default to judging based on the block and will turn into a games playing judge and will make voting decisions based on what my flow shows and dropped arguments or arguments that were lost or conceded will very much factor into my vote. Impacts, Warrants and links need to be made very clear, and always show me the magnitude.

Email chain: lily.coaches.debate@gmail.com

About:

• Currently based in Taiwan and coaching debate for the ADL. That means I am staying up all night when I judge at US tournaments. Please pref accordingly
• Debated in college at the University of Kansas, 2017-2022 (Healthcare, Executive Authority, Space, Alliances, Antitrust). I majored in math and minored in Russian if that matters.
• Debated in high school at Shawnee Mission Northwest, 2013-2017 (Latin America, Oceans, Surveillance, China).

Top:

• If I can tell that you are not even trying to flow (eg you never take out a piece of paper the entire debate, you stand up to give your 2NC with just your laptop and no paper) your speaks are capped at 27.
• Please don't call me "judge." It's tacky. My name is Lily. Note that this does not apply to saying "the role of the judge."
• In the words of Allie Chase, "Cross-x isn't 'closed,' nobody ever 'closed' it... BUT each debater should be a primary participant in 2 cross-xes if your goal is to avoid speaker point penalties."
• I would prefer to not judge death/suffering/extinction good arguments or arguments about something that happened outside the debate.
• I might give you a 30 if I think you're the best debater at the tournament.
• High schoolers are too young to swear in debates.
• Don't just say words for no reason - not in cross-x and certainly not in speeches.
• If you are asking questions like "was x card read?" a timer should be running. Flowing is part of getting good speaker points.
• The word "nuclear" is not pronounced "nuke-yoo-ler." If you say this it makes you sound like George Bush.
• Shady disclosure practices are a scourge on the activity.

Framework:

• I judge a lot of clash debates. I'm more likely to vote aff on impact turns than most policy judges, but I do see a lot of value in the preservation of competition. Procedural fairness can be an impact but it takes a lot of work to explain it as such. Sometimes a clash impact is a cleaner kill.
• TVAs don't have to solve the whole aff. I like TVAs with solvency advocates. I think it's beneficial when the 2NC lays out some examples of neg strategies that could be read against the TVA, and why those strategies produce educational debates.

Topicality vs policy affs:

• Speaker point boost if your 2NC has a grammar argument (conditional on the argument making sense of course).
• If you're aff and going for reasonability, "race to the bottom" < debatability.
• Case lists are good.
• The presence of other negative positions is not defense to a ground argument. The aff being disclosed is not defense to a limits argument. This also goes for T-USFG.

Counterplans

• When people refer to counterplans by saying the letters "CP" out loud it makes me wish I were dead.
• As a human I think counterplans that advocate immediate, indefinite, non-plan action by the USFG are legit, but as a judge I'm chaotic neutral on all theory questions.
• Conditionality: I'll give you a speaker point boost if you can tell me how many 2NRs are possible given the number of counterplan planks in the 1NC.

Disads

• Read them
• Politics DAs are fun. Make arguments about polling methodology.

Ks

• I feel like I have a higher threshold for Ks on the neg than some. I'm not a hack and I will vote for your K if you do the better debating, but I also think arguments that rely on the ballot having some inherent meaning are corny unpersuasive.
• I dislike lazy link debating immensely, primarily because it makes my life harder. Affs hoping to capitalize on this REALLY ought to include a perm/link defense in the 2AR.
• Explain how the alt solves the links and why the perm doesn't.
• Affs should explain why mooting the 1AC means that the neg's framework is anti-educational. Negs should explain why the links justify mooting the aff.
• Case outweighs 2ARs can be very persuasive. The neg can beat this with discrete impacts to specific links+impact framing+framework.
• Speaker point penalty if the 1AR drops fiat is illusory - at the very least your framework extension needs an education impact.

Lincoln-Douglas:

• If there is no net benefit to a counterplan, presumption flips aff automatically.
• I do not think permutations are cheating.
• An argument is a claim and a warrant. If you say something that does not contain a warrant, I will not necessarily vote on it even if it's dropped. In the interest of preventing judge intervention, please say things that have warrants.
• Most neg theory arguments I've watched would go away instantly if affs said "counter interpretation: we have to be topical."
• RVIs are not persuasive to me. Being topical is never an independent reason to vote affirmative. The fact that a counterplan is conditional is never offense for the negative.

Preface
Yes I want to be on the email chain. nickspereda@gmail.com.
Don't steal prep
I have not done research or judged a lot this year so at least for the first few tournaments keep that in mind.

Summary
I like flex debating and enjoy diverse strategies, so you do you and I will try to judge you with as little argumentative biases as possible. That being said, I am a human and I do have preferences.

I think the aff should read a plan text and defend it. At worst, I think the aff should have a strong resolutional basis. Probably related to that, I'm likely not the greatest judge for super K-oriented strategies. This is not to say I do not enjoy these debates or won't vote for Ks, but that you will have to do more work explaining the theory and its relationship to the aff than average.

I feel much more qualified in "policy" debates. I like wonky and technically intensive stuff so do something interesting.

Isolate what impacts you think you have a chance of winning and compare it to the impacts you think the other team has a chance of winning.

Speed:
I'm good with it but don't sacrifice clarity. Slow down on theory arguments, give me pen time.

*For online tournaments: Maybe slow down a bit to compensate for mic quality so I can still understand what you're saying.

Tech vs. Truth:
Tech> Truth. Being on the side of truth is obviously a good thing and I'm hesitant to consider arguments that are objectively false, but if you can't answer an argument that's really really bad, then you should lose anyways.

Evidence vs. Spin:
I think research is the most important aspect of debate and should be rewarded. I will read every card that I think I need to at the end of the round, so isolate evidence you think is really good or important. That being said, cards are support for larger arguments, meaning that I will default to your explanation of an argument or card whenever it makes sense.

In technical debates, have a card doc for the end of the round so I don't have to look around for relevant cards.

Quality>quantity

Specific argument preferences:
Topicality:

I went for T a lot in both high school and college and think a lot of debaters just aren't as good at debating it or as willing to go for it as a lot of other argument categories. Well executed T debates are really fun for me, but poorly executed T debates are the least enjoyable type of debate to judge. Limits and ground aren't impacts, they're internal links to things like education, fairness, research models, etc. I default to competing interpretations but reasonability is a winnable argument.

RVI's are bad arguments.

T comes before theory.

Case lists are good and necessary.

Actually engage with the other teams arguments, most T debates I've judged at this point have felt like ships passing in the night and forced me to resolve a lot of stuff on my own which should never be what you want. Statistically I lean neg in these debates, but I think that's because a lot of 2Ns only go for T if it's very clear cut which is unfortunate.

DA:
Cool. Aff specific DAs are much cooler (and usually easier to win).

There is such thing as zero risk and I think the link usually controls the direction of uniqueness.

Do a lot of turns case analysis that's actually contextualized to the internal links of the 1AC. Not much else to say.

CP:
Good, not much else to say. I will say that I like advantage CP + Impact turn debates a lot.

Word PICs should be based on a word in the plantext, anything other than that is meh.

Read a solvency advocate, each plank should be based on evidence or something the other team said.

I will not kick the counterplan for you unless you tell me to.

Ks:

Material> High theory

I have a high threshold for the link portion of the debate. Root cause claims are not links but they can be solvency deficits. Fiat not being real is not an argument. Links of omission are the worst arguments in debate.

If I don't feel like I can explain your K to someone else by the end of the round then I will not feel comfortable voting for you.

Ks that advocate for death or suicide are not only bad arguments in the context of debate, but also morally objectionable and I will not vote for them.

K affs:
I am not the best judge for this. I prefer debates focused around a plan, and in nearly all of the clash debates I have judged at this point I have voted for FW.

I don't know that my ballot has the potential to do anything beside designate a winner or loser, and debate isn't meant to come to a final decision on the truth of any given statement but come to a determination on subjective truth so I don't think subject formation arguments are very persuasive.

The aff should at a minimum be related to the topic. You should also have some clear advocacy statement that you defend consistently. The CI should be predictable and res grounded with definitions. USFG = "the people" is intellectually dishonest and just not a good argument.

FW vs. K Affs:
Go for it, it's the most strategic 2NR available.

I'm more likely to vote on procedural fairness than I think the community at large is. Structural fairness disparities are inevitable but procedural fairness disparities aren't.

FW is not violent or policing and saying so is insulting to people that have dealt with those issues.

Theory:
Usually a reason to reject the argument not the team. 3 conditional advocacies are probably ok but more is iffy. Consult, delay, and condition counter-plans are sketchy. Each conditional plank is its own world if you can kick them individually. I have been both a 2A and 2N, so I don't have any strong protectionist feelings for either team, and sometimes cheating is pretty fun to watch. Also I think the impact of some theory arguments should sometimes just be that you should get to cheat too.

Speaker points
They're entirely subjective. That being said, I do understand that context (tournament size, quality, etc.) should influence my scale. Speaker points are a holistic reflection of how I think you did. I used to have a scale here but with speaker point inflation I don't think it really matters anymore. My average hovers around 28.5-28.6.

I have shortened my paradigm over time to make it easier to read, if you have questions for prefs just email me.

Updated for Plano West 2021

I debated for Cypress Bay and Plano West. I am a second year student at Florida State University.

Email: noahromo17@gmail.com

General:

Tech>Truth. Now don't go crazy and not read the rest of this because you won't win if you just spread through a bunch of dumb arguments. The way to my ballot is still 100% through warranting your arguments well and weighing. Also, if you are reading cut cards in case, tell me, and I will bump your speaks by +0.5.

Please be conscious of your opponents and audience in the room. If you're reading anything that may upset people in the round, you should read a trigger warning or content warning (the best way to do this would be anonymously through a google form or smth).

If you are sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, or transphobic, you will be dropped.

Preflow before round, keep track of your time and your opponent's time and don't steal each other's prep.

Don't assume I know the topic well.

You can email me or message me on Facebook with any questions as well and hmu if you need a coach!

Important Stuff:

1. This is first because it is the most important part of debate. WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH. Weighing should be comparative and warranted just like any other argument (Ex: Don't just tell me that your argument should win because your impact has a higher magnitude, tell me why having a higher magnitude makes your argument more important). If I am conflicted between different weighing mechanisms, meta weigh, or else I may default to one mechanism over another and you may not like my decision. I generally enjoy consistency between you and your partner's weighing mechanisms. Also weighing links and warrants is just as important as impact calc. If you don't get it by now, WEIGH because debate is all about comparing your arguments.

2. Speak fast if you want, I know I was a generally fast debater, but I will doc your speaker points if you aren't clear. Speaking slower can also be just as strategic and powerful, especially when it comes to emphasizing certain arguments on my flow. And if you're going to truly spread then I can flow it, but I will drop your speaks if you don't send a speech doc.

3. Any offense you want me to evaluate needs to be extended properly and in both Summary and Final Focus.

4. Whether it's paraphrasing or cut cards, please make sure your evidence is saying what you say it does. If someone tells me to call for it and it doesn't say that, it may cost you in a tight round. If your evidence is misrepresented and it's important I may drop you. Also, read dates please.

5. Defense from first rebuttal is sticky unless it is frontlined in second rebuttal (Now keep in mind that with a 3-minute summary I think important defense should be extended). Note: Turns are offense so they NEED TO be extended in first summary if you want them in final, and they should be responded to in first rebuttal.

6. Turns from first rebuttal must be responded to in second rebuttal, or else they are not frontlined.

7. Organization is key when it comes to giving a cohesive speech. Make sure your speeches are structured and signpost as you go. A roadmap always helps, or just let me know where you're starting.

8. No, I won't evaluate anything that was said in crossfire unless I hear you being excessively rude, belittling, or hateful to your opponents in any way. If you want me to evaluate it, it's gotta be in a speech.

9. If both teams are ok with it I will disclose at the end of the round. Tell me if it's a bubble round and I'll give you both high speaks :)

10. If you are going for turns, remember to extend the impacts and weigh them. And if you extend a link turn, you should extend your opponent's impact if they drop it.

11. A frontline is not a case extension. Extending your link chain and impact is a case extension. You must both extend and frontline if your argument is responded to.

12. I love framing debates, I think they are some of the most educational and interesting debates I have had so don't be afraid to have them. But if you are reading a framing argument, please try to read it in case and not past first rebuttal. Reading a long framing argument, in second rebuttal, that is very critical to the way the round is going to collapse is pretty abusive and it's going to annoy me.

More Progressive Stuff:

1. I liked to read lots of framing arguments, sometimes read shells, and a K every now and then. I also competed in Policy debate sometimes (not saying I was that good though lol). So, I think progressive debate is cool and has a large potential to increase the educational value of public forum, but only if orchestrated correctly. Which means don't read progressive arguments against novices or inexperienced opponents. If you truly believe you are 'so much better' than the team you are facing, let's see you win the round on my flow by weighing and warranting your arguments well because that is how to set a good example for new debaters. I will tank your speaks or possibly drop you if you use any of these arguments to exclude your opponents.

2. I think theory is cool and you should stick to shells that target specific in-round abuses. It's a good idea to ask me before round if I will be receptive to a specific shell. I default to no RVIs/competing interps.

3. So I will evaluate whatever argument you put in front of me as long as it has a claim, warrant, and impact. But just know that I am not as comfortable with Ks, tricks, and other more nuanced progressive arguments. You can run them and I will try my best to evaluate them, but you should probably go a bit slower when reading them.

4. I will evaluate just about any argument except for a couple of specific ones: Oppression good, death good, and 30 speaker points theory. If you want to know why I believe any of these arguments are bad I am happy to start a dialogue with you. If there are any other specific shells or arguments you wonder if I will be receptive to or not, do not hesitate to ask me before the round starts.

Speaks:

I will generally give out 27-29.

Debaters get too angry nowadays. If you debate well and are lighthearted/funny you will get high speaks. Rounds are always most educational when they not only clash, but everyone is having a good time!

I'll give you a 30 if you really impress me or make a funny reference to a good rapper (Whatever rapper you reference though has to have BARS, I'm talking five fingers of death bars).

Jokes and funny debates are my favorite. I personally thought debate was the most fun part of high school because it's like this awesome game of four-dimensional chess. So don't let frustrations get to you because enjoying your rounds is by far most important.

I'll intervene as little as possible because I want you to decide my ballot for me.

Ask me before round if you have any specific questions.

Policy

I'm okay with anything as long as you know what youre talking about

Run an untopical aff, run a plan, advocacy or no advocacy, run a k do whatever you want as long as you know what youre running and are prepared to win on theory/t. Make sure you can explain it to me bc im not gonna vote on something i dont understand and also dont assume I know your authors.

If you go for T or Theory you have to explain how it actually hurts you in the world of debate- don't just read a shell/shadow extend it. I want you to do a line by line on your standards and voters or I won't vote for it. Also if you read disclosure theory that's an isntant loss and no speaks. Sorry you're rich boohoo.

If you're gonna run a BS CP like a PIC or a consult you best have a DA and not just an INB.

Dont go for multiple world advocacies in the 2nr. pick one- you can run multiple advocacies throughout the round- but only go for one

If u go for theory, that better be the only thing u go for or i wont vote on it

LD/Pufo

more impacts based and please do weighing the last speech- i will defer to FW

Always include me in the email chain'

Email: israel.debate.email@gmail.com

Affiliations: LAMDL - CSUN

Speaker Points:

I do not disclose speaker points. Overall your speaks will be determined on the quality of speech.

Spreading:

I am okay with spreading, clarity/speed.

Basics rundown for Policy

Every argument/off case will be flowed the same way. What I mean by that the way that you will win a flow is the consistency of your argument and the persuasion of your speech. I have no "bias" or preference of arguments or type of Affs. For the record CP's and Theory arguments are going to be evaluated the same way. I separated them for the sake of alphabetization.

Case: Traditional Affs; I am very familiar with many kinds of Affs (i.e. Hard right and soft left Affs.) You should know the content of your Aff. I have no preference on the type of Aff or content itself. If you persuade me enough to vote for you through out the round then the ballot will ultimately go to the Aff. I run "traditional affs" in LD and have been a USFG centered in high school - still need why youre net better.

CP- Remember that not all Cp's are plan-inclusive and to me at least all you have to prove is that your method solves better than the aff. Its more credible with Net-benefits and show me solvency deficit.

DA- Uniqueness... Link.... Internal Links.... Impacts. Best way and easier for me to flow as a judge. If you don't use the DA as a net-benefit for the CP then I will always think the sqou. is being advocated as well besides the CP.

Kritiks: In this flow I really need to see how your alt and how the Aff links. I'm fine with performance, narrative, etc. If the K is ultimately not ran properly as in the explanation of Links, Impacts, Alt, Alt solves, etc. I will not vote for the K.

Topicality For Traditional Affs: On this flow there should be the most clash on. I need to know why and how the aff is not topical and why it matters to me as a judge.

You decide your fate of the ballot. Tell me why I should vote your way and I feel that you did a good job on executing that then I'll sign the ballot to you.

Competed: University of Minnesota
Coach (Present): Emporia State University; College Prep
Coached (Past): Augsburg College; Highland Park Senior High (MN)

PUBLIC FORUM

Although my primary background is in policy, I am familiar with the procedures of public forum and spent a season of my high school career competing in the format. Below are my answers to the suggested PF philosophy questions provided by the TOC.

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round: Speed of Delivery: Speed is fine so long as clarify doesn't suffer.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?):Both effective line by line and big picture storytelling are important to my ballot.

Role of the Final Focus: Providing a rubric/judge instruction for my ballot

Topicality: Generally these debates are done poorly, it's important to have a comparative metric for evaluating interpretations and a robust discussion of the various impacts to the violation. I do not view topicality in a purely "jurisdictional" way - offense/defense is important.

Plans: Not needed but not automatically disallowed.

Kritiks: Sure although just like any argument, it must be explained, applied, and impacted thoroughly.

Flowing/note-taking: I will flow the entirety of the debate.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Quality and depth of argument is the primary thing I will evaluate, but style is not unimportant by any means.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes.

POLICY

"I view my role in the debate not as arbiter of truth, but critic of argument, as such I attempt to divorce myself from relative "truth" values of arguments." - Chris Loghry

I like to see debaters deploying arguments that motivate and interest them.

I don’t call for many cards. This does not mean evidence quality does not matter, or that I don’t call cards often. What it does mean is: the debaters make the arguments, not the cards. I will not view them as placeholders for warranted explanation. Not every argument requires a card to answer.

Framing matters: provide me a macro-level filter through which to view the micro-components of the debate. The debates I find myself most frustrated with are the ones in which the 2NR and the 2AR have respectively delivered me 2NC #2 and 2AC #2 and left me to sort through the pieces. Rebuttalists that present a clear story while closing the right doors will be rewarded.

The more explicit you are with me in terms of my ballot, the better. This mostly goes for presumption and judge conditionality, but also for competing Frameworks/Role of the Ballots. If debaters are not explicit, there becomes no objective standard for me to use as a reference for when and where I infer these arguments.

Have a plan for Cross-X.

Things I like to see in cross-x: Asking precise, critical questions. Giving succinct, impactful answers. Writing down all concessions for utilization in the next speech.

Things I hate to see in cross-x: Ad-homs. Open-ended softballs. Questions that blatantly indicate a lack of flowing. Refusal to answer reasonable questions. Repetition of questions to avoid giving answers. Poorly-timed invocations of false ethos. 4-person shouting matches.

If you are reading critical literature, whether on the Affirmative or Negative, please explain and utilize your method. Make the links turn the case. Have a robust explanation of the alternative. Strive for internal, philosophical consistency. Your authors have particular theories of subjectivity, violence, etc., and I want to thear them; just remember that they all can and SHOULD be ACTIVELY applied broadly to frame many portions of the technical debate.

A speech doc is not a flow substitute.

Debate matters just as much to your opponents as it does to you, even if for different reasons. Be mindful of this and respect your competitors.

Please email me your speech documents. I have judged over a 1000 HS and College Debates over the last 18 years. I am a lawyer and lectured this past summer on this year's HS topic at Institutes for the NY UDL and the DC UDL Coaches Workshop and at Summer Institutes at the University of Michigan, Gonzaga, Georgetown and Harvard.

If you run a K, and actually have an ALT that can be proven to SOLVE a problem - - - any problem - - - it would be the first one I have heard that does solve a problem in 18 years of judging debates and then you might get my ballot, but probably not depending on how well the AFF does. If you are AFF and have a Plan that SOLVES a problem without creating more or larger problems - - - you might well get my ballot, depending on how well you debate during the round.

I listen to arguments, favor clash to determine who does the better job of debating, and no matter the chosen framing or style of either or both teams, I judge the debate based on what is said during the DEBATE by the Debaters.

I began high school judging in 1973.

I started judging college debate in 1976.

Between 1977 and 2002, I took a vacation from debate to practice law and raise a family.

Since 2002, I have judged between 40 and 80 Rounds a year in High School and had brief stints judging college and professional debate while "coaching" for the University of Redlands, my alma mater, in, I believe, 2010.

You can debate your own stuff, but I am not a theory fan.

I believe I have voted NEG on topicality four times in 18 years, twice in non-traditional AFF debates and once at the Kentucky RR when I thought the AFF made a mistake and I also thought the NEG made them pay, although a very competent and distinguished judge who was also judging the same round felt differently. So, even in the one traditional debate round where I voted NEG on T, I was probably wrong. I believe in AFF creativity, reasonability which guarantees predictability.

BUT (and and this is a CAPITAL BUT) I like/strongly prefer substantive debates ABOUT the topic area, so long as the Plan is a reasonable illustration of the Resolution.

People who listen and answer arguments well get great speaker points. People who are nice and friendly and not jerks also like their speaker points.

I have had teams run K's and all kinds, types and nature of CP's. The PERM Debate really makes a difference in a K and CP Round. I am not the most philosophically literate humyn being on the planet, so please explain your esoteric K and your even more esoteric K responses.

Cross-Examination is IMPORTANT, so please ask questions, get answers and ask more questions. When responding, please listen to the question that is asked and ANSWER it. No need to fight or argue. Ask questions, Get Answers, move on.

For the clash of civilization people who want to know more about my feelings and leanings, perhaps the best information I can give you is that I listened to a recording of the final round of the 2013 NDT and would have voted for Northwestern had I been judging. The framework debate in my mind flowed Negative.

I enjoy DISADS and case debates. I am particularly fond of hidden Case Turns that become huge Disads.

I know how hard you work and will attempt to work just as hard to get things right.

Hi everyone! Pls add me to the chain rachelstattion@gmail.com

My name is Rachel, I don't mind being called judge or Rachel, either works I'm like 6 months older than the oldest of you so not that big of a deal. I did policy debate and the tiniest bit of speech in high school. I currently go to SCU in California. I don't debate in college for two reasons: 1. they aint got policy here which would be fine but I am lazy and don't want to learn all over again how to debate and 2. tournaments gave me ~*anxietyyyy~*.

I'm usually a nervous wreck so please note, if you try to post-round me I will shut that down real quick. I am always willing to answer questions about why I do the things I do, buttttttt I will not accept entitled children coming up demanding answers and demanding a victory. nope.

Also, if you are worried about losing to a blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, entitled team, don't be. If I catch that sh*t not only will they not receive my vote but they will get as few speaks as I am able to give. Debate is already an exclusive activity, I will not tolerate those who think its okay to keep it that way. And for that matter, if you think you are one of those teams who tries to play savior for black and brown communities you do not belong to, then you have another thing coming, be very wary about the way you posit yourself and you prolly wont find me mad-dogging you.

Also, I don't smile, and have RBF, sorry for those worried about that but usually y'all are okay. If you see blatant confusion on my face, damn broskies I'm sorry not quite following your direction rn. Cursing is allowed, but not just because it is, use it to emphasize your pt, not the other way around. CX can be competitive if y'all are giving each other the run-around, but don't condescend or be blatantly disrespectful. Confrontation is different from disrespect. Be clear, don't spread, especially now with my shoddy internet connection and I swear to goodness if you do I will not follow. If I need to read the doc to have any clue what you are saying there is a problem.

Now for the juicy:

ON T/FWK: I'm willing to vote on it if it is like a really flushed out T violation, with a clear explanation of why it violates and its implications. But if you just up and go, "T - doesn't meet" 4 times with no further explanation, I will cry. Framework is a bit more convoluted, but I essentially request the same if not more detail on why debate should be structured this way. I'm not good at weighing either of these, especially with competing interpretations, so I would not bank on them unless the other team just completely mishandles it.

ON CASE: Y'all need offense. It cannot be just 'doesn't solve', because if they run the risk of solving then I will most likely vote affirmative. If you have got offense args like a turn, it will look way better for you and increases your chances of crushing the round. Making 3 or 4 really smart args on case is way better than 8 off case that barely link. Aff, carry arguments and ev from your 1ac, it is so undervalued, use that sh*t to answer their case args.

ON DAs/CPs: NGL a lot of the DA's I've seen have been dry as all hell, so you may see me bored out of my skull during the round if you are running another damn politics DA. Also, extremely weak connections between the DA and the case or running 4 DAs and hoping one sticks or the other team will drop it, it can work but I will still be big sad and disappointed in u. This is especially true with random CPs that make no logical sense or like 3 different CPs that are full of crap. Aff, literally I love turns on DAs, they make me smile again in this dark and dreary world. But, again cross apply args from the 1ac to answer, it makes your args stronger and I think of you better.

ON Ks: I love K's, I think they can be an awesome addition to a teams strat. But again, if you are using a K just to use a K, I will really look down on you for that. Especially if you run like a SetCol or Afropess K that has basis in identity to a certain degree and use it just as a one off, I will definitely dock speaks bc that is not cool at all. I don't know all Ks, and I think some are dumb, but if you can thoroughly explain to me why I should vote on it, it'll look better for you. Also, please make your advocacy clear. Aff, call them on their bs if their advocacy/alt is trash, sometimes I will agree with you.

ON K AFFs: Love them. But I also am really bad with the nuance of them. I really enjoy watching and hearing these rounds, but I get lost a lot easier, so as long as everything is explained thoroughly I'll definitely feel okay voting on it.

ON THEORY: Literally I have 1 round of experience with theory, and that was a blur. If you explain to me what it is you are arguing, why its important, or just what it is you want me to vote on it should be okay. But take this one realllll slow.

TLDR: Take it slow, explain it thoroughly, and you'll be good. I am not the most knowledgeable human being, so I need your help in giving me reasons to vote for you. TBH, I would rather not vote for anyone so as to avoid confrontation, so convince me por favor. Don't steal prep time, imma be mad. ALSO, if I am giving an RFD and you aren't paying attention, like at all, you can forget about me giving you a reason for your loss, you lost because you are buttfaces and dumb. Thanks yall, and good luck!

PS: brownie points for those who talk wit me about manga or got7. <3 y'all!

I'm fine with progressive debate theory and with rapid delivery, as long as each word is articulated. I revert to stock issues unless alternative paradigms are introduced into the round. Kritiks are okay, provided they are clearly connected with the topic. Conditional arguments need to be consistent with the rest of the neg case. Otherwise, I like to see arguments over debate theory when this is critical to the round, and I will look closely at the evidence you present during the round.