Update:
I haven't judged since 2018, I dont think my opinions on debate have changed but maybe slow down for me as I get back into this. You definitely should slow down on texts (plant texts, alts, interps etc.) and author names pls. My email is amestoy.monica@gmail.com

Background:
My name is Monica Amestoy. I graduated in 2013 and debated for Flintridge Sacred Heart Academy in La Canada, CA. I qualified for TOC my senior year, coached a few debaters who did very well at the TOC and have taught at VBI, NSD, PDI and BFI. I also debated in college. Overview: I will do my best to evaluate the round the way you tell me to. I will try to be as objective as possible, but I think that it is impossible to be a completely "tab" judge. So instead of pretending that I will vote like a blank slate my paradigm is to let you know about some of my opinions on certain aspects of debate. Also I haven’t really edited the rest of this paradigm in a while so feel free to ask questions.

Short version: I like policy style arguments, non topical argument, Ks and theory. Read whatever you feel you are best at and when in doubt weigh. I will straight up drop you if you make racist, sexist, homophobic and transphobic arguments.

Theory: I really enjoy good theory debates.

Ks:
I hesitate to tell you about my love for the K debate because I’m scared people will think that means they have to run their K in front of me. I obviously love the K but you should run what you think you will do your best with. That being said, I have found that I am more compelled by critical arguments so if you are responding to one of these types of positions or feel that you would perform better under a different paradigm of debate then I think you should probably address questions of what fairness is and for whom/what it means in the debate space.

CPs, Perms, Plans and DAs:
Go for it
Is condo good? Bad? Idk you should tell me these things in your speech

People need to slow down for their plan/cp texts. -Slow down for card names. I think judges lie way too much about how good they are at flowing. I'm just okay.

Things I will drop your speaks for (a lot):
1. Formatting your case in a way that makes it difficult for your opponent to read: multiple colors, fonts, highlighting or lack of spacing. (honestly win the round because your arguments or ballot story is better not because your opponent has a hard time reading your case)
2. Being really rude
3. Stealing prep
4. Lying
Just have fun and read what makes you happy.

I'm a parent judge and have judged LD debates.

If I understand your arguments, I will be able to judge more effectively so appreciate clarity.

Thank you for being a courteous participant.

*Updated 11/30/21*

My email is daw8332@sdsu.edu

I'm hired. Used to do Policy.

Good stuff to do:

- Avoid Cheerios and other sugary cereals

- Hydrate before + after every speech

- Get 8-9 hours of sleep a night

- Don't be mean to each other

The Round:

As big or small and as outlandishly or by-the-book as you want - just make it matter.

I prefer you debate like I was dragged off the street and made a judge. You're probably smarter than me anyways.

Judging:

Offense/Defense & Games. I'm TR until you say otherwise.

My RFD's are going to be as constructive and in-depth as I'm able to deliver on. If you think I'm going nowhere with whatever I'm saying during this time, please interject.

I flow pretty intensively, but I prefer to vote off of voting issues (a larger analysis of multiple points) than just one card.

I'm open and appreciate well articulated philosophical positions (Ks included), and I'll listen to anything but obscene worldviews such as evolutionary justifications for racism and what not.

I can vote off of theory, but no one has fun when the violations are frivolous. As such, I'm very persuaded to make theory an RVI to deter bad theory. If you plan on running a shell, go all in and articulate every section with logical justifications. The violation should be very specific, and the standard or standards should be fleshed out. At the end fo the day, it's a value debate like everything else in LD, so you are unlikely to persuade anyone by just shouting one liners.

Having done events outside of LD, I appreciate great presentations skills. They mostly affect speaker points, not the outcome of the round. I will give a 30 to a strong presenter. This means that even though I'm fine with speaking quickly, clarity is really important.

Lastly on the subject of speed, I really encourage both debaters to weigh arguments as opposed to trying to out-spread each other. Deep thoughtful analysis of core issues is more important than underscoring concessions. To that end, framework debate plays a huge role in the round.

I've judged over 100 debate rounds in the last 2 years at this point. I will flow the round. The biggest caveat is that you should not spread. It does not enhance argumentation and just makes the debate less engaging and less educational. I am putting this at the top of my paradigm. If you decide to spread, and as a result get dropped, that is your fault for not reading the paradigm, not a judge screw.

Pref Cheat Sheet

Traditional Debate/Lay- 1

Slow, Policy-Style debate- 4

Complex Phil- 4

Tricks- 4

Ks- Strike

Friv Theory- Strike

Spreading- Strike

I hate Ks, not because I don't understand them, but because I think they are bad for debate education. I have the same stance on spreading, I see no point in cramming as much content as possible into a debate if i can't understand you.  It is anti-educational.

I would like there to be an email chain, especially for virtual debates. add me to it- sonalbatra14@gmail.com If you do not make an email chain that indicates you did not read the paradigm and will result in dropped speaks :)

I like a good, reasonable argument

Not a huge fan of theory, don't run a super frivolous shell. If your opponent is running a frivolous shell make a good argument for reasonability & you should be fine. BUT, absolutely use theory to check REAL abuse.

Spreading- Don't like it. I'll say clear twice & then stop flowing & dock your speaks. It is better to err on the side of caution. If it is a big problem you will be dropped.

Kritiks- I don't like them. I would say don't run them.

Flowing- I flow the round, but if you speak too quickly, the quality of this will significantly deteriorate.

Speaks- Speaker points tend to be "low". Being nice = higher speaks, Being mean/rude = lower speaks. I judge speaker points mostly as if you were in a speech event. If you spread, you will have VERY LOW speaks (think 26). I do believe in low point wins if the tournament allows.

Pet Peeves-

- telling me you won the debate (that is my decision)

- "we should just try" (no, if your opponent is proving active harms, we should not just try.)

- being rude to your opponent

- forcing progressive debate on traditional opponents, if your opponent asks for traditional, please do a traditional round.

Overall, you should run what you are comfortable with. It is better to run a case you know & are comfortable with than a case you don't know just to appease a judge. Just make sure everything is well warranted & linked, & we should be good!

I am judging for the first time. I am excited to judge and will be looking forward to a healthy debate that articulate contentions clearly and concisely. I prefer quality over quantity. Excessive speed could cause your points to not come across clearly.

I debate currently at CSUF Until further notice

I debated for around 5.5 years and my background is mostly K args, but dont be afraid to run policy, I’m cool with both

Keep me on the chain por favor – ccarrasco244@gmail.com

If you have any questions for after the round or just need some help feel free to email, I’ll try to get back

general -

- I will distribute speaker points based off the accumulated performance from y’all, I like hearing arguments more if you truly believe in what you’re saying, especially debating Kritiks, be funny tho I’ll probably laugh, try to have fun and be the chill ones, try not to be toxic and even more so do not be violent, no -isms

- I will try to keep up on the flow but do not hyper-spread through theory blocks or any block for that matter, I will most likely not catch it

- be chill with each other but you can be aggressive if thats just your style, try not to trigger anxiety though in other debaters if you’re going too far

———- some more specifics ———-

I run and prefer Kritikal arguments, I am more comfortable listening to Settler Colonialism, Afro-Pessimism and Marxist literature, but that does not mean you can just spew jargon and hope to win, explain what your theories mean and your arguments, it will go a long way for your speaker points as well

Speaking of, i will be in the range of 27.5 - 29.9 for speaker points, I will try to be objective as possible but you do you, if you can do that well the speaker awards will come too

On T/FW, please make sure that your standards are specific to the round and are clearly spoken, I am substantially less convinced if you do not argue how that specific aff loses you ground and/or justifies a bad model of debate, but I will not vote it down for no reason, argue why those skills are good to solve the aff or provide a good model that sustains KvK debate in a better way than the aff justifies. Just don’t try to read your generic 2NC blocks, it gets more obvious the longer the debate goes on, do it well.

On Counterplans, try to have a net benefit, be smart with it, try not to have a million planks, having a solvency advocate is cool too, not much here.

Disads - do your link work as usual, I will vote on who does the better impact framing, just make sure you still got that link :) p.s for affs, just dont leave it at the end of the 2AC with a 2 second “they dont link isn’t it obvious”, please explain your answers and divide up time strategically

on K’s, I love good 2NC/1NR link stories, try not to just extend some evidence and answer 2AC args, evaluate why your links implicate the aff and how their specific aff makes something problematic. I dont mind a 2NC only the K with no cards, just make sure you’re not reading prewritten blocks, please be as specific as possible

Please stick to your arguments and embody them, just tell me what to evaluate at the end of the debate, I will very much appreciate if you can tell me how that happens, be revolutionary if you want to, I would probably enjoy the debate more.

While in high school, I was an LD debater and competed in Original Advocacy and Oratory. I do not appreciate spreading but will tolerate IF IT IS UNDERSTANDABLE. To be clear: If I cannot understand what you are saying, I will rank you down. I have a good understanding of LD debate however you can consider me a lay judge for any other debate event. I reward solvency and the discrediting of arguments through facts, not rhetoric. I would appreciate it if you could send me your case just so I can better flow the debate. You can send it to chakravartynikhil7@gmail.com.

I did debating in high school and loved it. IMO, debating is not a speed reading competition. I am all for an argument presented in a systemic fashion. It should explain why it should win, it should be supported by data, facts, analysis and sources. Stay with the topic and show your creativity without being overdramatic.

I love to hear a debate where the flow goes point by point of the argument presented by their opponent and counter-argues with claims and warrants without missing anything, and THEN presents something new. That to me indicated good listening skills and good knowledge and is very impactful.

Not only do I like to listen to what you have to say, I also like to see how you say. I am talking about, your body language. Your gestures, face expressions, eye contact, voice modulation and demeanor speaks volumes.

I have no patience for content that are sexist, vulgar, homophobic racist, transphobic, anti-Semitic or that berates a religion or a nation.

Hello Debaters,

I have about a little more than a year’s experience judging LD debate. I’ve judged 4 tournaments in that time. Prior to that, I was a judge for Congressional debate.

Tips:

I will use the value/value judgement criterion you propose so you’ll want to make sure these are clear. “Morality” by itself doesn’t mean much until you clarify (with a value judgement) what this means. The less clear your value/value judgement is, the more you’re leaving it to me to make the call for myself.

Constructions: “My time starts now…” Don’t race! Don’t spread! Landing your points well is more important than cramming in a large number of points. Let it show through that you thoroughly understand the contentions you advocate (vs. reading off a sheet of paper where I wonder if you prepared the arguments yourself!). Please do not do “off-time” summaries-- shouldn’t your points be apparent during the debate itself?

Cross-Examinations: The skill is in asking questions which clarify weaknesses in your opponents’ argument, or strengthen yours. Thoughtful questions substantive to the debate are important.

Rebuttals: I will be looking for how well you directly engage your opponent’s argument. Too many rebuttals simply focus on re-emphasizing one’s construction without taking into account the opposing side’s argument. The level of engagement is a prime way I distinguish how effective one’s rebuttal is.

Technicalities and Demeanor: Use of technicalities, e.g. pointing out your opponent did not address contentions you made, and so, you win on those points enhance debate but are not its substance. Particularly in novice LD debate, I favor you focusing on the key skills of construction/cross-X/rebuttal. Winning on the substance of your arguments is the prime judging point. Similarly, debaters confuse being aggressive and adversarial as qualities which convey confidence. While demeanor certainly contributes to effective communication, being aggressive without effectively using it to enhance the delivery of your message is merely just being aggressive.

I’ll be flowing your arguments in the judge’s notes so you’ll get to see where I followed you well, and where I didn’t.

Lastly, enjoy! I’m looking forward to hearing you speak!

I'm ok with basically every argument, but I won't do any argument work for you - please give me a good link chain explanation. I'm not super versed with the topic, so please give some sort of explanation for any jargon related to the topic. Tech over truth.

I'll start everyone at 28 speaks, and I'm ok with giving 30s if I think you're really good.

For LD:

Plans: Always ok, they should belong in LD

Framing/Values: I'll default to util if none is given, and I'm not SUPER well versed on jargon here so please give me some high level explanations to help me break it down.

T: I don't have a super high threshold to vote on it, but don't throw too many in there or I might not vote on it.

DA, CP: Totally cool with basically everything, but I may vote on condo if you run too many CPs or PICs, especially if they're minimally carded.

K: I'm cool with basically all Ks, although you might need to give some high level explanations on high theory. Give me a good reason why/how your alt solves, or why there's some sort of real world impact - I will give aff some competition vs. the alt.

I am a parent judge and new to PF judge.

Please speak slowly and clearly so I can follow you.

email: seungjohcho@gmail.com

PF paradigm:

I did PF for 4 years, and I did Big Questions for a few weeks at L C Anderson High School. I won both NSDA Nats and TFA State.

Just do whatever you planned on doing. Spreading is fine as long as you are clear. If you aren't good at spreading, first of all, you really shouldn't be doing it in PF, but if you really need to and you know you are bad at it, save yourself the L and flash me the doc you are reading. I value "tech over truth", in the sense that I will vote purely based on the ink on the flow, and I am willing to buy arguments that may not be true at all in the real world, as long as they were well articulated on the flow.

I don't flow cross fires at all, so unless you have an audience to please, I'd say just chill out a bit on cross fires. They won't really affect my decision. Also yes, I realize I was an aggressive debater myself, but if you're straight up being rude, I will dock speaks, which you really don't want from me because I generally give good speaks, so getting bad speaks from me will make you look even worse.

Make sure you weigh and you explain to me why you think you won the round by Final Focus, as I do not want to have to do that for you, especially on topics where I probably don't have any prior topic knowledge.

I will call for cards that you have asked me to call for, or cards that seem sketchy that are central to the round. In most cases, however, I will default to whatever the debaters tell me their cards say, so make sure you stay on top of that.

You do not have to extend defense if it is dropped. If it is addressed, however, I will obviously expect you to address it in speech if you are going for it.

Make sure you are sign posting.

Also please let me know where on the flow you will be starting your speech so that I can start flowing it well.

If you read frivolous theory, keep in mind that I probably will not weigh it unless it is completely dropped/inadequately responded to. I am also not a fan of disclosure theory in PF. That is not to say I won't evaluate it by default, but also run at your own risk.

And finally, everything you want me to vote on should be extended all the way to final focus. Even if it was dropped, if you do not extend it in final focus, I will not default you the win on an argument.

If you have any other questions for me, feel free to ask before the round!

LD Paradigm:

Read PF paradigm, should give you a sense of my debate background maybe how you should adapt.

Plans, CPs are all totally fine

Theory, Ks, more tech arguments are all good with me. Just do whatever you planned on doing.

Spreading is totally fine.

I made it to UIL LD State once, so post-round me as hard as you want, as long as it is educational.

I am a flow judge. If I don't understand you, I won't put it into my flow. That said, there is a difference between speaking fast and spreading. You can speak fast but if it is incomprehensible (spreading), I will miss the argument and it didn't make it onto my flow. Also, do not expect me to understand the topic; it is up to the debaters to allow me to understand the round. Please clearly state your impacts in your final speeches.

In LD, there are 4 minutes of prep and I generally don't allow for flex prep. There's cross-x time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep but not clarification (again, that's what cross x is for).

I weigh on framework and impact analysis. I look for arguments that are both logically sound and that have proper evidence to support it. I would probably describe myself as leaning traditional but I am comfortable with progressive arguments.

I have judged Congress, Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and Parli, but I am most familiar with LD.

I would also request that there should be a non-aggressive and friendly cross-examination and class. Be respectful to each other. Keep track of your own time and your opponent's.

Slow. It. Down. A well organized and developed argument will be more convincing than a rapid mass information dump. I am a rookie parent/lay judge. Spread at your own risk. I cannot evaluate what I do not hear or understand. Please explain abbreviations and jargon.

Signposting is helpful and a clear list of why I should vote for your argument will be beneficial. I am listening for arguments that are supported with facts and reinforced with compelling examples.

Please keep your own time and be respectful of each other during cross. Do not talk over each other.

(Be patient, it may take me a minute to get results posted.)

Hi! I am a parent judge for LD, but I have been judging tournaments for a while. I heavily prefer traditional cases (no theory, K's, etc.); counterplans are fine. No spreading, do not be condescending, racist, homophobic, sexist, or anything that attacks a debater's personal beliefs or identification, else I will drop you. I flow crossx, as it is binding. I do not appreciate post rounding, unless you are truly confused and want to understand the outcome better.

Tech>Truth

Good luck and have fun!

Yes I want to be on the email chain mattconraddebate@gmail.com. Pronouns are he/him.

My judging philosophy should ultimately be considered a statement of biases, any of which can be overcome by good debating. The round is yours.

I’m a USC debate alum and have had kids in policy finals of the TOC, a number of nationally ranked LDers, and state champions in LD, Original Oratory, and Original Prose & Poetry while judging about a dozen California state championship final rounds across a variety of events and the Informative final at NIETOC. Outside of speech and debate, I write in Hollywood and have worked on the business side of show business, which is a nice way of saying that I care more about concrete impacts than I do about esoteric notions of “reframing our discourse.” No matter what you’re arguing, tell me what it is and why it matters in terms of dollars and lives.

Politically, I’m a moderate Clinton Democrat and try to be tabula rasa but I don’t really believe that such a thing is possible.

I have 5 years of debate experience. I did two years of policy and two years of public forum, and I now do British parliamentary at the University of Laverne. If you make me laugh or smile, I'll be more willing to give you better speaks, but don't fish for votes, make it natural.

I'm good with speed

If you're debating policy try to have some original thoughts, I think the activity becomes boring when all you do is read other people's stuff.

If you have any questions, my email is: colin.coppock@laverne.edu

2022

Similar preferences to those below. I still value clarity and clash. For Congress, I value presentation, delivery, and style as well. Most of all, be your authentic self. Make passionate arguments you care about. Discuss the real-world impacts. Be respectful of your opponents and have fun!

Stanford 2020 and 2021

Here are some preferences:

I prefer traditional NSDA LD debate. If you spread, run theory, and/or kritiks, I will do my best to keep track but I do not yet have the experience to judge it yet. I'm getting better at it, though, so if you have more "circuit-type" argumentation, be sure to signpost and explain.

It is also my belief that skilled circuit debaters can be just as skilled at traditional debate (take a look at NSDA Nationals 2011 and 2018). And this year's NSDA National Champion competed at this same tournament a couple years ago. So there is lots of crossover.

Signpost. I will flow, but you can help by keeping the debate organized.

Crystallize. Break down the debate. Tell me what you think are the most important voting issues. Weigh arguments and impacts.

Have fun debating the big ideas of this resolution. It matters and your opinions matter, so challenge everyone in the room to consider this topic both philosophically and practically.

Stanford 2019

Please put me on the email chain: hcorkery@eduhsd.k12.ca.us

English teacher. Long time baseball coach; first year debate coach!

Here are some preferences:

Stay with traditional NSDA LD debate. If you are on the circuit, I respect your skill set; I’m just not ready for it yet. If you spread, run theory, and/or kritiks, I will do my best to keep track but I do not yet have the experience to judge it yet. And it is my belief that skilled circuit debaters can be just as skilled at traditional debate (take a look at NSDA Nationals 2011 and 2018).

Signpost. I will flow, but you can help by keeping the debate organized.

Crystallize. Break down the debate. Tell me what you think are the most important voting issues. Weigh arguments and impacts.

Have fun debating the big ideas of this very important resolution. I am a Marine Corps veteran and I understand the real-world impacts of foreign policy decisions. Your opinions matter so challenge everyone in the room to consider this topic both philosophically and practically.

Stanford 2018

Public Forum debate was designed with both the public and the lay judge in mind. For this reason, I'll judge your round based on the side that presents the clearest, best-supported, most logical argument that convinces the public and the public's policy makers to vote one way or another on a resolution.

I appreciate it when you explicitly state when you are establishing a "framework," making a "contention" or claim, providing a "warrant" or "evidence" and analyzing an "impact."

For speaker points, I value poise, eye contact, gestures, and pacing (changing your voice and speed to make effective points).

Finally, since this is JV Public Forum, we need to have a "growth mindset" and understand that this level of debating is developmental. JV Public Forum debaters are trying to improve and ultimately become varsity debaters. Winning is obviously important (I've coached sports for 20 years), but in my mind there is a clear distinction between JV and Varsity levels in any activity. JV is developmental competition. Varsity is the highest level competition.

I have experience in LD, Parli, and IEs.

General Preferences:

I understand that debate is confrontational and it can get heated but remember that you and your opponent are here to learn. I will not tolerate disrespectful behavior during round. Rudeness will drop speaks and possibly cost you the round.

Stay organized I can't vote for you if I can't follow your work on the flow.

I'm okay with speed I will call out "slow" or "clear" if I cannot understand you that being said, If you spread to exclude your opponent from the debate I will drop you.

When you give your voters speech I want you to write my ballot for me.

I won't vote on arguments that are racist,homophobic, xenophobic, etc. I don't care if your opponents drop them

LD preferences:

I'm not super experienced with circuit args but if you can explain them I am willing to vote.

I'm good on T and K's as long as they are warranted.

Not a fan of RVI's.

I don't really flow CX don't be overly aggressive CALM DOWN I PROMISE IT IS NOT THAT DEEP.

GIVE ME IMPACTS TELL ME WHY AN ARG MATTERS AND LINK IT BACK TO YOUR VALUES.

Parli Preferences

Anything goes argumentation wise

Tag teaming is okay but excessive tag teaming is irritating

I will defend the flow but I encourage you to call POO if you think I may not catch that a team is making a violation. At most call POO twice anything over 2 is excessive

I don't know when "Heckling" in parli became a thing but what I do know is that I will drop your team if you can't respect your opponents during their speeches. It is your responsibility to make arguments during your own speech.

That being said POI's are for questions not arguments feel free to trap your opponents but please make it a question.

On plan text I expect you to be specific ex: Funding universal basic income through normal ways and means I won't buy that

Feel free to ask me questions before and after round. Have fun and Good Luck!

Also remember that rankings, records, and awards don't really matter. It's about learning and having fun!

Hi! I am a lay judge.

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

Email: thejd2020@gmail.com

Hi! I’m a first-year out, and I debated LD at Lake Highland for 4 years.

First, please be nice in round :) There's no need to be rude or mean to your opponent in round even if it is a competitive event. I understand that for virtual tournaments there are bound to be tech and wifi issues, and will be as accommodating as I can.

I’m fine with pretty much any arguments you read, so read what you’re most comfortable with and can explain well. I’m not the biggest fan of tricks but I’ll vote on them if you warrant and explain them really well. I expect extensions and explanations of arguments to have a clear claim, warrant, and impact. If you read anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc or otherwise discriminatory and exclusionary in round I'll probably drop you and will definitely tank your speaks.

If you're reading a position that's more dense or confusing, you need to explain it clearly. Don't assume that I'll be familiar with it and will just vote on it because I or my teammates read something from a similar literature base. If you're reading blippy arguments or tricks, make sure you slow down enough so I can flow them completely, especially if you're planning on going for conceded blippy arguments - make sure they were clear enough in the first speech for me to flow them. I really don't understand tricks very well so although I'm not opposed to voting on them I really need you to explain them well if you want me to vote on them.

Arguments should be extended with a clear claim, warrant, and impact and need to be extended throughout the entire round if you plan on going for them. My threshold will be a bit lower if the argument is conceded, but if you want me to vote on the argument, you need to do more than just say the card name.

Please weigh between different layers of the debate! This is really important for me understanding how you expect me to evaluate your arguments in the round. I always appreciate when debaters take a few seconds at the end of their speech to break down how you think the round should be evaluated and what arguments you think should come first based on the weighing you did. If you provide absolutely no weighing between arguments, here are some things I will default to:

- Theory > K

- No RVIs

If you talk about the environment there's a chance I might give you higher speaks :)

As a debater, I focused on a few different things each year, but spent most of my senior year on K debate. However, that doesn't mean that you should read a K in front of me if that's not what you're most familiar with. I am somewhat familiar with Deleuzian literature but again expect clear explanations and warranting for whatever you're reading. I'm fine with speed as long as you're clear. I focused on tech debate for most of my time in debate, but am familiar with Lay debate too and will evaluate it based on your arguments, responses, and extensions throughout the round.

This is how I would rate my familiarity with some common types of arguments, 1 being the most familiar and 4 being the least.

K (1)

Theory/T (2)

Phil (3)

Tricks/Spikes (4)

Here are some norms I think should be followed for the virtual debate space:

- I think it's even more important virtually than in person to get clear confirmation that both your opponent and the judge are ready for your speech

- For Minneapple, the tournament allows for 10 minutes total in the round to accommodate any tech issues anyone is having. Please make sure you don't abuse this time if you're not having technical difficulties but I will be as understanding as I can if you are. If you know your computer is acting up or your wifi is spotty let me know at the beginning of the round so we can make a plan in case something goes wrong!

- Be prepared to adapt your debating style depending on the technical situations of your opponent and judge. I have no problem with spreading in a normal round but make sure that your opponent can understand and respond to your arguments.

If you have any specific questions you can email, Facebook message, or ask me before the round.

When judging, I look for powerful delivery, slow measured speech, body language, insightful analysis and love contestants they enjoy their time under the spotlight. Go You!

High school policy debate experience with decent results. I'm a tab judge that will let the debate go where the debaters decide to take it. I'm happy to vote for well constructed plans, counter plans, and kritiks. Miss me with that extra topicality, though. Speed reading is fine by me, but you need to slow down for tag lines, and make sure your evidence isn't power tagged to high heaven. Debate rounds that make me happy are the kinds that come down to only one or two arguments at the end that you decide should be clear voting issues. I don't want to see the entirety of the first constructive speeches still being fought for at the end of the round. Make strategic decisions to kick weaker arguments and go for one cohesive argument by the end, instead of the spray and pray that something sways me. It should be clear to me that you have one argument, maybe two, which should make me vote your way. Happy to answer questions before round.

A quick overview here, to be updated later:

I’ve been a coach and judge for 23 years, judging TFA, UIL and NSDA.

In LD, I’m pretty old-school. I’m looking for a value, and VC. If it sounds like I’ve wandered into a policy round, rather than LD, we have a problem. As far as speed, if you want it on my flow, you need to be very clean and clear. On a scale of 1-10, we’re probably at a 4. I’m not looking for a performance in a debate round, if I wanted that, I’d be judging DI, so if you’re running some sort of performative case, it will be hard to get my ballot. Not that it can’t be done, but you have an additional burden. On the other hand, arguing the resolution in a value-based case will get you my full attention.

More to follow for other events.

Here's my background. I did three years of debate at Los Altos High School in Los Altos, CA. That consisted of lay LD, then circuit LD, and finally PF. When I debated my final year in public forum I was heavily influenced by my time in circuit LD. I hope that gives you a good initial idea of who I was as a debater- which is, of course, important for how you adapt to me as a judge.

General things:

You should be nuanced in your speeches, applying all of that wonderful critical thinking you've learnt/are learning. I would love to see some in-depth, insightful, and profound debates. This involves:

1. really interacting with the arguments your opponent puts forth. I don't enjoy two-ships-passing-in-the-night debates, where both sides just read their arguments and don't really do a lot of interaction- and the interaction they do do is weak and lacking in nuance. For those of you I judge for PF, call for evidence so that you can really interact with it. Evidentiary interaction is good!

2. not being blippy. If your point really is short enough that you can say it really quickly (this should be rare), then sure, you can touch on it just for a moment. But otherwise I don't want to hear super short extensions (or arguments in general) where you just state the claim/author and don't explain the argument behind it and why it matters (how it interacts with the opposition). Then the other team will have a really easy time refuting it, so you are worse off. Be thorough. I would rather have a few dense but crucial points than many half-baked claims floating around (collapse). Make sure to weigh too, of course.

4. Weigh (and meta-weigh if it's necessary).

PF:

Tech > truth (bigotry is an exception, as is possibly theory which I elaborate on below). If you go for a crazy argument, I will vote for it. But note that attempting such an argument (unique/creative doesn't necessarily equal crazy/weak, mind you. In fact, I would love to see some debates with really creative arguments) is risky. If it's genuinely sketchy, the opposing team should be able to shoot it down easily. To that end, if you go up against a crazy argument you should quickly but skillfully refute it. This logic applies to arguments like theory- say you go up against theory, and you've never been trained in answering it before. You don't need to use any buzzwords. Just respond like you would any other argument. Flow it and respond logically, I won't give your response any less credence because it's unlike "typical" theory responses.

I am completely open to having time looking at evidence being off of prep time. I think this practice helps ensure proper evidentiary standards and allows for a more thorough and nuanced debate- especially in PF.

I believe disclosure is good. So I will evaluate disclosure theory. That being said, things in PF are a little different. If you're up against some small team that doesn't even know what the wiki is or has never encountered theory before, my bar for their response will be low (or nonexistent. See the next sentence). If I think you're just using theory (any theory really, not just disclosure) as a tool to win because you know your opponents are out of the loop on the subject, I may not vote on it. It's noninclusive and rude. Please do not put me in this situation.

Don't spread your opponent out. You can speak quickly as long as your microphone/internet are up for that. If you straight up spread you should flash speech docs. I'm fine with either side saying "speed" or "clear" during the debate for accessibility reasons. I want debates to be accessible, so if you need your opponent to go slower in order for you to engage, please speak up. Don't abuse this, of course.

Final:

Please be inclusive and considerate of everyone involved.

***Please signpost well. It makes things so much easier for me to keep track of.***

Last updated 2/12/24

As a judge, I view competitive academic debate as an educational rhetoric game. I want you to have the debate you want to have; I try not to intervene if your debate meets two *principles:

1. By default, I will do my best to enforce the published rules of any event I’m judging - based on my personal interpretation/understanding of them. I’m open to reconciling interpretations, but I'd rather do it prior to the first speech. I am less open to arguments that “rules are bad.” I believe maintaining stable competitive parameters is necessary to maintain fairness.

2. I deeply value access to speech and debate. By default, I will do my best to perpetuate a culture of inclusivity.

If you’re unclear on these points, please ask. I'm happy to chat about it.

* While these personal value principles are strongly-held, unless a "violation" seems especially egregious - and in the absence of in-round articulation - I'll be reluctant to intervene. Again, I want you to have the debate you want to have.

My preferences:

I like strong logic. I like it when debaters are considerate of one another and bring good will. I love good humor. I love creative, nuanced, and uncommon arguments.

Ultimately, I’m down for whatever you want to do. If you have specific theory questions, ask me before the round.

Speaker points:
I see speaker points as an opportunity to reward individual oration. Things I value: strong verbal and nonverbal performance, audience/judge adaptation, round vision, and clarity & consistency of structure, content, and presentation.

My limitations:
I believe I’m familiar with most of the norms of middle school, high school, and college-level debate, but I have some weaknesses: I have some difficulty flowing and comprehending top-speed arguments. If you're unsure what my threshold is, look for visual cues or simply ask. Spread at your own risk. If you’ve been doing Policy debate since fifth grade you probably know some jargon and theory that I don’t. I’m more fluent in English than I am in Debate. Run what you want, but bring me with you. Don't assume I'm deep in the lit.

Rebuttals:
I will protect against new arguments in rebuttals in scale with my level of certainty that they're new; If an argument is brand new and the opponent doesn't have a chance to respond to the argument, I will not consider the argument in my decision. If it's Parli, call the point of order.

Speech-y Debate Events (ie SPAR and IPDA):
While the guidelines above apply to my approach to SPAR and IPDA, I will not be strictly a "flow judge." I'll take a more holistic approach in my evaluation. This is a public speaking event, so I'll take the role of more of a lay audience member and less of a panopticon than in other forms of debate. I will still flow the debate.

Discretionary information about me:I'm a night owl. I love vintage motorcycles and guitar amps, karaoke, Mario Kart 64, waterfalls, and podcasts. I've been sorted into House Slytherin.

As a competitor in high school, I mostly took part in interpretation events at tournaments. As a result, I developed a particular attention to rhetorical style and flow, and my impression of a debater is heavily informed by the effectiveness of their diction and pacing. To be clear, by "good diction" I don't mean haphazardly stuffing fancy words into sentences (how boring would that be?) but rather making effective choices in support of their argument when it comes to clarity and precision. I will ultimately vote for the side with the more effective case, but rhetorical ability can go a long way in showing me which one is stronger.

Additionally, demonstrating a structural understanding of opponents' contentions is something I look for when judging. It's not enough to come in with the perfect plan on paper - a successful debater or team will communicate why I must choose theirs above the alternative.

Finally - and I hope that this is unnecessary/obvious - be kind to one another! Debate is the most rewarding when everyone is participating in good faith, and oppressive/harmful forms of discourse have no place in it.

I have judged Varsity Policy, Parli and LD debate rounds and IE rounds for 10 years at both the high school and college tournament level. I competed at San Francisco State University in debate and IEs and went to Nationals twice, and I also competed at North Hollywood High School.

Make it a clean debate. Keep the thinking as linear as possible.

Counterplans should be well thought out – and original. (Plan-Inclusive Counterplans are seriously problematic.)

Speed is not an issue with me as usually I can flow when someone spreads.

I do like theory arguments but not arguments that are way, way out there and have no basis in fact or applicability.

Going offcase with non-traditional arguments is fine as long as such arguments are explained.

Above all, have fun.

About Me:

Bravo '20, CSULB '24, LAMDL 4eva

2024 ADA Champ, CEDA Semis, NDT Quarters, #3 Copeland Panelist

Currently coaching Huntington Park High School

Email: diegojflores02@gmail.com

People I talk about debate with or have influenced me heavily: Deven Cooper, Jaysyn Green, Geordano Liriano, Curtis Ortega, Andres Marquez, Isai Ortega, Toya Green, Azja Butler, Cameron Ward, Jonathan Meza, Jared Burke, Elvis Pineda, Irshad Reza Husain, Tatianna Mckenzie, Khamani Griffin

TOC Update

nothing new, if anybody's interested in debating at csulb lemme know

How I Judge

• Judge instruction above all else. Tell me why your argument comes first (framing, recency, more contextualized, etc.) or why winning x part of the flow wins you the rest, and do the opposite to your opponent's framing. A long 2AR/2NR overview that identifies the 2-3 biggest issues to resolve is much more instructive to me than blasting off a pre-written block. I fully believe that the focus of the debate is completely up to the debaters to determine and will decide it only on what the flow says, not what I think it should say.
• When resolving arguments for either side, I tend to view it kind of like debate math. If one side has a full extension of their argument (claim, warrant, ev) and the other side is incomplete (claim, warrant, no ev), then I default to the side that has a more complete explanation of their argument. In scenarios where debating is equal, I listen to judge instruction and read evidence when necessary, but this a rarity. I hate having to insert my own beliefs about debate in order to decide which argument is better, which is why direct argument comparison and judge instruction are the most important things to do when I'm judging you.
• I flow straight down and heavily decide debates based on technical execution, so responding to the arguments in the order that they come in is preferable to me. However, I am completely fine with you going in your own order as long as you clearly state what argument you're responding to and still directly engage your opponent's arguments.
• I don't have the docs open during the debate and only refer to them during cx to read ev or if the debate is really close. I'm comfortable flowing any speed, but will not hesitate to say in the RFD that I could not catch an argument because the analytics were unflowable or the argument did not make sense. Please do not spread your analytics as if they're cards.
• Capable of writing a clear RFD for any style of debate, but my advice for improvement is better if critical literature is introduced. I only read K-oriented arguments in college, but was a flex/policy-leaning debater in high school.
• Following the above ensures that good, technical debating always overrides my personal beliefs (hate capitalism and psychoanalysis but vote on them all the time its concerning)
• No judge kick make your own decisions, inserting rehighlights is fine with me on the condition that you explain what the rehighlight says using quotes from the ev.
• Speaker points start at a 28.5 and move up and down according to execution: Rebuttals > Organization > Strategic pivots/ concessions > Sounding like you want to be here > Winning Cross-ex moments is probably my list of priorities when thinking about it
• boo being a bad person to your opponents booooo. i'm all for debaters standing on business, petty throwdowns, etc., but i am not for full-on disrespecting your opponents simply for the sake of it. every debate is a performance and you should be aware of how you come off.
• Format stuff -- title ur email chains [Tournament Name - Round x - Team A -Aff- v. Team B -Neg-), pls put ev in a doc before sending it out, etc.

Argument Preferences

I appreciate debaters who stick to their convictions and are confident in their ability to win what they're best at regardless if the judge is predetermined to agree with their set of arguments or not. The following is a list my personal beliefs about debate that only matter if there is a complete absence of judge instruction/technical debating by both sides. Anything that is not addressed just means I'm neutral for both sides about the argument and is overwhelmingly determined by the flow.

K Affs - Affs should be clear about the method/epistemological shift from the status quo they defend and why it challenges the impacts/theory of power outlined in the 1AC. I'm better for method-based K Affs than solely epistemological ones because I think the latter is susceptible to presumption arguments since I'm usually unsure about the scale that is required for the epistemological shift to solve the 1AC's impacts and why the aff is uniquely key. Method-based affs should be prepared to debate impact turns.

K Aff v. Framework - I strongly prefer a counter-interpretation than just a impact turn strategy. What it means to be resolutional must be defined in the 2AC through definitions or a different vision for engagement. I also strongly prefer that the counter-interpretation is in reference to models of debate established by scholars in the activity (DSRB’s Three Tier, Elijah Smith’s KFM, Amber Kelsie’s Blackened Debate, etc.). I think there is enough history of debate established for us to have substantive debates over the pros/cons of traditional/non-traditional models of debate.

Framework v. K Affs - Clash/Skills with Fairness as an internal link instead of as an impact on its own. SSD over TVA unless you have a solvency advocate. A combination of limits arguments and no clash turning the case is needed in order to win these debates in front of me. The only "engage the aff's case" I require is defense agains the aff's theory of power and their "ballot key" arguments since those two are usually cross-applied to become offense against framework.

K v. K - The biggest thing to clarify is how competing visions/demands about society structure your offense against each side of the debate. Each form of offense should have a material example of how your theoretical distinctions manifest into real impacts.

PIKs - Affs should always explain that the component that the negative has PIK'd out of is necessary for aff solvency, and that the PIK is a worse version because of it. Offense by the aff is often underdeveloped and I wish neg teams would be less afraid to go for PIKs since its usually cleaner than other flows.

Policy Affs - 2ACs overviews need to explain what the plan does and why it solves the impacts of the 1AC as opposed to just impact calculus at the top. Negative teams should be more willing to go for analytics that call out wonky internal link chains and solvency claims.

Extinction Affs v. K - Affs should defend the representations of their plan beyond "if we win case then reps true + extinction outweighs" by thoroughly explaining why the impact scenario is true as opposed to the 2AR saying "no case defense, flow our stuff through for us". I truly don't understand the new trend for every debater to rattle off "debate doesnt shape subjectivity + fairness is nice" and think that its sufficient to beat the K without addressing the link or the alt. I'd much rather hear a 2AR that substantively defends the case and impact turns the links. I absolutely hate when heg teams say "china evil cus uyghurs" or "russia evil" and refuse to acknowledge their hypocrisy in defending the United States (enslavement, genocide, current support of Israel, just history and today in general.). If you want to win heg good in front of me, I need a substantive impact turn to the link and an offensive push for why the alternative on the K is worse than the status quo, not just "fwk - weigh the aff".

Soft-Left Affs v. K - These are my favorite debates to judge. Affs should spend more time explaining why the case is a good form of harm reduction as opposed to trying to beat the ontology of the K with "progress possible + pessimism bad" arguments. I usually think that these arguments do nothing for the aff since none of the cards are about the case, and they'd be better off explaining why the aff is better than the status quo even if the neg's ontology is correct, and that a perm would resolve the links enough.

K v. Policy - K teams should have a "link turns case argument" even if the 2NR is a huge framework push, but I prefer the strategy to extend an alt that solves the case and resolves the link debate. Case defense is appreciated. I'm not the best for K 2NR's that invest most of their time into the ontology debate because I think its better for neg teams to go for specific links that turn the case or have an argument that the impacts of the K should come first before the aff, and winning a link means the alt comes first before the aff. At most, I think the ontology of a Kritik should be used to frame which impacts matter most, and it usually does not make-or-break debates for me. I don't require "specific" link evidence versus the aff, but I appreciate link contextualization in the block and I think K's are best when the 2NC/2NR pulls specific lines from the Affs speeches and explain how their method's underlying assumptions turn itself.

Counterplans - Neutral for each side about theory/competition arguments. Counterplans that only rely on internal net benefits are less likely to win in front of me since I think a combination of aff theory + a permutation can beat it.

Disadvantages - PLEASE INTRODUCE IMPACT CALCULUS IN THE 2AC/2NC, I hate when the first time I'm hearing it is in the rebuttal speeches from both sides. Direct evidence comparison above all else, i appreciate an overview of the impact scenario at the top of each speech. I'm a lot more concerned by whose impact scenario has more overall risk of occurring than a "turns the case/DA" argument.

LAMDL/UDL Stuff

• ONLY TO LAMDL/OTHER UDL KIDS - Email me with questions, speech redoes, questions about debate, and I will try my best to get back to you with advice/feedback. Not having coaches and learning debate by yourself is hard and I can’t guarantee responses all the time but I try to respond to mostly everybody that reaches out to me.
• WIKI RANT - have a wiki up by your 2nd tournament or I’m capping speaks at 29. Cites of the arguments/evidence you have read are the only thing needed, not open source. Not disclosing on the wiki diminishes the quality of debates LAMDL produces and exacerbates the gaps we have in resources as UDL schools, and it does nothing to help up and coming varsity debaters who don’t know how to start prep against teams that refuse to disclose. Debate is competitive and we’re all here to win, but it sucks when part of the reason nobody’s prepped to be negative is because nobody knows what anybody is reading.

other thoughts

• Highlight Color Rankings - Yellow > Blue > custom light pastel color > any other color is ew
• Water > Coffee > any energy drink like Red Bull or Monster is disgusting
• Tagline quality. They’re either unflowable (too long/wordy) or way too flowable (no warrant/2 word). The way people feel about highlighting trends is how I feel about tags. I hope for the perfect middle ground.
• If you run critical arguments about an identity you don’t belong to, I need you to explain what my/your role as a judge/competitor is to that literature, even if the other side never brings it up. I think it’s valuable to understand how we position ourselves in relation to literature that isn’t about us and see how it affects our decisions to use it as an argument, as well as develop ethical relationships to it.
• I think variations of the Cap K (escalante, racial cap, abolition democracy, etc.) are great and the majority of Affs mishandle them. Defending it as a methods debate as opposed to a "cap root cause + extinction ow + state engagement good" strategy is better in front of me and the affs common responses of "racist party + accountability DA + aff theory is root cause of cap" can be easily beat assuming the negative has actually read the literature behind the cap k. Despite the fearmongering by framework teams, the Cap K is a great generic and more teams should be willing to go for it.

Stock issues, top case, and impacts take priority. Especially probability. if I don't believe it's likely to happen, the effects don't really matter. If I look like a deer in headlights, you're talking too fast. otherwise, go for it. I won't fill in the blanks, or extend things for you.

Debate is a wonderful activity for reasoned civil discourse; don't be a jerk to your opponents.

(1) I am not a fan of spreading. A real judge in a courtroom would never allow it; in debate it sacrifices persuasion and clarity for the goal of squeezing in additional facts and arguments (most of which are stated so quickly that your audience will miss them anyway). I won't hold it against you, and I can retain a lot of things stated quickly. But if I miss one of your points or you sound as convincing as a robot, that's on you.

(2) I am not overly-concerned with format, rules or procedure, nor am I impressed by debaters who try to score points by harping on them or their opponent's failure to comply with them. If you have a legitimate beef with something your opponent has done or failed to do, mention it quickly and move on. I will consider it along with everything else, but it alone won't win you the debate.

(3) I value a productive cross-X. Most debaters use that time to ask their opponents open-ended questions about arguments they already made. Others waste time trying to get their opponents to concede points that are clearly debatable. I'm impressed by the few who use leading questions to limit their opponents to yes or no answers to questions that favor the questioner; I especially enjoy those who zero in on points they KNOW their opponents MUST concede ("How many other studies did you say support position A? None? Thank you.").

(4) Do not leave any of your opponent's arguments unrebutted, no matter how weak they may seem. I keep track of them all; in a close debate, one side may win because they made one more point that the other side failed to counter.

Hi everyone! My name is Bhupinder Gill. I have some recommendations if you want me to vote for you:

a) Speak with articulation

b) Don't use abbreviated terms without clarifying its full form.

c) Be polite to your opponents

d) Don't interrupt your opponent unless you haven't gotten the chance to make your point.

e) I'm judging based on argument, not tone. Make sure whatever you're saying makes sense.

f) Have fun!

If you have any questions for me, please do ask!

I am a lay parent judge.

Please speak slowly and enunciate your words.

I competed in Parliamentary debate, Lincoln Douglas debate, Extemp, and Impromptu in community college and at the university level. I appreciate all styles of debate and can keep up with faster, more technical rounds. With that said, I won't do any work for you (unless you leave me no other option) and expect well reasoned and concise explanations for arguments. I will vote on anything as long as it's explained and defended well. Speed for speed's sake is unappealing to me. I'd generally prefer a slow, concise, and efficient debater over a fast and messy one.

I am currently a college student.

I did Speech and Debate all of high school and our team/league was very competitive.

I consider myself very competent to judge any style of speech or debate, however, I have the most experience with

- LD, PF, Parli debate

I do not have many paradigms if any, but during round, I do ask:

You do not spread but I can follow along.

In final speeches, I appreciate the impact calculus.

Respect you and your opponents with prep time/CX.

Use line by line refuation.

Hello. This will be my first time participating with this type of event, so no experience judging debates. As I am unfamiliar with this type of competition, I would appreciate respectful discussions, clearly stated claims/impacts/responses at a reasonable speed would be very helpful. Ability to keep up to date with current information will vary by people, please present your information assuming I am not familiar with the subject.

I am a lay judge. If you’re worried that I might not understand a certain term, explain it or use a synonym.

My knowledge about the topic could be limited. It is likely that I don’t know any of topic-specific concepts or acronyms.

I want to be put on the email chain. kantguo@hotmail.com.

I am not a fan of spreading. If you spread, probably I will not fully understand.

Here is what I prefer – signposting, enunciating your claims, extending your arguments, explaining their relationships with the value structure, being respectful, etc.

Have fun… and good luck!

I'd vote for students who are knowledgeable and have researched well and speak in relevance to the discussion, instead of simply reading out from a paper.

Please speak at a moderate pace, as though you are explaining something to me about a topic that I am not much aware of. Honestly, I have very little experience on the topic and I have not researched on the topic like a debater. So, please explain to me with evidence and name it clearly. If I cannot understand you then it will be difficult for me to vote you.

For speaker points, strong assertive voice, clarity of speech are important. Remember to have fun. All the best.

email chain cody.gustafson@dallasurbandebate.org

tl;dr: do what you do best, at whatever rate of delivery you can be clear at. My paradigm was previously much longer for no reason at all, so i shortened it. Feel free to email me with any questions you may have, but I kept what I thought were the quick hitters:

- Read whatever set or style of arguments you would like, my job is to evaluate the round through an offense/defense lens and vote for the team that makes the world a better place (i.e. won the debate, ya know). I frequently judge all types of debates (from policy v policy, k v k, and k v policy to world schools, parli, policy, LD, and college debate to middle school debate, etc) and am more interested in seeing good debate rather than any particular style of debate.

- Warrant & evidence comparison, impact terminalization, historical examples, global context, and 'telling the story' of the round late in rebuttals are typically the content choices that help sway my decision when a clear winner is not decided by the flow.

- I don’t have any predispositions regrading the content, structure, or style of your arguments. I will defer to evaluating the debate through an offense/defense paradigm absent a team winning an argument for me to evaluate it another way. Clear impact weighing in the rebuttals and evidence/warrant comparison are typically what I notice in teams I enjoy judging.

- I attempt to be a ’technical’ judge in every round I watch. I try to keep a detailed flow, and use my flow to evaluate the round that happened. If the flow doesn’t decide a clear winner, I will then look to the quality of evidence/warrants provided. I tend to find I’m less interested in where an argument in presented than others. While clear line-by-line is always appreciated, some of my favorite debaters to watch were overview-heavy debaters who made and answered arguments in the debate while telling a persuasive story of the debate. I would rather you sound organized and clear than following a template throughout each flow.

- Instead of framing debates through ‘body counts’, I am much more persuaded by framing as ‘who saves the most lives’, or who has the best advocacy for change. Sometimes debaters talk about claims of very real violence and problems for various communities with little regard to the real world implications of their political advocacies.

- I tend to prefer specific plan texts over vague plan texts. I also like specific internal link claims and impact scenarios. Specific instances of war are more persuasive to me than ‘goat power war’ claims.

- In reformism v revolution debates, I prefer explanations that pinpoint why the conditions of the status quo are the way they are, and can best explain casualty for violence. This is where historical examples become especially important, and where warrant comparison becomes paramount.

Updated 2023 Pre-Northwestern College Season Opener

Assistant Policy Debate Coach at UT-Dallas and Greenhill

Debated at C.E. Byrd HS in Shreveport, Louisiana (class of ’14). Debated in college policy for Baylor University (2014-2016) and the University of Iowa (2017-2019)

Have coached: Caddo Magnet HS, Hendrickson HS, Little Rock Central HS, Glenbrook South HS, University of Iowa, James Madison University

Email chain should be set up/sent before start time. Sam.gustavson@gmail.com

Top level

Please be respectful of one another. We are all sacrificing our weekends to be here and learn, you can be passionate about your arguments without being mean, rude, condescending, hostile, etc. I’d almost always prefer you convince me that your opponent’s arguments are bad, not that they’re bad people. Chances are, none of us know each other well enough to make that determination.

Please prioritize clarity over speed.Everything else you can take with a grain of salt and ultimately do what you are best at, but me being able to understand you comes before anything else.

Debate is hard. People make it harder by making it more complicated than it needs to be. I like debaters who take complex ideas and bring them down to the level of simplicity and common sense.

Judge instruction, impact framing, comparison of evidence, authors, warrants, etc. or “the art of spin” is the most important thing for telling me how I should decide a debate. Making strategic decisions is important.

One of the things that makes debate truly unique is the research that is required, and so I think it makes sense to reward teams who are clearly going above and beyond in the research they’re producing. Good cards won’t auto win you the debate, but they certainly help “break ties” on the flow and give off the perception that a team is deep in the literature on their argument. But good evidence is always secondary to what a debater does with it.

I care about cross-x A LOT. USE ALL OF YOUR CX TIME PLZ

Organization is also really important to me. Debaters that do effective line by line, clearly label arguments and use things like subpoints are more likely to win in front of me and get better speaks.

High School Specific Thoughts

I work full time in college debate and as a result am less familiar with the ins-and-outs of the high school topic. Take that into consideration.

If you’re interested in doing policy debate in college, feel free to talk to me about debating at UT-Dallas! I am a full-time assistant coach there. We have scholarships, multiple coaches, and a really fun team culture.

CLARITY OVER SPEED APPLIES DOUBLE TO HIGH SCHOOL

Set up the email chain as soon as you get to the room and do disclosure. If you’re aff, ask for the neg team’s emails and copy and paste mine from the top of my paradigm. Let’s get started on time!

Please keep track of your own prep, cx, and speech time.

Don’t flow off the speech doc, it’s the easiest way to miss something and it’s super obvious. Don’t waste cross-x time asking what the did and didn’t read! Flowing is so important.

Aff thoughts

I don’t care what “style” of aff you read, I just care that it is consistently explained and executed throughout the debate.

I like most judges enjoy 2ACs that make strategic choices, smart groupings and cross applications, and effectively and efficiently use the 1AC to beat neg positions in addition to reading new cards.

2ACs and ESPECIALLY 1ARs are getting away with murder in terms of not actually extending the aff.

Pretty aff leaning on a lot of CP theory questions (Process especially, 50 states, agent CPs. With the exception of PICs), but usually think they’re a reason to reject the argument. You can win it’s a reason to reject the team, but my bar for winning the 2ac was irrevocably skewed by the existence of a single 1NC position is pretty high. I don’t really lean one way or the other on condo (ideologically at least, I have no clue what my judge record is in condo debates).

Neg Thoughts - General

I like negative strategies that are well-researched specific responses to the aff. I think case debating is super important and underutilized. Nothing is more persuasive than a negative team who seems to know more about the 1AC than the Aff team does.

The 1NR should be the best speech in the debate, you have so much prep.

The 2NR should make strategic decisions, collapse down, and anticipate 2ar framing and pivots. The block is about proliferating options, the 2NR is about making decisions and closing doors.

Counterplans

Like I said above, prefer aff-specific CPs to generics. Counterplans that only compete on immediacy and certainty and net benefits that don’t say the aff is bad are not my favorite. I definitely prefer Process CP + Politics to Process CP + internal net benefit, because the politics DA disproves the desirability of the plan.

Because of the above thoughts, I am more aff leaning on CP theory in a lot of instances, with the exception of PICs. I think PICs that disprove/reject part of the aff are probably good.

People say sufficiency framing without doing the work to explain why the risk of the net benefit actually outweighs the risk of the solvency deficit. You have to do some type of risk calculus to set up what is sufficient and how I should evaluate it.

I have no feelings one way or another about judge kick. Win that it’s good or win that it’s bad.

Counterplans vs K affs are underutilized.

Disads

Comparison is important and not just at the impact level. Telling me what warrants to prioritize on the uniqueness and link debate, rehighlighting evidence, doing organized labeling and line by line, etc. Don’t just extend the different parts of the DA, do comparative work and framing on each part to tell me to tell me why you’re winning it and what matters most in terms of what I evaluate.

Like I said in the neg general section, I usually prefer an aff/topic specific DA to politics, but those concerns can be easily alleviated with good link debating on the politics DA. Your link being specific to the aff/resolution is usually important especially for link uniqueness reasons. I typically like elections more than agenda politics just as a research preference.

Impact Turns

Get in the weeds early in these debates and read a lot of cards. Don’t be afraid to read cards late in the debate either. Teams that get out-carded in these debates early have a tough time getting back in the game.

Recency, specificity, and evidence quality really matter for most every argument, but these debates especially. It’s pretty obvious when one team has updates and the other is reading a backfile

These debates get unorganized in a hurry. Labeling, line by line, using subpoints/numbers, and making clear cross applications are super important

Topicality

I really like T debates vs policy affs. I think creative arguments like extra T and effects T are underutilized or at least often underexplained and that there are affs getting away with fiating a lot of extra-resolutional/non-resolutional things.

Typically default to competing interps, and I’ll be totally transparent here: reasonability is kind of an uphill battle for me. When people go for reasonability with an interp, I almost always understand reasonability as a standard for why the aff’s interp is good. If you’re arguing your interpretation is better because it’s more reasonable, how is that not also an appeal to competing interpretations? And in the other scenario, if you’re going for reasonability with a we meet argument, I feel like a lot of the time it just begs the question of the violation and it’s easy for the neg to frame it as a yes/no question, not something that you can kind of/reasonably meet. Ultimately superior debating supersedes everything. If you win reasonability, you win reasonability. But you are probably better off just winning the we meet or going for a counter-interp

Impact comparison on standards is super important. I don’t have any strong preferences in terms of how I evaluate limits vs precision, aff ground vs neg ground, etc. Those are things you have to win and do the work of framing for me.

For the neg: Case lists, examples of ground lost under the aff’s interp, examples of why the debates under your model over the course of the year, topical versions of the aff, etc. will all help me understand in practice why your interp is better for the year of debate on the topic rather than just in theory.

For the aff: A well-explained we meet and/or counter interpretation, a case list of things you allow and things you don’t, and explanation of what ground the neg gets access to under your interp beyond quickly listing arguments and saying functional limits check, explain the warrant for why your interp preserves that ground and why those debates are good to have. N

Not super persuaded by “we meet – plan text in a vacuum” without much additional explanation. If the aff reads a plan text but then reframes/clarifies what that means in cross-x, in 1ac solvency evidence, or in the 2ac responding to neg positions, I think it’s easy for the neg to win those things outweigh plan text in a vacuum.

Framework

I judge a lot of these debates, and I’m fine with that. I think debating about debate is useful.

Fairness can be and impact or an internal link, just depends on how it’s debated. For it to be an external impact, it needs to not be circular/self-referential, which I think it often is in terms of how teams execute it. “Debate is a game, so it needs to be fair, because games need to be fair, and without fairness we can’t debate” is a circular argument that lacks an impact. To me, the argument becomes more offensive the more teams emphasize the time commitment we all put into debate and why maintaining fairness is important for honoring that time commitment, or explaining why it’s important for participation.

If either side is claiming participation as an impact, you have gotta explain how voting for you/your model would solve it. I think that’s hard to do but I’ve seen it done effectively both with fairness and with K affs doing for access/participation outweighs. The impact is obviously very big, but the internal link is often sketchy and not flushed out, in addition to largely being untrue because things like budget cuts have a lot more to do with who can participate than any particular team reading any particular argument.

I prefer clash as an impact more because I feel like it gets to a bigger impact that is more at the heart of why debate is good and that it often causes the neg to interact with the aff more. Your warrants for why clash turns the aff should be aff specific – same with TVAs. Nothing hurts me worse than ultra-generic framework debating where the argument could apply to literally any K aff. The best way to win your model can account for the aff’s impacts is to use the language of the aff in your explanation of things like clash, Switch-Side, and the TVA.

Affs that have something to do with the topic and can link turn things like topic education and clash are more persuasive to me than affs that try to impact turn every single part of framework. You probably will need to win some defense, because so much of the neg side of framework is defense to the stuff you want to go for.

Having a counter-interpretation really helps me understand how to evaluate offense and defense in these debates. This does not necessarily require the 2AC to redefine words in the resolution, but rather to tell me what the aff’s vision of debate is, what the role is for the aff and neg, and why those debates are good. Even if you are going to impact turn everything, having a counter-interpretation or a model of debate helps me understand what the role of the aff, neg, and the overall role of debate are.

Kritiks

The more aff-specific the better. Links do not necessarily have to be to the plan (it would be nice if they were), but they should implicate the 1ac in specific ways whether it’s their rhetoric, impact scenarios, etc. 2NCs that quote and rehighlight aff evidence, read new cards, proliferate links, and give the 2nr options are good. If you are criticizing/kritiking the aff, you should quote as much of their evidence, indict as many of their authors, and apply your criticism to the aff as much as possible. The most common advice I give 2Ns going for the K is to quote the aff more

Making decisions in the 2NR is still important even when reading the K one-off. You cannot go for every link, framing argument, perm answer, etc. in the 2NR.

The best K 2NRs I’ve ever seen effectively use case to mitigate parts of the aff’s offense. If you give them 100% risk of the aff vs the K, it’s harder to win!

Kicking the alt/going just for links or case turns is not the move in front of me. There are almost always uniqueness problems and I end up usually just voting aff on a risk of case. Whether it’s an alternative or a framework argument, you gotta explain to me how voting neg solves your offense.

I have noticed that in a lot of K debates I find that both the aff and the neg over-invest in framework. I honestly don’t see a scenario where I don’t let the aff weigh the 1AC if they win that fiat is good. I also don’t see a scenario where I vote aff because Kritiks on the neg are unfair. If the neg is making links to the aff, the aff obviously gets to weigh their offense against those link arguments. I really think both sides in most cases would be better served spending time on the link/impact/alt rather than overinvesting time on the framework debate.

I don’t really understand a lot of the form/content distinction stuff people go for because I think that the way arguments about “form” are deployed in debate are usually not actually about the form of anything and almost exclusively refer to disagreements in content

Ethics challenges/Clipping/Out of Round Stuff:

In the case that anyone calls an ethics violation for any reason I reserve the right to defer/go to tab, and then beyond that I can only vote based on my interpretation of events. This used to really only apply to clipping, but I’ve been a part of a bunch of different types of ethics challenges over the years so I’ve decided to update this.

Clipping: Hot take, it’s obviously bad. If I have proof you clipped the round will end and you’ll lose. I don’t follow along in speech docs unless someone starts being unclear, so if your opponent is clipping it’s up to you to notice and get proof. I need a recording if I don’t catch it live, even if we are on a panel and another judge catches it. Without a recording or proof, I’m not pulling the trigger.

Be careful about recording people without their consent, especially minors. Multiple states require two-party consent to record, don’t get yourself in legal trouble over a debate round.

I don’t vote on out of round stuff, especially stuff I wasn’t there for. For clarification, I suppose there could be exceptions to this and my opinions on it have gone back and forth. If you feel that someone in the round has jeopardized your safety, made you uncomfortable, or anything remotely similar, I will do everything in to advocate for you if I witness any of the following. If I am not a witness, I will make sure that the proper channels are used to address the complaint.

This is obviously distinct from criticizing something that someone has said or calling people out for being problematic. I’m saying if something so bad has happened that we have to stop the round, I have to go to the tournament and my bosses and look at my options. For your safety and mine I am required to think about how I’m protected, and my role and qualifications as a coach and educator as it relates to resolving officially lodged complaints of discrimination or harassment.

LD Paradigm:

Tech over truth but asserting that an argument is dropped/conceded is not the same thing as extending a full argument

My debate background is in policy, so I have much more familiarity with policy/LARP and Kritikal debates than I do with phil.

That is not to say you cannot win on philosophy in front of me, but you should try to frame it in language that I will understand. So telling me why your impact outweighs and turns their offense, winning defense to their stuff, doing judge instruction and weighing to tell me what matters and what doesn't.

Clarity is more important than speed. Slow down a bit on counterplan texts, interps, etc. Spreading as fast as you can through theory shells or a million a priori's means there's probably a good chance that I am not going to get everything

A lot of arguments in LD stop at the level of a claim - you can be efficient but you can't just blippily extend claims without warrants and expect to win

Not a huge fan of frivolous theory. I think most theory debates end up being a reason to reject the argument not the team with the exception of condo. But like I said, tech over truth so you can win theory in front of me, it just needs to be well impacted for why it is a reason to drop the debater and why rejecting the argument/practice doesn't solve

Quick update for online: I will try to keep my camera on so you can see my reactions, but if my internet is slowing down and hurting the connection, I’ll switch to audio only. For debaters, just follow the tournament rules about camera usage, it doesn’t matter to me and I want you to be comfortable and successful. I will say clear or find another way to communicate that to you if need be. If at all possible, do an email chain or file share (and include your analytics!!) so we can see your speech doc/cards in case technology gets garbled during one of your speeches (and because email chains are good anyway). We’re all learning and adjusting to this new format together, so just communicate about any issues and we’ll figure it out. Your technology quality, clothes, or any other elements that are out of your control are equity issues, and they will never have a negative impact on my decision.

TLDR I am absolutely willing to consider and vote on any clear and convincing argument that happens in the round, I want you to weigh impacts and layer the round for me explicitly, and I like it when you're funny and interesting and when you’re having fun and are interested in the debate. I want you to have the round that you want to have—I vote exclusively based on the flow.

If you care about bio: I’m a coach from Oregon (which has a very traditional circuit) but I also have a lot of experience judging and coaching progressive debate on the national circuit, so I can judge either type of round. I’ve qualified students in multiple events to TOC, NSDA Nats, NDCA, has many State Championship winners, and I’m the former President of the National Parliamentary Debate League. See below for the long version, and if you have specific questions that I don't already cover below, feel free to ask them before the round. I love debate, and I’m happy to get to judge your round!

Yes, I want to be on the email chain: elizahaas7(at)gmail(dot)com

Pronouns: she/her/hers. Feel free to share your pronouns before the round if you’re comfortable doing so.

General:

I vote on flow. I believe strongly that judges should be as non-interventionist as possible in their RFDs, so I will only flow arguments that you actually make in your debates; I won't intervene to draw connections or links for you or fill in an argument that I know from outside the round but that you don't cover or apply adequately. That’s for you to do as the debater--and on that note, if you want me to extend or turn something, tell me why I should, etc. This can be very brief, but it needs to be clear. I prefer depth over breadth. Super blippy arguments won't weigh heavily, as I want to see you develop, extend, and impact your arguments rather than just throw a bunch of crap at your opponent and hope something sticks. I love when you know your case and the topic lit well, since that often makes the difference. If you have the most amazing constructive in the world but then are unable to defend, explicate, and/or break it down well in CX and rebuttals, it will be pretty tough for you if your opponent capitalizes on your lack of knowledge/understanding even a little bit.

Arguments:

I’m pretty standard when it comes to types of argumentation. I've voted for just about every type of case; it's about what happens in round and I don’t think it’s my right as a judge to tell you how to debate. Any of the below defaults are easy to overcome if you run what you want to run, but run it well.

However, if you decide to let me default to my personal preferences, here they are. Feel free to ask me if there's something I don't cover or you're not sure how it would apply to a particular debate form, since they’re probably most targeted to circuit LD:

Have some balance between philosophy and policy (in LD) and between empirics and quality analytics (in every debate form). I like it when your arguments clash, not just your cards, so make sure to connect your cards to your theoretical arguments or the big picture in terms of the debate. I like to see debates about the actual topic (however you decide to interpret that topic in that round, and I do give a lot of leeway here) rather than generic theory debates that have only the most tenuous connections to the topic.

For theory or T debates, they should be clear, warranted, and hopefully interesting, otherwise I'm not a huge fan, although I get their strategic value. In my perfect world, theory debates would happen only when there is real abuse and/or when you can make interesting/unique theory arguments. Not at all a fan of bad, frivolous theory. No set position on RVIs; it depends on the round, but I do think they can be a good check on bad theory. All that being said, I have voted for theory... a lot, so don't be scared if it's your thing. It's just not usually my favorite thing.

Framework debates: I usually find framework debates really interesting (whether they’re couched as role of the ballot arguments, standards, V/C debates, burdens, etc.), especially if they’re called for in that specific round. Obviously, if you spend a lot of time in a round on framework, be sure to tie it back to FW when you impact out important points in rebuttals. I dislike long strings of shaky link chains that end up in nuclear war, especially if those are your only impacts. If the only impact to your argument is extinction with some super sketchy links/impact cards, I have a hard time buying that link chain over a well-articulated and nicely put together link chain that ends in a smaller, but more believable and realistically significant impact.

Parli (and PF) specific framework note: unless teams argue for a different weighing mechanism, I will default to net bens/CBA as the weighing mechanism in Parli and PF, since that’s usually how debaters are weighing the round. Tie your impacts back to your framework.

Ks can be awesome or terrible depending on how they're run. I'm very open to critical affs and ks on neg, as a general rule, but there is a gulf between good and bad critical positions. I tend to absolutely love (love, love) ones that are well-explained and not super broad--if there isn't a clear link to the resolution and/or a specific position your opponent takes, I’ll have a harder time buying it. Run your Ks if you know them well and if they really apply to the round (interact with your opponent's case/the res), not just if you think they'll confuse your opponent or because your teammate gave you a k to read that you don’t really understand. Please don't run your uber-generic Cap Ks with crappy or generic links/cards just because you can't think of something else to run. That makes me sad because it's a wasted opportunity for an awesome critical discussion. Alts should be clear; they matter. Of course for me, alts can be theoretical/discourse-based rather than policy-based or whatnot; they just need to be clear and compelling. When Ks are good, they're probably my favorite type of argument; when their links and/or alts are sketchy or nonexistant, I don't love them. Same basic comments apply for critical affs.

For funkier performance Ks/affs, narratives and the like, go for them if that's what you want to run. Just make sure 1) to tell me how they should work and be weighed in the round and 2) that your opponent has some way(s) to access your ROB. Ideally the 2nd part should be clear in the constructive, but you at least need to make it clear when they CX you about it. If not, I think that's a pretty obvious opportunity for your opponent to run theory on you.

I'm also totally good with judging a traditional LD/Parli/Policy/PF round if that's what you're good at--I do a lot of that at my local tournaments. If so, I'll look at internal consistency of argumentation more than I would in a progressive debate (esp. on the Neg side).

Style/Speed:

I'm fine with speed; it's poor enunciation or very quiet spreading that is tough. I'll ask you to clear if I need to. If I say "clear," "loud," or “slow” more than twice, it won't affect my decision, but it will affect your speaks. Just be really, really clear; I've never actually had to say "slow," but "clear" and "loud" have reared their ugly heads more than once. If you’re going very quickly on something that’s easy for me to understand, just make sure you have strong articulation. If you can, slow down on tags, card tags, tricky philosophy, and important analytics--at the very least, hammer them hard with vocal emphasis. My perfect speed would probably be an 8 or 9 out of 10 if you’re very clear. That being said, it can only help you to slow down for something you really need me to understand--please slow or repeat plan/CP text, role of the ballot, theory interp, or anything else that is just crazy important to make sure I get your exact wording, especially if I don't have your case in front of me.

Don’t spread another debater out of the round. Please. If your opponent is new to the circuit, please try to make a round they can engage in.

I love humor, fire, and a pretty high level of sassiness in a debate, but don’t go out of your way to be an absolutely ridiculous ass. If you make me chuckle, you'll get at least an extra half speaker point because I think it’s a real skill to be able to inject humor into serious situations and passionate disagreements.

I love CX (in LD and Policy)/CF (in PF) and good POIs (in Parli), so it bugs me when debaters use long-winded questions or answers as a tactic to waste time during CX or when they completely refuse to engage with questions or let their opponent answer any questions. On that note, I'm good with flex prep; keep CXing to your heart's desire--I'll start your prep time once the official CX period is over if you choose to keep it going. CX is binding, but you have to actually extend arguments or capitalize on errors/concessions from CX in later speeches for them to matter much.

If I'm judging you in Parli and you refuse to take any POIs, I'll probably suspect that it means you can't defend your case against questions. Everyone has "a lot to get through," so you should probably take some POIs.

Weird quirk: I usually flow card tags rather than author names the first time I hear them, so try to give me the tag instead of or in addition to the cite (especially the first few times the card comes up in CX/rebuttal speeches or when it's early in the resolution and I might not have heard that author much). It's just a quirk with the way I listen in rounds--I tend to only write the author's name after a few times hearing it but flow the card tag the first time since the argument often matters more in my flow as a judge than the name itself does. (So it's easiest for me to follow if, when you bring it up in later speeches or CX, you say "the Blahblah 16 card about yadda yadda yadda" rather than just "the Blahblah 16 card.") I'll still be able to follow you, but I find it on my flow quicker if I get the basic card tag/contents.

Final Approach to RFD:

I try to judge the round as the debaters want me to judge it. In terms of layering, unless you tell me to layer the debate in another way, I'll go with standard defaults: theory and T come first (no set preference on which, so tell me how I should layer them), then Ks, then other offs, then case--but case does matter! Like anything else for me, layering defaults can be easily overcome if you argue for another order in-round. Weigh impacts and the round for me, ideally explicitly tied to the winning or agreed-upon framework--don't leave it up to me or your opponent to weigh it for you. I never, ever want to intervene, so make sure to weigh so that I don't have to. Give me some voters if you have time, but don’t give me twelve of them. See above for details or ask questions before the round if you have something specific that I haven't covered. Have fun and go hard!

Weigh impacts.

Weigh impacts.

Additional note if I'm judging you in PF or Parli:

- PF: Please don't spend half of crossfire asking "Do you have a card for x?" Uggh. This is a super bad trend/habit I've noticed. That question won't gain you any offense; try a more targeted form of questioning specific warrants. I vote on flow, so try to do the work to cover both sides of the flow in your speeches, even though the PF times make that rough.

- Parli: Whether it’s Oregon- or California-style, you still need warrants for your claims; they'll just look a little different and less card-centric than they would in a prepared debate form. I'm not 100% tabula rasa in the sense that I won't weigh obviously untrue claims/warrants that you've pulled out of your butts if the other team responds to them at all. I think most judges are like that and not truly tab, but I think it's worth saying anyways. I'll try to remember to knock for protected time where that’s the rule, but you're ultimately in charge of timing that if it's open level. Bonus points if you run a good K that's not a cap K.

Background: Auburn '24/Mechanical Engineering/President of AEPi Theta (term ends January '24)/President of Hillel (May '22-May '23)/NROTC (will be a Surface Warfare Nuclear Officer upon graduation/commissioning in May 2024). I debated at Isidore Newman School in policy debate and LD debate for four years. I never became what one would deem "competitive" at the activity until I made the switch to LD late junior year. During my senior year, I had success on both the local and national circuits (broke at a couple bid tournaments, a round robin, and NSDA Nationals). Interpret that as you wish. My paradigm will be overwhelmingly LD related, but most, if not all, of my paradigm can be applied to policy.

Email Chain: bengalfrog14 at gmail dot com

The Basics:

1. Progressive or Traditional? I’m good with either. Did well in both.

2. Truth testing or competing worlds? This is an interesting question. Personally, I feel as though national circuit LD largely consists "competing worlds" arguments. However, I feel as though truth testing arguments can still win many rounds on the national circuit. I ran both "truth testing" and "competing worlds" arguments during my time in LD, and am fine with judging both.

3. Tech or Truth? “TRUTH AND TECH MATTER EQUALLY. IMO judges who say TECH>TRUTH are dumb and failing their duties as educators. Arguments which are deliberately false, inconsistent with the literature, etc. will face a bias against them.” – Anthony Berryhill.

4. Speed? I don’t care. Go fast or go conversational. However, I fundamentally believe that debaters far too often go faster than they think they can go. Your speaker points will suffer if you do this throughout the round repetitively. I will only yell clear twice, after that I will not flow.

Specific Arguments (For the affirmative and negative):

1. Disadvantages: Love them. As I transitioned into LD from policy, I was already used to running disadvantages, even though at the time I still wasn’t particularly good at running them. The biggest thing about the DA is that they need to be a) well warranted, b) have strong links and c) have an impact that competes with the affirmative’s impacts. If you have all of these three things, guess what? You have a good disadvantage. If you lack one of these things, you’re walking the line. If you lack any more, you should probably kick the disadvantage. My personal pet peeve are links that go along the lines of “X might lead to this.” Your cards need to be “confident.” Also, have good sources. AND SHOW AUTHOR QUALS!! For the affirmative, respond to the individual warrants of the disadvantage. Disprove the validity of the link chain and/or impact and weigh against the impact, or impacts, of the disadvantage.

2. Counterplans: I also love them. Again, I was pretty used to the concept of the counterplan as I made my way into the world of LD. I also believe that counterplans are not used enough in traditional debate, which frustrates me. If run correctly i.e. not saying the actual phrase “counterplan” and adapting to the judge, a counterplan can be run in front of half of all traditional judges. But let’s go into specifics. The counterplan has to have some sort of net benefit in order to compete with the affirmative. This can take the form of a disadvantage, case turn, etc. But if such net benefit fails to be well warranted, have strong links, or a notable impact, the counterplan begins to fall apart, as it does nothing better than the affirmative. What should you take from this? Simple. If you are going to run a counterplan, have a GOOD NET BENEFIT. For the counterplan proper, there needs to be a plan text or some sort of advocacy I can vote off of. I’m fine with planks, but don’t make them excessive. And the counterplan follows the same three rules as disadvantages for me (with the net benefit’s impact serving as the “impact” for the CP). For the aff, I have one word. PERM. Ok, maybe that’s not all I have to say. But, perming was something I as a debater struggled with. I lost an out round just because I didn’t make a perm. Unfortunately, I see others make the same mistakes. Perming is essential. Since it’s usually run as a test of competition against the affirmative, my personal view of the perm is to disprove the net benefit from being legitimate. In other words, if the net benefit has no offense, then the permutation works as a test of competition. If you use the permutation as an actual advocacy, beware that you are beginning to sever out of the affirmative’s advocacy in the 1AC. I will not consider this in my voting UNLESS the negative calls the affirmative out on this.

3. The K: Oh boy. Generally speaking, I have never been a big fan of the K. Although many Ks address issues that occur in our society regardless of what resolution is presented, I find too often that the same Ks are used for YEARS without any updates to what is currently happening. Given this, you should contextualize whatever K you plan to run in front of me with the topic in addition to making sure the literature is still acceptable, both from an academic and social standpoint. Moving on, I never really ran Ks in my time as a debater. That was probably because I was so used to policy arguments as I morphed into LD, but for me, a good policy argument with turns, take-outs, and net benefits just seemed cooler than a K. In the end, run whatever K you think you can win off of. Just make sure the K has strong links and has a good alternative. I will not vote for Ks that have no alternative. For K affs, I will not vote for ANY unless they have some sort of advocacy, text, or simply a restatement of the resolution. Call me old school. I don’t care. For the affirmative, make permutations. Additionally, I big flaw I find with affirmative counter-arguments to Ks is that they attempt to disprove the actual arguments of the K. This can be troubling in front of a lot of Ks. A much better method generally speaking is to disprove the method of the K. Basically, don’t tell me racism, sexism, antisemitism, xenophobia, etc. don’t exist. Tell me why the K's approach to such issues is flawed.

4. Theory and Topicality: I find that my stance on topicality and theory arguments tend to be quite similar. Although some enjoy these debates, I personally am not a big fan. I never really ran these arguments unless there was actual abuse (in which case I won those rounds), but I, for whatever reason, see too many debaters who run these arguments just to run the arguments. Don’t do that in front of me unless you want your speaker points to suffer and risk losing the round off a well warranted RVI from the other side. If there is actual abuse, whether it be in the form of no disclosure, a plan text that truly is not topical, or no plan text at all, I am more comfortable voting off these arguments. But be careful. I can usually tell when one’s faking with these arguments. In other words, don’t run four disadvantages and in your topicality shell then tell me that you are limited in your arguments. For the aff, calling out these fake arguments is key, in addition to running the typical standards arguments, counter-interpretations, etc. that you would usually find in these rounds.

5. Case Debate: One of the biggest problems that I see is that case debate is becoming non-existent. I see this in traditional debate and progressive debate. And when there is case debate, it’s usually just cross-applications of off-case positions. That is a poor strategy. If you want my ballot, you need to address most, if not all, of the warrants on the case and turn every one individually. Struggling to do that? Then run a disadvantage in the form of a turn on the case. You need to take out the case with multiple arguments that turn the affirmative’s warrants. Cross applications don’t do that. For affirmatives, don’t drop these case turns. If no turns are made on the case, call the negative out on it and use it to your advantage. Not making case turns is a drop in my book. And it’s almost a drop in my book with cross applications. Negatives, beware of this. Affirmatives, be attentive of this.

6. Tricks: I will either not flow, sleep, or walk out of the room if you run tricks. Don’t test me.

7. Framework: I like saving the best for last. Why is framework the best kind of argument in my opinion? Because it shapes the way one views the round. If you lose the framework debate and don’t do any weighing between values, value criterions, or whatever metric the round is being measured with, your chances of winning the round are slim. With that being said, the best framework debates are ones in which a) you explain why your framework (or more specifically value and value criterion) is better and why b) even if you lose the framework debate, you still win under your opponent’s framework i.e. weighing. This should be textbook debate, but I still see debaters who never weigh in the framework debate. It makes me very sad.

Conclusion: There’s a quote I’d like to share. Football coach Dutch Meyer once said, “Fight ‘em until hell freezes over. Then fight ‘em on the ice!”. If you debate with passion, energy, and the drive to win, I will reward that, whether it be in the form of speaker points, a win, or both. Debate is not just a game. It’s a competition. So compete.

Add me to the chain: dmh285@georgetown.edu

Background

Call me Daisy, pronouns are she/her.

I debated for Oak Hill School for 4 years (2 on the nat circuit) and qualified to the 2020 TOC. Currently taking a gap year before I start school at Georgetown.

FOR MEADOWS! I haven't really engaged with debate since mid April. For you, this means a couple things:

1. You can spread, but you probably shouldn't go top speed. About 70% of what you'd normally go should be good. Be clear, especially on tags and analytics. I will tell you to slow/clear if I need, though, so don't worry too much about this.

2. I'm unfamiliar with the current high school topic. Don't use super topic-specific acronyms. For T and framework debates I'm gonna need both sides to invest a bit more time explaining what the topic looks like under your interpretation and why that's preferable - don't just give me a list of affs because I likely won't be familiar with them and won't know what to do with that absent more explanation.

TL;DR

- Tech > truth.

- Dropped arguments are true, BUT an argument must include a claim, warrant, and impact/implication for it to matter.

- Debate is a game.

- Good judge for pretty much all types of policy args (I will be quite annoyed if I have to judge death good or spark, though).

- Not the best judge for the K. If you're going for it anyway, identity-focused Ks are probably your best bet, (what I'm most familiar with) and weird pomo stuff is probably your worst.

- Good judge for framework, I will vote on procedural fairness as an impact.

- I am pretty expressive with my face - use this to your advantage.

Non-Negotiables

- I will not adjudicate debates based on issues that have occurred outside the round.

- You must adhere to speech times and speech order. During your speech, I will only flow what I hear you say, and I will not flow your partner.

- Prep includes everything other than attaching the doc to the chain, making a marked copy, or taking a reasonable amount of time to deal with tech issues.

- No double wins or losses.

- If you make blatantly offensive statements I will drop you.

- If you accuse your opponents of clipping or another serious ethics violation, know that you are staking the outcome of the debate on that accusation. I will stop the debate and go to tab.

DAs

- Pretty straightforward here. Totally fine with politics and more generic topic DAs. Specific evidence on the link level is always important, though.

- DA turns case arguments are super important for framing the debate - make them and answer them!

- I do think zero risk exists, but it's hard to establish.

CPs

- I love clever, well-thought-out CP strategies! Ultimately the theory debate determines what is legitimate. I'm predisposed to think of most process CPs, PICs, international actor fiat, and 2NC CPs as fairly legitimate. Consult and delay CPs seem more iffy, as do CPs without solvency advocates that fiat super inconcrete things (i.e. "China shouldn't attack Taiwan"). If you have more specific questions, feel free to shoot me an email.

- Write your perms in a way that is explanatory. "Perm do both" isn't sufficient.

Theory

- Unless it is dropped or handled very poorly, theory other than condo will be treated as a reason to reject the argument.

- I lean neg on condo. Go for it if it's mishandled or you feel you're undeniably losing on the substance debate.

T

- I default to competing interpretations.

- Limits are only useful insofar as they're predictable - prove your interp sets the most predictable limits and you'll probably win.

- The amount of interp cards that don't even remotely say what they're tagged as is kind of astonishing. Take the time to read through and rehighlight your opponents' cards, and I'll be happy.

Ks on the Neg

- I tend to believe the aff gets to weigh the plan. I can be convinced otherwise by good framework debating, but it will be an uphill battle.

- I want to know how the K implicates the aff. Stolen from the wonderful Julian Bellavita: "if you read Ks and have me in the back, your best bet is using the K to prove the hypothetical enactment of the plan would be bad."

- Specific links, please. You're really unlikely to win in front of me using links of omission.

- Don't assume I'm familiar with your theory and/or jargon.

K Affs

- I'm really not a great judge for K affs. If you're reading one in front of me, it should be clearly related to the resolution, and you need to have an interp that makes it possible for the negative to sufficiently engage with the affirmative.

- Procedural fairness is an impact, BUT aff teams can certainly win that it's not as important as other impacts in the round.

- TVAs (preferably carded) are super helpful for the neg in terms of mitigating aff offense.

- Neg, engage with the case! Having indictments of the aff's theory and offense against whatever alternative method of institutional engagement they propose can also really help mitigate their offense on the framework page.

- If there's a link, the neg going for DAs or impact turns vs K affs is totally cool with me.

Speaks

- To raise your speaks: be clear & efficient, do evidence comparison, and give judge instruction. Being assertive in cross-ex is good, but don't repeatedly interrupt your opponents or let it cross over into a place of meanness.

Speech paradigm:

Sharvani Haran - Speech Judge Paradigm

Experience: I have been involved in speech and debate all my student life and have been judging for 5 years, for both speech and debate[LD, PF only] tournaments. I have judged at various levels of competition, including local tournaments, regional championships, and middle school national tournament.

As a judge, I prioritize several key elements in evaluating speeches:

1. Clarity and Organization: I value speeches that are well-structured and easy to follow. Clear organization helps to convey the speaker's message effectively.

2. Persuasiveness: On non- interpretation speeches I appreciate speeches that present strong, logical arguments supported by evidence and analysis.

3. Delivery: While substance is paramount, delivery also plays a crucial role. I admire speakers who demonstrate confidence, poise, and effective use of vocal variety and gestures.

4. Engagement: A compelling speech captures the audience's attention and maintains their interest throughout. I appreciate speakers who employ rhetorical techniques, storytelling, and humor to engage their audience.

5. Adaptability: I recognize that different events may prioritize certain skills over others. Whether I'm judging a Lincoln-Douglas debate, a public forum round, or an original oratory competition, I adjust my criteria accordingly while remaining consistent in my evaluation standards.

6. Feedback: I believe constructive feedback is essential for growth. I strive to provide detailed, specific feedback to help speakers understand their strengths and areas for improvement.

7. Fairness and Respect: I approach judging with impartiality and fairness, evaluating each speaker based on their performance in the round. I expect all participants to treat each other, the judges, and the event staff with respect and professionalism.

Above all, I am committed to fostering a positive and supportive environment for all participants. I aim to provide a fair and constructive evaluation of each speech, recognizing the hard work and dedication that goes into preparing for competitive speaking events.

I look forward to witnessing the talent and passion of the competitors.

Please make sure to slow down on tags as well as when you are switching flows

I'm familiar with almost all forms of argumentation so read whatever you want in front of me

Good Luck

Hello! I'm Jonathan (he/they) and I did four years of PF in high school and currently debate policy for USC. I have my preferences listed below -- but they're just preferences. I'd rather see you debate what you know well than debate something you don't know. Debate how you debate and I'll be happy to accommodate.

- Put me on the email chain: jhayden1127@gmail.com

- Be respectful. Don't run arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc. Be accommodating to your opponents.

Policy

- Counterplans. I prefer counterplans with solvency advocates, but are not necessary. Specific enough solvency advocates make most counterplans legitimate, but how specific is specific enough is up for debate. I generally think conditionality is good and am pretty unlikely to vote off it as a hail-mary. I'm far more likely to vote aff on condo in the event of in-round abuse (mutually exclusive advocacies, cross applying arguments from different flows abusively, etc). Won't kick the counterplan for the negative unless told to, and will listen to arguments in the 2ar for no judge-kick.

- Theory. I default to drop the argument (except conditionality). Not the biggest fan of theory debates -- I think that a lot of times they tend to be messy. Make sure to do the comparative impact calc and why the model of debate that your interpretation promotes is better. Default competing interps.

- DA. I enjoy good DA debates. Make sure the links are specific to the aff. Not the biggest fan of ptx, but some weekends are better for politics than others. I'm particularly persuaded by DA turns case arguments or case turns the DA, and they should probably be somewhere in your 2ar/2nr overview.

- T. If you're going for T, make sure to explain why your interpretation results in a better world than your opponents' interpretation.

- Ks. Familiar with most kritiks, but most familiar with biopolitics, cap, security. Make sure to have good explanations of your theory, and the more specific to the aff, the better.

- Critical Affs. There should be a well-thought-out counterinterpretation to framework and should be a significant change from the status quo as well as a clear articulation of what voting affirmative does. If the 1ac does something untraditional, it should be brought up in later speeches. I generally think that affs should be in the direction of the topic.

- Case. Smart case debating is great. Affirmatives should remember to utilize their case in later speeches and negative teams shouldn't be afraid of using the 1ac's cards against them.

Public Forum

- How I evaluate rounds. I'll do my best to be as tabula rasa as possible. I also will do my best to vote in the least interventionary way possible. To do that, I'll either look to who accesses the most important impact in the round as argued through weighing (impact weighing), or who best accesses the impact if both teams are linking in to the same impact (link weighing).

- CX. It's binding, but has to be brought up in a speech for me to evaluate it. I really appreciate smart and strategic crossfires - especially if they can pidgeon-hole your opponents into a specific position or tricking them into conceding something.

- 2nd Rebuttal. 2nd rebuttal has to respond to all offense in the round, including opponents' case and turns. I don't require that teams answer all defense in 2nd rebuttal, but do believe it's strategic and makes the round clearer.

- Weighing. Good weighing is the biggest thing you can do to win my ballot. The earlier weighing starts the better. Make sure that weighing is comparative (comparing your opponents' argument to yours instead of just stating that yours is very important). Go beyond just buzzwords - your weighing analysis itself is more important than whatever buzzword you use to tag it. I believe that probability weighing exists. Even if you win 100% of your link, that means I buy that you solve 100% of your impact scenario, not that your impact is 100% guaranteed to happen (e.g. many impact cards talk about a chance of something happening, rather than asserting that they 100% will). Weighing turns in rebuttal is great and will get you higher speaker points. Link weigh and impact weigh.

- Evidence. If you tell me to read a piece of evidence I'll read it. Lying about evidence will severely hurt your speaker points and if the violation is egregious I'll drop the team. I might call for a card if it's crucial to my decision. I appreciate reading cut cards, but I won't punish you for paraphrasing as I get that that's the norm.

- Presumption. If neither team has offense at the end of the round, I'll default to the first speaking team as I believe that the second speaking team has a strong advantage that isn't as present in other debate formats. But if one team makes a default neg argument, I'll listen to it.

- Speed. I'm fine with speed. Just remember that clarity is always going to be more important. Also consider that with online debate it's even more important to be clear and that might mean going slower. If you're going to speak fast, make sure you're not excluding your opponents and send a speech doc.

- Theory/Ks. I'll vote on either if debated well, but I think it's incredibly hard to do so in PF and generally makes the round messier than it needs to be. My threshold for explaining these arguments is probably substantially higher than most judges. Don't run these arguments against an obviously inexperienced team for a cheap win.

- Speaker Points/Things I Like. I'll give speaks mostly based on strategy. Good warranting, weighing, good evidence ethics, interesting strategies (going all in on a turn), smart cx, signposting, good and unique cases are all examples of things that will boost your speaker points.

- Post-round. Please ask me questions after round. I don't want you to walk away from a round not understanding why you won/lost or how you could do better. I won't (and can't) change my decision, but I want to make sure I fully explain my decision if you don't understand. Debate is an educational activity and I believe that engaging with the judge and the decision is a part of that.

Lincoln Douglas

- If debating traditional LD, all of the PF stuff above about weighing/evidence/how I evaluate rounds applies. Collapsing down to the most important issues in the round in the 2ar/nr, listing voters, and connecting them to the value/value criterion all make it more likely to win my ballot.

- If debating circuit LD, the closer to policy the better. Not very good for evaluating tricks, skep, nebel t, or other LD-specific phenomenon. However, if this is your go-to strategy I will do my best to fairly evaluate them the best I can.

I am blank slate, tabula rasa. What I hear is how I judge.

I want to understand you while speaking (I’m in sales) and I want you to debate each other for the topics presented in the round. I will not read any files unless there is a clear distinction of misunderstanding.

I have judged a couple of tournaments and have no debate experience myself. When judging, I look for powerful delivery, insightful analysis and ease of handling questions.

Traditional flow judge. No spreading. Keep it slow please. I like substantive debates.

I am a parent/lay judge. So, please do not rush through your speech. Spreading is NOT ok with me - I cannot offer my opinion if I do not understand you. I don't like when debaters are rude to one another and I will take speaker points off so please keep the round civil.

I also will pay special attention to cross ex as that provides a good insight into your knowledge and confidence regarding the topic. However, just remember to stay respectful during cross-examination too.

Please explain all abbreviations/jargon so that I know what you are talking about.

I've been judging tournaments since 2017 - mostly debate (LD/PF/Parli) but some speech events as well.

Things I like in debate:

- Debating on the resolution

- Running traditional framework and making it clear with clash and weighing mechanisms

- Good, explicit speech structure and signposting

- Strong clash

Things I do not like in debate:

- Spreading (if I don't hear it, I can't flow it)

- Kritiks / theory

- Falsified evidence

Things I am probably OK with in debate:

- CPs, where permitted by tournament rules

Things I am probably not OK with in debate:

- Highly implausible impacts

Good luck... and good skill!

I value the presentation of the debate a lot, and look for good eye contact, diction, and inflection of the voice. Clearly link our cases to your value/ value criterion to ensure clear links. Also, make sure to be respectful to your opponent during cross-examinations.

Be explicit about impacts and weigh them.

Be clear about framework - lay it out then use it to your advantage.

Be strategic - perm when you need to, use the refutations to stock arguments that you prepped wisely.

If you are going to spread, include me in the email chain.

Background: I'm currently a college student who did debate in high school. If your entire case is one that was prepped by someone and you don't really understand your arguments, I can see through it but at the end of the day it is up to your opponent to prove that to me. Debate is about helping the person who is listening to understand why they should side with you- not about being aggressive towards someone who is saying there is a flaw in your argument.

Speaks: Be respectful. Speak clearly.

Pace of your speech matters to me so I can follow you thoroughly and apply the standard criteria below in making a decision. You can always check in with me during the event. Laying out the standard criteria I apply in decision making.

What I consider primarily to make my decision

• Strength of arguments

• Claims, reasons, and supporting evidence

• Refutation of opponent’s arguments

Secondary considerations in case primary considerations are turning into a tie

• Presentation skills or style

• Pronunciation, accent, or reading fluency

I am a parent judge. I do not understand most of the technical expectations for various speech and debate formats. What matters to me is that you make a convincing argument. Your arguments should be clearly articulated in a way that a lay person can understand. The arguments have to be rational and follow a logical sequence. I usually do not care too much about how many references you cited in your speech/debate, although I might note a complete lack of references as a red flag. Make eye contact, be confident and speak clearly.

1. Speak slowly and clearly (no mumbling/spreading)

2. Simple language is preferred, please refrain from high-level debate terms (If a complicated term is necessary, it is imperative that you explain it clearly, so that I can understand)

3. Offtime roadmaps are helpful

4. Maintain a clear speech order (do not jump around from contentions to refutations to standard, etc.)

5. Time yourself

I am a parent judge. This is not my first time judging a tournament, but I'm still a lay judge – please explain your arguments well and go slow. If I can’t hear or understand your arguments, I won’t be able to use them to evaluate the round.

Please do not say anything racist or offensive and be civil and kind to your opponent. If you are rude, I will take speaker points off. Explain, extend, and weigh your arguments.

I would appreciate if you could go a bit slower and make your arguments more understandable for me, as well as make it clear what you're advocating for. Make sure I know what you're actually arguing and impact it out.

I look at my flow and arguments more than performance and cadence or tone. It’s nice to speak clearly and persuasively, but I evaluate on arguments.

I wish to see you soon! Good luck with your rounds.

I am a parent volunteer, and I have read over some information about this topic. I also was a judge for Sandford Invitation earlier this year on the same topic, which was my first time judging. Please keep your delivery slow and clear. Speaking a lot of ideas with too much info "very" fast does not really help me understand/follow the debater's argument. I do appreciate clear analysis (does not mean lengthy analysis) of why you should win the final rebuttals.

I debated LD and PF in hs, APDA in uni. Currently studying applied math, biology, and computational medicine at Johns Hopkins

Pronouns: He/Him

Email Chain/Contact: ikhyunkim2138@gmail.com | Facebook

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Quick Prefs

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Note: For PF teams, I am comfortable with Ks, Theory, etc. just execute it well...please

1-2: K/LARP
3-4: Phil/T/Theory
5-6: Tricks (please just strike me)

It seems like there is a tendency to pref based on speaks given so here are some quick stats on that

LD

Avg Aff Speaks: 28.9
Avg Neg Speaks: 28.8
Avg Overall Speaks: 28.8
Side Skew: 50.575% Aff, 49.425% Neg

PF

1st Speaker Avg Speaks: 28.8
2nd Speaker Avg Speaks: 28.7
Side Skew: 42.500% Aff, 57.500% Neg (idek what's going on here tbh)

CX

Avg Speaks: 29.1

Last Updated: 10.22.2022

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Defaults

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• I default to truth-testing

• I default to semantics > pragmatics

• I default to epistemic modesty but I don't mind using epistemic confidence; just warrant why I should.

• I default to competing interps. Feel free to run RVIs when deemed appropriate but warrant why I should err towards accepting the RVI.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Non-T

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• No matter what you do, please have a non-arbitrary role of the ballot else I will likely struggle in terms of framing the debate on both sides. Make sure you explain how your case functions in the round and explain why it's important through the ROB/J/S. That said, explain why we should reject/interpret the resolution differently.

• Aff, please respond to TVA as too many rounds with these types of affs have been lost because of a dropped interp or dropped TVA. Conversely, neg, please run TVA on these types of cases and it will make your work a lot easier if you win it. However, TVA is not enough for you to win the round.

• Cross is binding for me as I do believe that you can garner links/DAs off of the performance of either you and or your opponent even if your evidence says something else. That said, I'd like to emphasize that for these debates that the form of the evidence presented becomes far less restricted and there isn't some inherent hierarchy between them so don't disregard them.

• The permutation tends to be more awkward to both understand and evaluate in these debates so I'd suggest that you overexplain the perm to make it clear. This includes how you sequence the perm.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

K

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• Ks that only link to the aff’s FW and not to their advocacy feel awkward to me, so take that with a grain of salt.

• I default to perms being a test of competition rather than advocacy. You can try to change this, but you'll have to overexplain to me what it means for a perm to function as advocacy and clearly characterize the advocacy of the perm.

• PF teams, I love hearing Ks but only if they are well done. This means you should know what you are talking about and have a deep understanding of the literature you are reading. That said, please don't be a prick by reading a K in front of a team that clearly has no experience with progressive debate (just use your common sense, it's not that hard to figure this out).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

T/Theory

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• I don’t have defaults w.r.t. to voter questions such as DTD vs DTA, fairness/education being a voter, etc. It is YOUR job to tell me why your shell is a voting issue.

• I don’t particularly have an issue with RVIs. Feel free to go for an RVI, but I will need convincing on why you get them in the first place, characterize/construct it for me, etc.

• Please don't run frivolous theory in front of me. If the round becomes messy because of it, then your speaks will suffer.

• PF teams, while I am a supporter of theory in PF, please please please don't read shells unless there is/are an actual abuse story behind them. If not, your speaks will suffer.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LARP

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• I generally am not a fan of conditional counterplans especially since I feel like the neg time skew arguments can be really strong. That said, I am fine with listening to them and will vote on them just please don't be dodgy by not clearly answering whether the counterplan is conditional or not.

• If the neg is running a conditional counterplan, I won't kick it unless it's clear that the counterplan is kicked. This means that just because squo is better than aff doesn't mean I default to voting neg if it wasn't made clear that the conditional counterplan is kicked.

• My position on perms is the same in LARP strategies as it is for Ks.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Phil

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• If you are comfortable doing so, feel free to message me on FaceBook or email me if you want to ask if I know your philosopher well. Otherwise, don't assume that I am well-read up on the specific philosophy that you're reading and do the work of walking me through with it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tricks

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

... <- this summarizes my thoughts and feelings about tricks, take that as you will

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Other Points of Interest

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• Aff/Pro should have a speech doc ready to be emailed by round start time. Flight 2 should enter the room at Flight 2 start time.

• If both sides are fine with it, I’m fine with granting flex prep. Don’t be rude about it, or else your speaks may suffer. Don’t take too long flashing prep unless you want your prep docked along with your speaks

• Engaging with the tagline alone ≠ engaging with the argument or the card. This is a huge pet peeve of mine so please don't just engage with the tagline but engage with the internal warranting of the cards being presented. Cards don't exist simply to back up the claims made by taglines but they have within them their own layers of argumentation which is centralized by a thesis that links to the tagline. TL;DR respect what the authors are actually saying especially given that probably over 80% of your speech is their words verbatim.

• If your speech includes abbreviations or acronyms, please explain them first. Never assume that I know what they mean.

• While I recognize there's no obligation to share your analytics, I will award +.3 speaker points for those speeches including all/nearly all analytics in the speech doc AND that are organized in a coherent manner.

• I tend to make facial expressions that reflect how well I am processing an argument when it's being read i.e. if I am confused then I'll look confused and if I think the argument is good then my face will show this.I apologize in advance if my expressions confuse you; strike me if this is an issue.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Concluding Remarks

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you have any questions for me before the round starts about my paradigm, please ask after all the debaters are in the room so I don't have to repeat myself. Quick shoutouts/other paradigms that may be worth your time looking at of those who have influenced me as a debater, judge, and a person include Anne-Marie Hwang, Adam Tomasi, Sim Guerrero-Low, Michael Koo, Martin Sigalow, and Annie Wang I am more than happy to explain my decision whether it be in person after the round or through email/social media. Thanks for reading, good luck and have fun!

Hey there, I’m a former 7 year competitor at the high school and university levels from John Swett HS, Diablo Valley College, and Sacramento State. I am a former national champion in Extemporaneous Speaking at the university level, and have a strong background of LD, Parli, IPDA, Imp, and a functioning knowledge of everything else.

In the debate realm, I allow all theory arguments to be made, however you will have to show me how your shell is tied into the current resolution very clearly if you want to win. I don’t want to hear a Capitalism or Climate Catastrophe K when you don’t actually know how it ties into the res, it’s vague and your opponent has an automatic leg up if you don’t do that work. One thing to keep in mind, is that I will almost never vote on a criterion of "morality". Everyone in the world has their own subjective morality, and for you to impart your own as a voting issue is not convincing. Of course, if your opponent is being clearly racist or something like that, call it out and we'll deal with it, but I would refrain from using it as a voting issue. I can keep up with moderately fast spreading, but i may ask you to slow down. If i do, please do so, I’m a kindergarten teacher now and my spreading ears are a bit rusty, haha. For the 2AR, 1NR, PMR, and all applicable ending speeches, I love collapse and am well persuaded by a snipe shot of 1 or 2 voting issues rather than a shotgun approach, but I am particularly hawkish on dropped arguments, especially if your opponent puts significant work into them. Do your best to link it into your turns or inherency at the end without breaking the new argument rules. Use cross-X wisely, I don’t respond well to sarcasm or arrogance in cross, be respectful and ask relevant questions. I’m not afraid to give out under 25 speaks if you’re going to act out of turn. In general, be clear, concise, and respectful.

In the speech realm, much less to go over. In LP I’ll give 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 30 second, and countdown from 10 seconds hand signals. If you need to time yourself, please ask me first. I like short intros and conclusions, your time should be spent in the main points, and the more relevant sources, the better.

Please remember to have fun. This is an incredible activity, and I’m not handling out college scholarships. Do your best, I’ll give you relevant feedback, and we’ll all hopefully have a great time.

Former Debater at GHCHS, I have done LD and PF, pretty well versed in both.

LD:

If you are a novice/ just in general PLEASE TRY NOT TO DROP ARGUMENTS AND DON'T BRING UP DROPPED ARGS. I really hate rounds that devolve into me having to weigh who dropped more arguments. If your aff I get that the 1AR is a hard speech especially if you are new but please just don't drop stuff, if you do manage to give a fire( I mean fire) 1AR where you go line by line and shred your opponents case I will boost your speaks/ take that into consideration against the 1NR. I know traditional LD pretty well and I think it's great BUT I would prefer to evaluate rounds where there is less emphasis on stock args and maybe something new and unique. I'm a big fan of novices reading somewhat progressive stuff(you have to learn somewhere)BUT WITH THAT SAID, IF YOU ARE GONNA READ IT YOU BETTER KNOW WHAT YOUR READING AND BE PREPARED TO DEFEND IT. CP's, DA's, K's, go for it if you want. If you can make the round interesting (even if you lose) by reading an interesting case, I will raise your speaks. I enjoy the line by line/ when you tear apart your opponents arguments, go for the kill, don't just put one response on their case try to put 2 or 3. If you go for traditional, values are critical, tell me who's framework I should weigh in the round. If neither of you guys put forward any framework or say something stupid for framework, I will default Util., so if your case emphasizes the minority and you don't emphasize framework, you will lose. Techy truth, I definitely lean more towards tech but I mean if you say "Hitler was a great guy", you will get dropped. I don't flow cross so bring it up in your rebuttal if it's important. Basically, do what you want I will evaluate the rounds how I see fit but if you make it interesting, expect higher speaks.

REVISION FOR PALM CLASSIC 2022

I am now 2 years out of high school debate and while I still keep up, I'm not as deep into the literature as I used to be. If your a novice who is confused on what I mean by literature, fear not, I will evaulate the round according to the framework that remains the most in tact at the end of the round. What I mean by that is make sure to defend your framework and disagree with your opponents, specifically if there is inherent clash between the two. Now if you are someone looking to read something more progressive or complicated, feel free. I'll listen to whatever you have to say but I also need to be able to comprehend the theory and wrap my head around it, as does your opponent. So prior to every round if you plan to read anything other than the traditional FW/ values debate, including but not limited to; plans, CP's, K's, DA's, you must confirm that your opponent is aware and I am aware of what you are reading. If you are a first year novice trying to read some uber complicated K or theory that you barley understand, just don't do it. Try to be in round as soon as possible so we can all get started promptly, be respectful to one another and of others. My goal in round is to facilitate education both in and out of round and I'll attempt to reflect this in my RFD. Last quick note is my computer has been having camera issues so I'll try to turn my camera on in round but if it is not working, I'll only have audio and not video. A couple other quick things for in round are, please make sure you are clearly signposting with tag-lines so I can have everything on the flow. Please please weigh your arguments against one another and make sure to engage if their is clash, don't make me make the arguments for you.

PF:

Make sure to collapse. I know the summary speech is hard I was 1st speaker too, but make sure you start collapsing on the important issues in summary and start weighing there too. In cross, don't be an a hole, I'm not fond of hellish cross where one team is screaming down their opponents(or both teams) and it will bother me. These rounds are short and there is a lot of info you have to fit in so try to make them interesting.

I am a parent judge. I value truth over tech. Please go slow and be engaging. Never judged ld before.

As a judge, I will look for the following in the debate

a) Don't spread too much. If you want to spread, please share the case with me in advance. I may hear your speech/argument, but if you do not give me enough time to process it, I may not vote on it.

b) Don't bring any evidence if the probability of the issue happening is very low.

c) Don't bring any new arguments/evidence in the final speech.

d) I prefer Quality over Quantity.

I will try to be as neutral as possible. Having said that It is your job to make sure I know your argument without having studied it myself.

I am a parent judge and do not have any prior experience with debate -- this is my first time judging.

Please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace so I can evaluate your arguments.

Please explain your evidence -- do not paraphrase it -- and its role in the round.

Please treat your competitor with respect and civility.

I'd vote for students who are knowledgeable and have researched well and speak in relevance to the discussion, instead of simply reading out from a paper. Please try to ensure that I understand what you are saying.

Please speak at a moderate pace. Please say your speeches as though you are explaining something to me about a topic that I am not much aware of. Honestly, I have very little experience on the topic and I have not researched on the topic like a debater. So, please explain to me with evidence and name it clearly. If I cannot understand you then it will be difficult for me to vote you.

For speaker points, strong assertive voice, clarity of speech are important. All the best,

Please include me on the email chain: jlee@thegeminicollective.com

I am new to LD debate, so please try to read either at conversational speed or slightly faster (definitely no spreading). For faster speakers, I'll try to keep up with your pace.

Do not assume I know what you are talking about. Make it obvious what your arguments are, and why they outweigh/why you should win. Explain, explain, explain.

SIGNPOST. Let me know when you are switching flows from neg to aff or vice versa, and when you are refuting v.s. extending.

Please do not read theory, t, kritiks, or any other challenging debate jargon in round. As I said, I am definitely not experienced, and would be most comfortable with a stock aff.

Ultimately, I hope to learn and grow with you all. See you in round!

Email/chain contact: brianna1lozano1@gmail.com

Experience: I am a past policy debater from Alliance Marc and Eva Stern Math and Science School HS. I have been coaching the novice policy division for my old high school for two years and counting; and I have been judging for LAMDL since the beginning of 2018. I have been judging invitationals since the 2019 (Policy: 2019-present, LD: 2019-present).

Format: I am an easy going judge, I judge based on how the argument is given and which side gives me more of a reason to vote for them and how many arguments are not being dropped, also I judge based on the realism/logical side. I'm good with spreading just as long as you give me a roadmap, signpost, and still understandable. I do keep the official time in the debate, but y'all are allowed to keep your own time. Always face me, y'all are trying to convince me, not your opponents. Assume I don't know much about your topics, that's how y'all should be debating. I flow based on the main points I hear during the round, now, it's the debater's job to tell the main points in their arguments, be clear.

Notes: Other than what I mentioned above, the speeches are yours, just as long as it's not offensive to anybody. I do want y'all to have a fun time debating so include whatever makes you happy in your speech, whether it's jokes, etc. just as long as y'all don't stray from the actual debate. Always be respectful, no matter what.

I look forward to watching y'all debate!

I founded Able2Shine, a public speaking company. And I have only judged a few debates this year but love the activity. And I want a clear communication round with no speed.

• I am a volunteer judge for Wilcox HS and this is my fourth year of judging. I have judged multiple formats at both the novice and JV levels.
• Please keep track of your time. I prefer organized speeches with emphasis on continuity.
• Please make sure to provide evidence and/or references where necessary.
• I do take notes throughout the round so emphasize your important contentions/points.
• Clearly state voting issues in your final speech.

I teach math and serve as chair of the math dept at Isidore Newman School in New Orleans. I retired from coaching high school at the end of the 2017-2018 school year. I coached Policy and LD (as well as most every speech event) for over 25 years on the local and national circuit. In the spring of 2020, we started a Middle School team at Newman and have been coaching on the middle school level since then.

I judge only a handful of rounds each year. You will need to explain topic specific abbreviations, acronyms, etc. a little more than you would normally. You will also need to go slower than normal, especially for the first 30 sec of each speech so I can adjust to you.

Email chain: gregmalis@newmanschool.org

My philosophy is in three sections. Section 1 applies to both policy and LD. Section 2 is policy-specific. Section 3 is LD-specific.

Section 1: Policy and LD

Speed. Go fast or slow. However, debaters have a tendency to go faster than they are physically capable of going. Regardless of your chosen rate of delivery, it is imperative that you start your first speech at a considerably slower pace than your top speed will be. Judges need time to adjust to a student's pitch, inflection, accent/dialect. I won't read cards after the round to compensate for your lack of clarity, nor will I say "clearer" during your speech. In fact, I will only read cards after the round if there is actual debate on what a specific card may mean. Then, I may read THAT card to assess which debater is correct.

Theory. Theory should not be run for the sake of theory. I overhead another coach at a tournament tell his debaters to "always run theory." This viewpoint sickens me. If there is abuse, argue it. Be prepared to explain WHY your ground is being violated. What reasonable arguments can't be run because of what your opponent did? For example, an aff position that denies you disad or CP ground is only abusive if you are entitled to disad or CP ground. It becomes your burden to explain why you are so entitled. Theory should never be Plan A to win a round unless your opponent's interpretation, framework, or contention-level arguments really do leave you no alternative. I think reasonable people can determine whether the theory position has real merit or is just BS. If I think it's BS, I will give the alleged offender a lot of leeway.

Role of the Ballot. My ballot usually means nothing more than who won the game we were playing while all sitting in the same room. I don't believe I am sending a message to the debate community when I vote, nor do I believe that you are sending a message to the debate community when you speak, when you win, or when you lose. I don't believe that my ballot is a teaching tool even if there's an audience outside of the two debaters. I don't believe my ballot is endorsing a particular philosophy or possible action by some agent implied or explicitly stated in the resolution. Perhaps my ballot is endorsing your strategy if you win my ballot, so I am sending a message to you and your coach by voting for you, but that is about it. If you can persuade me otherwise, you are invited to try. However, if your language or conduct is found to be offensive, I will gladly use my ballot to send a message to you, your coach, and your teammates with a loss and/or fewer speaker points than desired.

Section 2: Policy only (although there are probably things in the LD section below that may interest you)

In general, I expect that Affs read a plan and be topical. K Affs or Performance Affs have a bit of an uphill climb for me to justify why the resolution ought not be debated. If a team chooses this approach, at minimum, they need to advocate some action that solves some problem, and their remedy/method must provide some reasonable negative ground.

I think K's need a solid link and a clear, viable, and competitive alt, but I best understand a negative strategy if consisting of counterplans, disads, case args.

Section 3: LD only (if you are an LDer who likes "policy" arguments in LD, you should read the above section}

Kritiks. In the end, whatever position you take still needs to resolve a conflict inherent (or explicitly stated) within the resolution. Aff's MUST affirm the resolution. Neg's MUST negate it. If your advocacy (personal or fiated action by some agent) does not actually advocate one side of the resolution over the other (as written by the framers), then you'll probably lose.

Topicality. I really do love a good T debate. I just don't hear many of them in LD. A debater will only win a T debate if (1) you read a definition and/or articulate an interpretation of specific words/phrases in the resolution being violated and (2) explain why your interp is better than your opponent's in terms of providing a fair limit - not too broad nor too narrow. I have a strong policy background (former policy debater and long-time policy debate coach). My view of T debates is the same for both.

Presumption. I don't presume aff or neg inherently. I presume the status quo. In some resolutions, it's clear as to who is advocating for change. In that case, I default to holding whoever advocates change in the status quo as having some burden of proof. If neither (or both) is advocating change, then presumption becomes debatable. However, I will work very hard to vote on something other than presumption since it seems like a copout. No debate is truly tied at the end of the game.

Plans vs Whole Res. I leave this up to the debaters to defend or challenge. I am more persuaded by your perspective if it has a resolutional basis. For example, the Sept/Oct 2016 topic has a plural agent, "countries" (which is rare for LD topics). Thus, identifying a single country to do the plan may be more of a topicality argument than a "theory" argument. In resolutions when the agent is more nebulous (e.g., "a just society"), then we're back to a question as what provides for a better debate.

Updated January 2024

Debate is the best game ever invented and we are all lucky to play it.

My name is Mat Marr and I am the Director of Forensics for Able2Shine and manager of the BASIS Fremont team.

Background: I debated policy in high school for three years including nationals. I qualified for nationals all four years in Foreign Extemp. I switched to LD my senior year and qualified for Tournament of Champions after a strong season on the national circuit. In college my partner and I broke at Parli nationals as freshmen. (Summary, I was decent at debate 20 years ago, but not the best, and I have some experience with all the styles but from judging and coaching in recent years and I am enjoying how debate is evolving.)

I try to be a pure flow judge. I don't flow CX.

Make sure you tell me where to record your arguments and use numbering, so I can track them. Be clear and direct in your refutations to your opponents arguments.

I have no strong biases for or against certain arguments (as a judge). That also means I do not assume impacts, such as topicality being a voter, unless argued in round. Tell me why your arguments are superior in reasoning and/or evidence.

I am fine with speed within reason but think its tactical value is limited.

Most importantly remember what a privilege it is to be able to spend our time debating and treat each other with respect. Thus, please be polite, inclusive and friendly and make the most of the opportunity to debate the important issues in a safe and supportive environment.

Good skill and have fun.

Specific event notes:

Parli- Please take a few questions in each constructive speech.

ToC Parli- I will not protect against new arguments in rebuttal if you choose not to use your point of order. I will vote for any well-argued position but generally enjoy topic specific policy debates.

Public Forum- Feel free to answer rebuttal as the second speech.

I am happy to discuss flows after rounds, find me and we can talk.

For email chains feel free to use my email : AshlandDebateTeam@gmail.com

I will be expecting clear articulation and logical presentation. While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.  As for rate of spread, unless your diction is crisp, keep rate to a 3 on the spread scale.

If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be framework and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them. Clear signposts within your presentation are also helpful. I will be expecting clear and precise sponsorship speeches and logical class refutation.

This will be my first year judging, I don't have much experience in the competitive debate world. I do stay up to date with global affairs, as I am a world traveler. With being abroad majority of the time, I always tune into daily news to see what new conflicts are happening locally and how they're handled in their own matter. It's astonishing to see the difference in how topics are argued from a different perspective. It gives me more of a aspect of understanding reason and people's opinion. With that being said when it comes to American politics, I have to be current with all subjects due to my travels. I'd like to see a debate round that came down to only one issue. The teams should make it clear why there's one reason that they won the round, instead of trying to win on every argument that's made at the beginning of the round.

SIGNPOST(x1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000)

Please weigh impacts and give voters. Otherwise, I will create my own voters, and you don't want that.

If it is not on the flow, I will not look to it. That being said, I will not extend things for you. If you want it to be important, it needs to be extended all the way through all speeches you give.

I don't adore speed, but I can listen to it and flow it. Be strategic about it.

If it seems a little out of the box as an argument, please break it down for me.

Also, unnecessary yelling is not really something I vibe with. I get it, passion good, but if It's the first round of the day and you make a conscious effort to not give me a headache, I will be much nicer on speaks and ballot comments.

If you want to run theory, either put it in a shell or make sure that you talk about all the important parts of the theory. If it isn't impacted or accompanied by how I should change my vote, it has wasted round time

Email: timothy.matt.meyer@gmail.com

1/21/23

I am getting back into circuit/progressive debate this year, though the last time I was considerably involved was 2020. When running advanced arguments do your best to make it clear what my role is and why it matters. Speedwise, I'm still a bit rusty, and don't like being overly reliant on docs (self rating of 7.5).

RVI's

My default position is against RVI's, with the only exception being extreme quantity (of legitimate violations) or severity of a single one.

Slightly tech over truth

__________________________________________________

Experience /Qualifications:

I've been a part of forensics for almost 10 years, competed in multiple IE's and both Lincoln Douglas and Parliamentary debate. Qualified and broke at nationals. Coached state and national finalists and extremely competitive PF and Parli teams at the state level.

Preferences

All forms of debate:

Make sure you signpost effectively and clearly convey your arguments. Also clearly illustrate any links and impacts you have.

I have a fair understanding of the active topics (and am always interested to learn more in these rounds) but it is against my principles to make arguments for you. I won't connect your links/impacts to something you haven't said in round, so don't assume that I will.

I'm fine with speed for whatever is reasonable for your event (policy-✓✓✓, LD-✓✓, PF-✓, Parli-why?). Debate is educational, nobody wants to be in a round where they are just being yelled at incomprehensibly. Respect clears and share your docs.

I have a more traditional background; if your impacts are extinction, make sure the link chain in getting there is clear. I strongly prefer impacts grounded in reality that cleanly flow through vs a shoddy push at 5 different extinction scenarios.

My most important personal preference: Manners

This activity is very competitive and confrontational. I understand that sometimes it can get heated. But at any point if anything offensive is done to the other team, I will immediately drop speaker points (and potentially the round based on the severity.) It's important to engage in discourse respectfully.

Lincoln Douglas:

Make sure to clash and subsequently defend your framework. This is the crux of your case, you shouldn't be moving over it.

Be organized, and clearly lay out how your arguments interact with your opponents.

Fairly open to progressive argumentation. I enjoy Kritiks (though I'm a bit rusty on these) and Plans. I'm not a big fan of theory but respect meaningful shells (frivolous theory). Respect the rules of the tournament as well. I really don't want to have to run to tab to figure out if your arguments are legal or not.

Public Forum:

I want clear links and impacts from both sides. Anything you think is important, emphasize. Make sure to be organized and professional.

I accept the use of Kritiks/theory when permissible, but recognize the format of PF is not conducive to the depth of kritiks in my opinion.

I pay attention during cross but won't judge on it. Make sure anything you want to be flowed is said in round.

Parliamentary:

Signpost Signpost Signpost

Signposting is more important here than in any other event. Make sure you are organized, and you are consistently signposting throughout your speeches. If I get lost, there's a good chance a main argument will be missed.

Make your links clear and stay relevant to the resolution for your arguments to flow through.

Argument wise, basically anything goes (frivolous theory).

Please do not speak too fast, otherwise I will not be able to understand you. Also, please define the technical words that you are using in your case. If I don't understand the words I will not be able to understand your claim.

I competed in Lincoln Douglas and parliamentary debate for four years, as well as competing in various speech vents. Currently, I am both a college competitor and do freelance debate and speech coaching.

Speed/Preferred Style : I prefer speakers that are clear and concise, and ultimately do you prefer a slower debate. Well I am not opposed to debaters to do speed or spread relatively fast, be clear you are, the more likely I will be able to understand your position and evaluate effectively.

Main Philosophy: Ultimately, I mainly judge other tabula rasa. I honestly am for anything within the debate as long as the debaters are able to explain it in a way that is both effective, concise, and competitive. It is the role of a competitor to tell me what is important, and as long as they effectively do so over their opponent they do deserve the ballot. I do come from a Lincoln Douglas/value centric background, so admittedly I am partial to moral theory and arguments.

Hello, I have very simple expectations:

o Speak clearly without rushing. I really don't like spreading.

o If I cannot hear you either because you are too fast or too soft, no matter how brilliant your arguments are, I cannot understand you

o Be civil, no foul language, no bigotry

o Be reasonable and don't push on assumptions that are flimsy at best

I am committed to ensuring all participants have the opportunity to pursue excellence in your endeavors. This is only possible with your cooperation to assure an atmosphere of mutual respect. Debates should be free from all forms of harassment and discrimination. I ask you to check your unconscious bias against certain types of arguments or the people making them, avoiding generalizations about groups of people, or the attacking of individuals for any reason. Here are considerations that we should all keep in our mind:

o Recognize that many people you interact with during debates will be from backgrounds differing from yours. This may mean that arguments, or the way they are presented, may differ from what you are used to. This should not detract from their value and should be adjudicated or engaged with equally.

o Ensure that immutable characteristics of anyone present does not affect how they are treated. Be sure to check that how you treat someone is detached from their race, gender, sexual orientation, age, etc.

o Note that adjudications are final and should be respected. That is to say that no judge should be harassed or feel targeted for a decision they'ave made. I will do my best to provide feedback in written form after the debate is finished (usually in Tabroom).

I am a parent judge.

Please speak clearly and a fast conversational pace is fine.

Signposting is preferred.

I will be taking notes during your speeches.

Please be courteous to your opponent.

Hello there. My name is Brian Nguyen and this is my judging paradigm. I have no preference on how fast you go nor do I mind the various arguments that you may have. I have debate experience, but that should not matter as I will only judge the quality of your debate with respect to your current opponent.

Good luck and have fun!

I am the Head Coach at Lakeville North High School and Lakeville South High School in Minnesota. My debaters include multiple state champions as well as TOC and Nationals Qualifiers.

I am also a history teacher so know your evidence. This also means the value of education in debate is important to me.

I encourage you to speak at whatever speed allows you to clearly present your case. I do not mind speaking quickly, but spreading is not necessary. I will tell you to clear if you are speaking too quickly. One sure way to lose my vote is to disregard my request to slow down. If I cannot hear/understand what you are saying because you are speaking too quickly, I cannot vote for you.

Claim. Warrant. Impact. I expect you to not only explain the links, but also impact your argument. I am impressed by debaters who can explain why I should care about a few key pieces of important evidence rather than doing a card dump.

If you plan to run off case that's fine just make sure that you articulate and sign post it well. Don't use narratives or identity arguments unless you actually care about/identify with the issue. You can run any type of case in front of me but do your best to make it accessible to me and your opponent.

Be respectful of your opponent and your judge. Please take the time to learn your opponent's preferred pronouns. I expect you to take your RFD graciously-the debate is over after the 2AR not after the disclosure.

I'm a first-time judge. I will focus both on content and speaking skills.

Crystalize and sum up your arguments well in your final speech as to why you won the round. Don't speak too fast.

And please be respectful to your opponent.

Good Luck!

To all debaters / speakers:

- Please speak as clearly and distinctly as possible

- Please do not indulge in "spreading" - you would be better off making fewer points but in a way that I can understand

PF

- Arguments introduced for first time in final rebuttal will be ignored by me.

LD

- Please make it clear what framework (value) you are supporting and the standard (criterion) for judging it

- New arguments in rebuttals will be ignored as per following advice "[1.E.2.b] Judges should disregard new arguments introduced during rebuttal speeches. Judges should only allow new responses during rebuttal speeches if those responses address an argument first made in the immediately preceding speech. New analysis of prior arguments is allowed in rebuttal speeches."

I am a parent judge with >7 years of judging experience in LD, PF, Parli and Policy debates as well as individual events. As a typical lay judge, my primary emphasis lies in evaluating the logical coherence of arguments, which should be well-supported by solid evidence. I flow and prefer clear speaking with no spreading. Additionally, I believe in the significance of maintaining respect towards opponents throughout the round.

I prefer if you would speak loud and clear. I vote mainly on impacts so make sure you impact weigh.

For Open Tournaments:

I love a good values debate so if you could tell me either 1) why we should weigh your PV/VC over your opponent's or 2) use both your values and your opponents into your case, that would be awesome.

In regards to your case, I will pay close attention to the cards you use and will also be flowing during the debate round. If your opponent DROPS an argument, I will definitely catch it BUT I WILL NOT EXTEND IT if you do not tell me 1) to extend it 2) why I should extend it and 3) why this argument is essential to your case.

Aff:

-Give me good rebuttals in your 3 and 6 minute speech. I would love crystallization and voter's issues in your last speech to tie everything together.

-If you bring up a new argument in your last speech, I WILL NOT take it into consideration so NEG do not worry about that.

Neg:

-I need good rebuttals in all your speeches and any "status quo" arguments are no good to me.

-I would love crystallization and voter's issues in your last speech to tie everything together.

Cross-Ex:

I did LD debate for years and I will not accept any rudeness whatsoever. If you are rude during C-ex, I will note this and will lead to low speaker's points.

I LOVE trap questions, so please prepare some!

Use your C-ex questions WISELY: do not ask questions which make your opponent fluster and say something incorrect and then not use it in any of your speeches. It's a waste of your time to ask those questions if you will not use them later on.

Speaking:

I prefer off-time roadmaps before you start speaking so I and your opponent know where you're starting and ending.

Since this is an open tournament, I don't mind spreading or random cases. With that said, if you have an extinction case which goes way off topic from the resolution, I will not follow it so keep that in mind.

If your opponent is okay with spreading, it is okay with me. If they don't feel comfortable, try to go slower but you have to do what you have to do.

I usually award high speaker points if both cases are well thought out and explained, the only way you can get lower than a 28 with me is if you are rude, your case doesn't make sense, or if you run a gag case.

Overall:

Have a good time, crystallize, voter issues in your last speech, and USE YOUR C-EX TRAP QUESTIONS IN YOUR SPEECHES!!!

I have judged 5 tournaments and have no debate experience myself. When judging, I look for powerful delivery, insightful analysis and ease of handling questions.

1. Do not speed, or I won't keep up. Do not sacrifice your clarity, otherwise I will miss the main point of argument.
2. Always be respectful to your opponent.
3. Keep a clear and consistent narrative throughout the entire round.

As a novice judge, I see high school debate as a competitive activity for students to enrich their education by becoming better thinkers and learning more about the world. So I value your research and the substance & quality of your arguments no matter what the idea is. I will weigh the facts and evidence you present, how your argument is organized and reasons why it wins. I will value depth as well as breadth; a few well supported points are better than multiple shallow ones. Providing references and explaining technical terms or acronyms is beneficial. I will look for a clear courteous and eloquent speech at a reasonable pace. Speaking very fast and fielding an overwhelming number of arguments may not work with me. I can only vote for a contestant if I can actually understand them.

Lincoln Douglas Debate

General:

- Don't be rude.

- Do not attack the opponent.

- Respect opponents Cross-examination time.

- Be clear.

- Tech > Truth

- Speaking points 27.5-28.5 on average.

Framework:

Framework debate is the most important part of LD for me. I want a clear PV and VC. When it comes to Framework debate, clash the VC since most PV's advocate for the same goal. Link case back to the Framework.

Contention Level:

I'm looking for clear signposting, clear links between warrant and impact, and impact weighing. It makes the round more clear.

End:

End with voters. Summarize the round to me:

Tell me what you did well. Tell me what the opponent didn't do well. Tell me why it matters.

Postrounding:

- Feel free to ask questions after RFD.

- It's ok to not agree to the decision that judges have made. This does not mean you have the right to yell at your judge or other competitors.

- Feel free to email me.

Speed:

- If both debaters are ok with spreading. Feel free. 

I am a parent judge with little experience in judging.

Would be focusing on the argument data-points and how each of this are presented, argued and counter-argued. Also, would focus on presentation and interaction styles. I will not vote for anything I do not understand.

Looking forward to meet you all.

cheers!!

I have a background in parli debate so I'm familiar with debate jargon.

I do not like spreading. If I can't understand what you're saying I can't flow you.

I like theory as long as it's warranted and not excessive.

Partner to partner communication in moderation is fine but do not puppet your partner during their entire speech.

My email is shobhasr6@gmail.com

It's my first time judging in LD, and I'm a parent volunteer/judge. There may be topics/concepts that I'm not aware of so please be sure to explain as necessary. Be passionate about what arguments. I like humor and positive attitudes.

I am a parent judge and new to LD.

Please be slow and clear.

I look for good flow, argumentation.

UC Berkeley ‘21

Okemos High School ‘18

General Stuff

My name is Manav Rathod and I am a student at UC Berkeley. I did 4 years of policy debate at Okemos High School (Okemos, MI). Senior year I qualified to the TOC with 3 bids. In high school, I mainly read Kritikal arguments (Afropessimism, Cap, Psychoanalysis, Deleuze, Baudrillard, Queer Theory) on both the aff and neg, however, don’t let that influence your thoughts on me as a judge. I have found many “policy” debates much more interesting/enjoyable than many “k v k” debates. Go for whatever you think is the best strategy to win the debate and execute it to the best of your ability – I will be happy regardless of the specific content.

There is no argument I am not willing to listen to. Debate is a space to explore your intellectual interests and be creative, so you should take advantage of that. So, if you like going for the politics DA, go for it. However, you should refrain from arguments that directly attack a person’s identity (such as racism good, sexism good, etc.). I am perfectly ok with listening to extinction good.

Tech > truth – as long as an argument has some warrant attached to it, it is true until addressed by the other team. I will do my best to protect the 2NR.

Topic Knowledge – I have some familiarity with the topic, however, it will benefit you to explain complicated nuances and to spell out acronyms (only once).

I flow on my computer and like being able to line arguments up.

My email is manav (dot) rathod (at) gmail (dot) com. I would like to be added to the email chain. You can also email me if you have any questions about my paradigm or want additional feedback about the round.

Speaks

I will try to keep speaks in the range of 28 – 29.5.

Speaker points will be determined by your persuasiveness, clarity, and strategic mindset. Smart debaters will always outspeak debaters who are just really clear.

Being funny, referencing TV shows, using easy to understand examples (especially in K debates), etc. will boost your speaks.

Kritiks

Neg

I won’t hack for your K – you must do the work of explaining your argument.

I don’t mind a long overview, but I would prefer it if all relevant parts could be moved to the line-by-line. I would prefer it if links were done somewhere on the line-by-line (I don’t care where just don’t put them in the overview). Also, labeling links with cool names is good.

Specificity is key – if you aren’t doing the work to show why the 1AC specifically is bad (by pulling lines from their evidence and contextualizing your 1NC cards to the action of the plan), I am likely going to buy the perm solves. You don’t need links to the plan, but you should try to contextualize your generic links to the 1AC as much as possible.

You don’t need an alt, but you should spend time framing what my ballot means in a world where there is no alt to resolve the K’s impacts.

“K tricks” are fine but be smart with them – don’t just throw stuff at the wall and see if something sticks.

FW is important – you should very clear offense here as well as defensive arguments. Having good framing cards in the 1NC (especially if you are going one-off) is important. I can be persuaded that I shouldn’t evaluate the plan.

Demonstrating robust knowledge of your theory, as opposed to constantly reading blocks off your computer, will likely boost your speaks.

Aff

FW should never be “Ks bad.” Winning the FW debate for the Aff requires having a clear reason why your model of debate is good (e.g. fairness, political deliberation, etc) and making sure you answer all the neg’s tricks (e.g. Antonio 95, fiat is illusory, etc.). Being technical here is very key and I can be convinced to weigh only the consequences of plan action.

Perms should be thoroughly explained by the 1AR.

I think a lot of the common “policy tricks” (pragmatism, extinction first, etc.) make a lot of intuitive sense, but you still need to do a good job establishing them.

Coming into the debate with a strong understanding of the neg’s position will help you immensely, so you should be reading their cards and making sure you use cross-x to really understand their argument. It will make it easier to find their weak spot.

K v K Debates

I can be convinced not to give the Aff a perm, but a lot of the neg’s arguments for why I shouldn’t are usually quite silly, but must be answered by the Aff.

Both teams need to have a robust number of historical examples.

Links and net-benefits to the perm should be clearly labeled.

FW (T-USFG)

Neg

While I read a K-Aff in high-school, I am very persuaded by a lot of the arguments by FW teams. You can definitely go for procedural fairness as an impact. I also like arguments about truth-testing/argumentative refinement and research. Explaining the importance of each these in the context of predictable limits can make a very easy neg ballot.

I am not very persuaded by impacts like dogmatism or state good. While I think there is some merit to the dogmatism impact, I haven’t heard a very strong argument about why that would outweigh any offense the Aff generally goes for. I think truth-testing functions as a much more persuasive defensive argument to mitigate a lot of the Aff offense. State good is more convincing to me as a K of the aff’s refusal of certain forms of political engagement.

TVAs don’t need to solve the Aff but should somehow align with the Aff’s criticism of the status quo. Having a card isn’t necessary but would be cool.

I am perfectly fine with a short 1NC shell with no cards other than definitions.

Aff

Impact turn stuff and you will probably be fine.

You don’t need a w/m.

You don’t even necessarily need a c/I – but it will make it harder for you to win unless you go for debate bad, which is perfectly fine.

Slow down when explaining your DAs – teams often breeze through several 1 or 2 sentences DAs that I can’t follow. Your 2AC analysis should have a clear warrant as to why the neg’s interpretation is bad, what the impact to that is, and how your interpretation solves. Examples here are key.

Defense is important, don’t forget it.

You should be very clear and upfront about why the TVA or reading it on the neg doesn’t solve.

DAs

Not much to say here. Impact calc is good and should be done sooner rather than later.

CPs

I don’t have many thoughts about CP theory – so do whatever you like. Words pics are probably not cool, but if you want to go for it.

You should probably have a solvency advocate. Using 1AC lines to justify a cp will boost your speaks.

T

I enjoy a really good T debate. Both teams should be doing a good job explaining what debate looks like under different interpretations of the topic.

Impact Turns

I love a good impact turn debate. DeDev, Heg Good, Heg Bad, Warming Good, Extinction Good, etc. I love them all. Especially, against K-Affs or new Affs they can be very strategic and should be heavily utilized.

Theory

I will vote on new affs bad – given the neg can explain a coherent impact.

Clipping

Don't clip. I will keep my eye out for it. If I catch it, I will warn you (unless it was egregious). If I catch you doing it again, I will give you 0 speaks and the loss. I will also allow the round to continue to the end.

If you believe the other team is clipping, start recording them and present the recording to me after the speech. I will listen and decide. You won't be penalized for calling out another team for clipping, as long as you do so in a manner that allows the round to continue smoothly.

If you are reading unhighlighted cards, I will expect you to read the whole thing, unless you clarify before your speech. If you don't, I will consider that as clipping.

I am a parent judge with 5 years of experience.

I expect the participants to speak slow but most importantly clearly

I want to understand the debate so explaining arguments help me understand why you should win more.

Respect other participants and I will respect you

add me to any email chains

ajayrawal@hotmail.com

I listen with attention to detail, but I prefer to vote off of a stronger analysis of multiple points than just one card.

I'm open and appreciate well articulated philosophical positions in the backdrop of good debating skills, presentation skills and respectful arguments.

Having done judging LD in multiple tournaments, I appreciate great presentations skills and not introducing new arguments in the last round of Aff. Good presentation skills mostly affect speaker points, not the outcome of the round.

Lastly on the subject of speed, I really encourage both debaters to weigh arguments as opposed to trying to out-spread each other. Thoughtful analysis of core issues and good debate is more important. Stay core to the topic and appreciate good debating is my philosophy.

A. I hate spreading.

A Case against Spreading in LD

B. I appreciate good turns.

What Exactly Is a Good Turn?

C. I judge you on 5 things.

5 Keys to Success

I am a parent judge and this is my first experience with judging. For effective judging I would like the debaters to speak clearly and at a reasonable pace.

I currently work as a Director - Product Management at Salesforce. I have worked for various software companies like Oracle, Safenet/Gemalto, and Vormetric.

I have judged various high school level debate tournaments for last six years when my sons participated debate tournaments from Monta Vista High school, Cupertino. I have judged Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas debate tournaments at Santa Clara University, Stanford, James Logan MLK etc.

If there are any other questions feel free to email me at ssaha9@yahoo.com

Argumentation:

Framework

Make your argumentation the most important part with clear, concise points. Provide details, evidences and summarize in the end.

Dropping arguments

Drop them properly. Don’t just stop talking about them.

Speed

While I an fine with speed, I prefer convincing, clear, not too fast argumentation.

Jargon

I understand most PoFo and LD debate jargons, but if there are any new ones that you think that I may not know, explain to me.

Affirmatives

Provide an in-depth analysis along with strong evidences.

Negatives

Provide powerful in-depth analysis along with strong evidences

Cross

Be respectful, examine professionally with counter points

email:

Isaiahsalgado24@gmail.com

About Me: I am a former Open Debater at Cal State Fullerton. I had 3 years ~ debating in college and experience as a coach at CSUF. I have vast judging and coaching experience at the High School level. I spent a lot of my Career running mostly critiques including Settler Colonial K's, Afropessimism K's, Baudrillard K's, performance K's, as well as experience running Framework.

Aside from that my cases usually involved futurisms and storytelling.

Coaches: Toya Green, Romin Rajan, Lee Thach.

Me as a judge real talk: I can understand spreading, and I'm as good as anyone at getting this down. But Imma be honest, it is hard for me to stay organized. I joined debate in college, no high school experience.

In other words, framing is super important for me. Clarity is important to me, because I want to understand how you think we/you/ I should think, view and participate in the community, in this round, at this tournament, etc. Is debate a game? is the game good? why or why not? I'd like these question answered either implicitly or explicitly. I don't inherently work with the perception that debate is (just) a "game", but if given a good argument as to why I should take on that perspective (in this round, all the time, etc) I'll take on that perspective. I prefer not to feel like a worker in the debate factory who needs to take notes and produce a ballot, but idk maybe I should function in that way-just tell me why that's true.

Evidence Reading: I will read your cards if you urge me to look at them, or if they are contested during the round. Otherwise, I am assuming they say what you tell me they say. IF you don't mention the evidence outside of the 1ac/1nc, they most likely wont stay in the forefront of my mind during the debate. This means reading the evidence will a clear voice will give you an advantage with me, because I will most likely understand the evidence better.

Impact: Proximity and likelihood> magnitude and time frame

MISC:

Clipping Cards is an auto DQ.

I really don't care what you do as far as tag teaming, changing format, playing music, using stands, seating placement, etc. Do you, just don't make the debate go longer than it needs to. Also feel free to talk to me before, after and during prep in rounds. I generally enjoy talking about debate and like helping young peeps. Just chit chat and such.

Policy- I think that a straight up policy plan is dope. MY biggest concern is the debaters ability to explain numbers to me. ITs hard for me to do the calculations and understand why specific stats are important and win you the debate. I am pretty line by line when it comes to a policy debate. Id say with me, focus on some impact calc because thats usually where my attention is mostly at. Liklihood and proximity are more important than severity, magnitude. Time-Frame is iffy but doable.

FW- Honestly, framework is pretty cool. I think its become kind of a meme at this point about my annoyance with whiney FW debaters, so make sure you are being real with your critique. Framework says that there is a structure which needs to be followed for this activity to run efficiently. This assumes that the game of debate is good, so explain why the game is good, or why your specific version of the game is good. When you run framework you are saying that the other team is debating in a way that lessens/nullifies the benefits of debate. That is a big claim, so treat it as such. If you are just using it strategically- more power to you buuuuuuut, it makes you hella less persuasive if thats how you are coming off. Also, Fairness is not inherently a terminal impact, lol. At least mention debate is a game and tell me why the games good.

K- I love k's, but they get hella sloppy. With k's, i need to know that you are solving your impacts. seems basic but im shocked at how often debaters dont explain how their "self abolishment" solves antiblackness. Acknowledging that there is a problem isn't a solution, or plan or anything. It's just a diagnosis. I need a prescription. HAving said that, Im pretty open minded when it comes to different strats. The more weird the more fun for me.

I'm way more truth than tech.

Completely fine with spreading and I will keep a detailed flow. No impact calculus or weighing = more difficult for me to vote for you. Don't overcomplicate your arguments especially in the framework debate. Be respectful to your opponent; being rude or interrupting will make me deduct speaker points.

Aashir Sanjrani:

----For Prefs-----

Ks - 1-2

Policy/Larp - 2-3

Theory 3-4

Phil - 4-6

Tricks 4-6

History: Hebron HS '20, UT '24, qual to the TOC in policy (2N), debated for one year in college

email chain- Aashir.debate@gmail.com

*If there are any residual questions about how I would evaluate an argument more specifically feel free to ask

**PLEASE READ- I always preferred judges to be honest so here's my attempt to do so:

1. I was really only successful in policy. This means I can flow, but I may not be familiar with LD's meta or LD lingo being thrown around- if you have any doubts feel free to ask me before round

2. please take your time to clearly articulate arguments and most importantly make clear implications- I feel judge instruction is severely underutilized by a majority of debaters- rather than being confused about why I viewed an argument a certain way, tell me how to view it and what it means for my decision making.

3. I will try my best to get every argument I hear- but remember, everyone, makes mistakes- it never hurts to repeat something you think is important- doing so only increases the chances that it makes it to your judge's flow and subsequently into my decision

**EDIT for 2023/2024 Season

1. Topic- keep in mind I haven't done any topic research- I'm confident you're familiar with the topic literature so please explain it thoroughly

2. Speed/Spreading- SLOW DOWN for analytics pls- I've noticed some debaters spread analytics, and to be honest I don't flow fast enough to keep up with that- for me specifically I would say analytics should at around 50% your top speed. if you want it on my flow I advise you to articulate it clearly

3. Interps- for your sake and mine, please slow down on the interp at the very least- It doesn't have to be a conversational speed, but should not be spreading either- I've noticed I'm usually annoyed by casual transitions that are difficult to follow- what I mean is for example if your reading condo bad on the cp flow- make it very clear where you're transitioning to theory- this is easily solved by slowing down and giving clear articulation- if possible I would even a pause at the start of the transition or change your tone so it's easier for me to identify a switch is occurring.

Paradigm:

"If you want my ballot, this is a simple concept. Tell me 1) what argument you won; 2) why you won it, and 3) why that means you win the round. Repeat."

Most of my debate experience was with Ks, however, I will try to evaluate each argument to my best ability.

------For LD-------

Phil and Tricks- I never really debated these, but it's not like I won't vote for it- I will, however, require more explanation than a judge more familiar with the argument.

Defaults- all of these can be persuaded differently you just need to give me a reason why:

1. No RVI on Theory- IE theory is no risk (Same for T)

2. Competing Interps > Reasonability

3. Default Framing = Util

4. Tech > truth (in all instances except for things like racism good, sexism good, etc)

Speed:

a) "are you okay with speed/spreading?" - yeah just try to be clear

b) please, do not spread analytics at 100%. I doubt I type faster than you speak

Please don't forget judge Instruction- beyond just telling me what you're winning (and why you're winning it) give me the implication of the argument (IE what that means for my decision)- doing so makes my judging experience much easier and subsequently makes your routes to the ballot a lot more clear

I am a volunteer parent judge and have only judged a few LD Debates. I will do my best to follow, but appreciate no flooding.

Please include me in information that is exchanged: juliesavage444@gmail.com

Add me to the email chain: aroonsaxena@gmail.com

I am a parent judge. Please keep in mind that I do not have a lot of knowledge on the topic, so if you include any high-end vocabulary, make sure to provide definitions.

Here are some tips to help make the round easier:

- Don't talk too fast. Enunciate words clearly, and do not spread if possible.

- I will not be timing the rounds, make sure you have preparations for timing yourself.

- I do take notes, so please emphasize your important points.

- Any homophobic, racist, sexist, and/or any other offensive arguments or defenses will result in an immediate loss of speaker points and are not acceptable.

- Be respectful to the judge and your opponent.

- Off time road maps are preferred. Deliver precise and organized speeches, based off of your off time road map.

- Make sure to connect your argument back to your value and criterion.

- I do take dropped arguments seriously.

- Since I am not an experienced judge, make sure to crystallize your argument and spend a good amount of time to tell me why you won the round.

- Let me know before taking prep time.

- Please try to stick to a solid argument that includes stats and evidence with good reasoning and explanation. If you use phil, theory, K rounds, etc. keep in mind that I will not judge based upon those, as I do not have knowledge on those.

Counterplans: I am okay with cps, just make sure to explain why the counterplan solves the problem better than the aff.

Speaker points: I will start with everyone at 28.5 points, then increase/decrease the points based on the outcome of the round.

I am a somewhat experienced lay judge, who competed in policy debate in high school in the 1980s for three years and LD for one year. I have judged LD for 1.5 years.

I strongly prefer speakers who are not rude, are persuasive, and organized with a sense of humor. I do flow rounds and can keep up with fairly rapid speeds but not spreading. I do not like an attempt to "spread out" and opponent by winning by overwhelming an opponent by going fast.

In cross examination, answer presented questions and keep your answers brief. If you raise new arguments in rebuttal speeches, especially the last one, I will notice, drop that argument, and dock speaker points.

Speakers should stay on topic, clash with opponents, and present logical, compelling arguments.

I attempt to be a tabula rosa judge, within reason. However if you try to run extinction good, racism or sexism good, or other extreme arguments, you will lose.

I'd like to see you present a structured, sequenced argument where you explicitly emphasize your core contentions and not just read out your case flat and fast. Make sure to take calculated pauses.

Good luck, don't get nervous or intimidated, you got this!

Kyna-Anthony Shen paradigm:

Spread at your own risk. Whatever arguments that I can't catch will not be counted in the round. Clarity is more important than quantity. Share your cases with me in advance so it's easier for me to follow. Make sure link to framework. Signposting is important. Tell me why I should vote for your ballot.

Respect one another and respect the rules; no grace period after time is up, keep track of your own time.

I'm not knowledgeable in regards to K, and theory.

I am certified by NFHS for the following: Adjudicating Speech and Debate, Culture Competence, Protecting Students from Abuse

Hi, my name is Joyce Shen. I'm a parent judge and this is my first time judging. I do not have any experience in debate. However, I have one Master's degree in literature and another one on applied linguistics and I always enjoy good debates. I do not have a particular preference for the resolution at this tournament and just look forward to great performances from each one of you!!!

I would like debaters to speak slowly. I have judged only a few LD tournaments.

E-mail : roopa.shirol@gmail.com

Please speak at a moderate pace so that I can follow along.

Be loud and clear.

Let me know where to record your arguments.

You can time yourselves.

During cross-ex, please speak one after the other and not at the same time.

I do not prefer too much spreading so much so that the participant is having hard time breathing. Please keep the talking speed such that I can follow and take some notes while you are speaking.

I am a novice judge so go easy on me!

I am a rational fact driven judge, so it's not about my personal values or beliefs.

I will strive to judge fairly to determine who has better debating skills.

I am definitely into the quality of the argument rather than the quantity of words or the volume - your arguments must be backed up by evidence, and be clearly audible - do not spread!

I want all debaters to be courteous at all times during the debate, and please note I won't disclose who won, but if asked I will provide constructive feedback.

I am a lay/parent novice judge. I will be taking notes and paying close attention to your cross examinations and how you make your case. Please clearly state your contentions and any sub points; do not rush.

I expect you to be respectful to your opponent at all times.

Please speak clearly and at a good pace so that I can understand what you are saying. Please keep track of your time.

Have fun and good luck!

Former policy debater, familiar with Policy & LD. Minimal experience with PF. For rounds I judge, you should be aware that:

1) I'm openminded when it comes to considering just about any argument-- but you'll need to convince me.

2) I'm more interested in hearing you explain the logic underlying an argument than hearing you read cards at me repeatedly

3) If you have evidence that you want me to give significant weight to, tell me why-- "Smith in '98" doesn't cover it

4) I respect debate and ask everyone that I judge to respect their opponent, maintain decorum, etc.

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Steele%2C%20Nick Affiliations: Harvard Westlake, Dennis Tang (West Linn HS)

Hey all - I haven't judged in a while so please try to signpost, be clear, and maybe don't go your absolute fastest. Thanks! Here's my old paradigm:

Hi - My name is Nick Steele and I debated varsity LD for 4 years at Harvard Westlake. I'll try to keep this brief - my judging preferences are pretty open:
I'll evaluate the round based off of the line by line. I'll try to be impartial - For example I will vote on ideal theory/Kant vs. a race AFF if good comparison and weighing are done. I will vote on politics vs. a structural violence AFF, and I will vote on K impact turns to theory, and vice versa
That being said, I tend to lean more towards policy/k style arguments than theory and phil
Policy args: most of what I read in highschool, I'm comfortable evaluating them
Ks: I read a lot of these too, I'm familiar with all the common ones but if you're reading dense pomo or something less common please have clear overviews and tags
Non T AFFs, performance, narratives, etc: all fine and I read them, they're still debate arguments so I hold them to the same standards. Hopefully they're related to the topic. Making the reason to vote AFF clear is key
T framework: it's fine and necessary sometimes , the T version of the AFF debate is usually important so be clear there
Theory: Good strategic theory or theory to check actual abuse is good, I will vote on frivolous theory but I don't think it's very strategic and that will be reflected in speaks
I'll try to be neutral but I lean AFF on 2 or more condo, NEG on agent cp's, AFF on specific plans good, NEG on reasonable PICs but AFF on super small or random PICs. Default competing interps and drop the debater
Phil: I'm familiar with and read at some point all of the common LD frameworks. I'm most familiar with consequentialism and deontology, but feel comfortable evaluating most framework debates. Same thing applies with dense fw as dense Ks
Tricks/a prioris/ skep etc: will vote on them, don't like them. I think common sense responses answer a lot of these positions well
Speaks: will be given based off of efficiency, giving good overviews, collapsing effectively, reading quality substantive arguments, and effectively using ethos if it suits the round.
30 - one of the best speeches I've seen all year
29.5 - you should get to late out rounds
28.9 - you should probably clear
28.5 - average
Flashing: Make an email chain. If you're using a computer you should have a flash drive as back up. I won't take prep. Be fast please
I won't vote on things like racism or rape good, etc. If you personally insult someone in the room or deliberately make someone uncomfortable you'll get a 0.
Do what style you're best at and have fun! I'm excited to see different individual arguments styles and people debate best when they're confident in what they're reading.

I am a parent judge who has not judged LD at all.

Please do not talk fast or spread, and please do not use philosophy, tricks, or any references to things like non unique (explain if you do use it).

I like Ks, but admittedly sometimes I can be a little slow. Please throughly explain them to me. Even if I am familiar with them I want a team to throughly explain their critical solvency or their alternative to me.

I don't enjoy a lot of straight up policy debates, but I'm also not against them. Run what you wanna run and don't let my standpoints deter you from your debate aspirations.

I enjoy debates with fiery clash, but I expect everyone to be respectful to one another. A debater's speaker points will be lowered if they are being disrespectful because it's just not cool and I don't vibe with it.

Spreading is fine, if it is done correctly. Please enunciate and project! Do not mumble your words quickly. This makes evaluating the debate easier because I do not need to decode the mumbling.

https://youtu.be/njoJ0VRbYzc

Please add me to the email chain.

E-mail: jessicatero16@gmail.com

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.

EDIT: Added WS stuff for NSDA at the bottom.

Hey, everyone! I'm Aleks (he/him).

For email chain if needed or if you want to ask questions after the round I'd be happy to answer (not aggressively post-rounding): triv@live.unc.edu

I did three years of Public Forum (with small soirees into the worlds of Congress and World Schools) at Ardrey Kell High School in Charlotte, NC. I've competed locally and nationally, qualifying to NSDA Nats, CFLs, and TOCs, so I can follow and appreciate various styles of debate. However, I'm extremely rusty and haven't judged since watching scrimmages my senior year, so bear with me. I'll consider myself a "flow"/tech>truth judge, but I'm not perfect and shouldn't have to do work for you. I'm not going to lie, at this point, I will be much more likely to make what you think is the "correct" decision if it's a lay round, but I have experience with Theory, Ks, etc... however, those rounds tend to get messy more often in my experience. Take with that what you will. Additionally, I much prefer topical Ks (esp Cap Ks, which are good for discourse if applicable to the topic) to non-topical Ks or theory.

I am currently a rising senior Political Science/European Studies Major @ UNC-Chapel Hill.

My judging style is pretty simple: just make my job to fill out the ballot in your favor as easy as possible. This means signpost, weigh, give warrants, weigh again, and provide voters. Also, please collapse! I don't want to hear a 400 WPM 2AR or Final Focus going over every single thing that happened in the debate. I know what happened in the debate already because I saw it and I flowed it. Part of being a good debater is being able to identify which 1 or 2 arguments you're clearly winning, which 1 or 2 pieces terminal defense to extend, and persuasion. There's a reason why the final speech is always the shortest.

I'm going to try my best not to intervene or do any work for a team on the flow. The odds of me doing so will be a lot less if you warrant your arguments/weigh well.

Also, I'll trust you to time yourselves.

Yes, I'm fine with spreading as long as I have your speech doc. If it's too fast, I'll say "clear" until it gets clearer. I prefer you didn't spread in later speeches, though. Constructive/case is 100% fine though.

If you're racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, misgender someone, ...etc you're going to get dropped instantly with low low speaks. Please also issue content warnings at the beginning of your speech if you are going to discuss something that could be triggering.

For PF: Everything in final focus needs to have been in summary. Please extend or it's not going on my flow.

World Schools: I did World Schools at NSDA Nationals and broke 2x while in high school, so I'm familiar with the event and love it. It doesn't bring me the immense anger that other forms of debate often do. To sum up my preferences...

1. World Schools is all about logical argumentation x performance. You don't need to "cite cards"; just make sure you're telling the truth. I will google to fact-check if something sounds fishy, especially in an impromptu round. Don't speak fast or spread like you might be tempted to do based on other events you may have done. This is a very "dinner table debate to convince your boomer grandparents" event.

2. No new evidence after the second speech for opp/only new info after 2nd speeches is if the prop has to respond to the Opp 2 MAYBE

3. Offer multiple POIs pls (and take like 2-3 if possible)

4. Just be logical and warrant pls. Also, I typically gave the reply nearly every round I competed in, so I'm going to inherently value a really strong reply speech lol

5. I'll start with everybody getting like 70 speaks (35 for the reply) and then go up or down based on how well you did in round. I can't foresee myself giving like 77-80 to anyone unless you like clearly should win WSDC (or below a 64 unless you really do something egregious), but I'm not going to be a stickler with the points otherwise.

6. DO NOT give off time roadmaps in world schools. Weave signposting into your speech.

Let me know if you have questions before the round.

Lastly, please have fun!

OES (Oregon Episcopal School) '20

UC Berkeley '24

she/her

email chain: alexactsai@gmail.com

TL;DR: I'm probably not the best judge for you if you're a K debater, and definitely not a good judge for you if you don't defend a topical plan.

- I pretty much only read policy arguments in high school.

- If you're reading a K, please have an actual link (not a link of omission or a link to the status quo). The alternative should do something, and I usually don't understand why you would kick the alt. The affirmative should get to weigh the plan against the K.

- Please do line-by-line, slow down on analytics and theory blocks, and emphasize the most important arguments in the debate. Judge instruction is always appreciated!

- Don't steal prep or clip cards.

- Turn on your camera (if you are able to)!

- I would prefer not to judge a debate where I have to make a decision based on a debater's personal identity.

- Be nice :)

Good luck and have fun!

Hello

I am a volunteer judge and this is my first year of judging.

Speak slowly and clearly.

Good Luck !

I am a parent Judge and this is my 2nd year of Judging.

* Speak slowly and clearly

* Keep your own time

* Stay away from overly technical, high-leveled debate jargon

* I will take notes throughout the debate

I have been judging for over three years and have judged, in addition to preliminary rounds, many ellimination rounds at Berkley, SCU and Stanford etc . I prefer clear and steady tone, distinct articulation of contention(s) and related sub-points.

I am a lay parent judge and have judged debates for two years. I prefer to see no spreading, civility in arguments, and clear and confident delivery.

Note for TOC: I haven't judged in a couple months, so don't assume I'm up to date on all the recent topic trends. Also, when flowing virtually I've noticed that I need a few more seconds to isolate sections of the debate so please don't transition too quickly between signposts.

I'm Reed (He/Him). I did LD for four years at Lexington High School ('14-'18), went to TOC my junior and senior years, and reached elims at a bunch of bid tournaments & round robins along the way. I've taught at NSD over the summer and currently coach a number of students through Flex Debate.

I'll try my best to be objective and will evaluate pretty much any argument as long as it is properly warranted and implicated, with the exception of arguments that are actively exclusionary/racist/homophobic/ableist/etc.

I read mostly policy, philosophy, and theory my senior year, but have experience with and am totally comfortable voting on Ks and tricks. I don't think my preferences as a debater carry over a ton into how I evaluate rounds. I'll be just as happy watching a dense deleuze v. kant debate as I will be judging plan v. counterplan debates. Regardless of the content of your positions, all I really care about is whether you can execute your arguments well, demonstrate strategic vision, and explain things in a clear & understandable way.

I'm cautious of overly-long paradigms but if you're looking for any more clarification either Sam Azbel or Grant Brown's paradigm would be a decent reference for how I approach debates.

Things that will get you higher speaker points:

-good CX :)))

-unique Ks

-genuine clash in framework debates

-smart/tricky LARP strategies

-persuasive abuse stories on theory

-demonstration of topic knowledge

-good ev comparison

*I will not make a decision that procedurally excludes any of the 5 speeches. What this means is if you ask me to "evaluate the debate after the 1ac/1nc/1ar/2nr", i will most likely ignore it, as I've found that doing so would create an incredibly arbitrary decision procedure that I don't feel would benefit anyone in the way they are hoping.

Do your best, have fun, and please ask questions if you have them. I am always willing to discuss my reason for decision/give comments after the round. If you feel the need to ask me anything before the round, shoot me an email: rw9427a@student.american.edu

Solenne Wolfe / brooklyn tech '20 / dartmouth '24

she/her/hers

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

2A/2N mostly versed in race-based arguments in the realm of afropessimism, black feminism, asian id.

** LD **

my debate experience is entirely in policy debate, which means no larp and no tricks. best for k rounds and especially identity k rounds. if there is a piece of evidence that both sides contest or that comes up a lot in the debate, i will probably ask to read it after the round. if you think this is intervention then you should not pref me.

presentation/style

1. speed = arguments flowed, not words said.

a few smart args that get well-developed > blippy arguments that get warrants in the last two rebuttals.

late-breaking debates = judge intervention.

2. be nice - we're all running on little sleep and in a high-stress situation for days on end. assertiveness can be strategic, but excessive aggression will probably make me sympathetic for the opposing team and end up being counterproductive when four voices are speaking at once in cx.

3. performance debate - yes - make it purposeful, defend and extend the performance.

4. be engaging! eye contact + emphasis + clarity = good speaks and an enjoyable round for us all

framework debates

both sides: you should answer the questions: what is the purpose of debate? what skills do we get/should we get/can we get out of this activity? why are those good? why is sacrificing those bad enough to stake a round on? what sorts of subjects should we be creating?

2NRs/2ARs: These debates have the potential to be thoughtful, in-depth engagements - you should be outframing the other team overall about your model of debate, and then extend the ticky-tacky DAs/smaller arguments. If your arguments fit into the same frame and you are telling a story, you will do well, as opposed to going for a technical concession exclusively with no impact. 2ARs will likely do a good job outframing the neg because they can go back to the case - you should think about this in your speech and make some bigger picture arguments.

for the aff: creative answers contextualized to the aff you are reading are much more compelling than blocks that sound copy-pasted from any K-aff. use your aff! your 1ac ev is likely making specific arguments that k the law/stasis/liberalism/humanism/rules/indexical meaning of language - these should make it into the 2ac/1ar/2ar. 2ar arguments need a 1ar warrant.

for the neg: same thing - don't just copy paste blocks from your generic 2nc vs k affs. if it sounds like you could read this on any topic, you should probably edit your blocks. discussions of arms sales are good - you should explain why.

in a lot of these debates, negative teams think one liners that the 1ar didn't explicitly couch in their language is the silver bullet - there should be claims, warrants, and most importantly implications for your vision of the topic in these debates.

specific tva's are good but absent a specific one you should probably spend your time going for your impacts. the aff is calling into question the process of the game itself - unclear how saying preserve the game thru remedying a fairness violation is responsive. even if you win that fairness is an intrinsic good, you have to win that the aff explicitly is unfair and do comparative impact calculus (at: but fwk is a procedural: even if framework is a procedural, the 2ar probably gets an impact to their discourse because it's now a debate about debate, you weigh 2ac offense vs 2nc offense, 1ac cards that have an implication on framework have an impact in the debate.)

plan v da/cp debate

not the best judge for you, but I really enjoy watching a good 2NC on a DA/CP strategy if it is smart and efficient. if I'm in the back and these args are your go-to, slow down and break down the jargon/plan-debate norms (judgekick? straight turn?). if you're thinking of adapting, a well-executed CP/DA debate > a messy cap/generic k debate. do what you do best! and enjoy the most!

k v k debates

was in a lot of these the past year, think there is a lot of potential in these debates.

the question that often remains unresolved is the question of how to resolve offense and orient towards the ballot. if debate is more than a game, how should an ajudicator assign a win and a loss?

2NRs/2ARs need to have lots of judge direction and be thoughtful about what the impact of this debate is/should be + how it should be evaluated as such? if you're playing with style and planning to do plenty of embedded clash, be clear as to how the judge should weigh both side's arguments.

I am a lay judge. Be sure to explain any terms or acronyms that is specific to the topic. I will be looking for an organized argument and analysis presented in a clear, concise way. I am looking for a good balance of depth and breadth of argument. I am also looking for how completely each point is refuted.

Don't assume that I won't vote for a crazy argument just because it is "crazy." (You might be able to convince me to blow up the moon if you can show some benefit and if it goes unrefuted.) Spend the effort to refute those and move on.

Use spreading at your own risk. Because I will be looking for some depth of how each point is argued, choosing quantity of points over quality of the argument is a negative to me. However, kudos if you can provide substantial depth to a good subset of (3 or more) points.

Hi, if you can, please do not speak very fast. Thank you

For reference, I am currently a college student and I did parliamentary debate for 4 years in high school, with bit of speech on the side. When it comes to judging, I value clearly structured arguments with sound logic the most. Well organized arguments only make it easier for everyone in the round to follow along and whoever can best uphold the criterion of the round with the strongest impacts will win my ballot. Remember to link your arguments to the criterion and please do not merely restate all of your points in the last speech. Presentation is important, but it will not be the sole factor upon which I decide my ballot. I will only flow what is said in the round and I will not infer anything from what you say. In other words, if you want me to take something into consideration for judging, literally spell it out for me. If I notice a fallacy or a dropped argument, I will not factor that into my judging unless it is pointed out. I'm open to all types of arguments, EXCEPT for kritiks. If you run a kritik, you will lose the round. Moreover, pathos arguments are the weakest form of appeal for me personally, so I don't recommend running a highly emotional argument where pathos is the main focus.

I am a non-Native English speaker and a first-time judge.