I did LD debate for 4 year so I expect much from non novices. To be unbias, I will flow progressive arguments, but I do not prefer them in this debate. Talking fast usually isn't a problem for me but since this is all online it would be better if everyone talked in a conversation style.

OFFICIALLY RETIRED

PF/LD: I will normally judge based off of the round. Okay with speed. Prefer it if you don't run theory arguments.

Interp: I will take piece selection into account. Prefer more versatile pieces that display a wider range of skill and talent.

Speaking Events: I will count evidence and fluency breaks. I will also keep track of how evenly your time is distributed. I would also appreciate some humor - more in Original Oratory, less in extemporaneous speaking events.

I debated at Princeton, TX and I'm a CXer by trade, though I've been judging often for the last five years since I've graduated so I know my way around all the other formats. I am a "games" judge so I accept anything and everything so long as I've been given proper reasoning. If nothing fancy goes on I default to a policymaker position. "Conservative" and "Progressive" styles are equally valid in my book.

My three top level principles:

• Framework is King: I cannot evaluate something like American Hegemony vs Human Rights without being given a philosophical underpinning on what's a higher concern. Framework is not an end unto itself, but to be used as a tool for establishing priority of impacts. I highly recommend both sides run something on this.
• Competition over Truth: As a judge, I want to intervene with my own knowledge and logic as minimally as possible because that's your job as the debater. As long as you get the technical performance down 80% I can be flexible on the remaining part.
• Evidence Quality over Quantity: I'm less interested in the number of cards read and more in the reasoning of how they come up with the conclusion in the tagline. I'll only intervene here when there is disagreement on what's written. I understand there are cases when a good argument for the situation cannot be prepared in a card so I accept analytics within reasonability. On areas of significant clash I give it to the side that delves deeper into the warrants. When the competing claims slide over each other, I may end up evaluating it as a wash.

One more request: when you invoke innovation, please elaborate what you mean by that. It's the biggest, most annoying buzzword in all of speech and debate.

Also, I do not like disclosure theory. Study the meta or learn to improvise.

Onto the line by line:

Speed - I can accept it as long as it's intelligible. If you get to the point where you're wheezing substantially I'll tell you to clear up. Slow down on taglines and authors. If you spread on analysis and they aren't written down on the file, then I can't guarantee I'll have them down on the flow.

Topicality - I take a layman interpretation on what ought to be topical so my threshold is rather high. That said, the affirmative must still have a good technical performance in their answer.

Theory - It's okay with me, though I think it's of a lower priority than material issues and mostly evaluate it as a tiebreaker.

Turns - Link turns, impact turns, and case turns are all very powerful, but please substantiate what's going on materially. There's nothing more confusing than when both sides claim they subsume the other.

Counterplans - The viability of a CP lies in the net benefit that's established. Mutually exclusive plans are the clearest for clash and competition. I accept PICs but there better be a good reason that the aff can't perm. Unless otherwise specified or kicked, I view CPs as part of the negative's world advocacy that can be held against them. Running multiple CPs or CP and K may obfuscate the neg's advocacy, but it's up to the aff to point that out.

Case - If offense is lacking or well defended I often let the affirmative access the try or die argument. I'm not strict on case architecture on either side, but stock issues will always be fundamental and we can't forget that.

Disadvantages - On economic related impacts, the way to break beyond surface level claims is to actually tangle with competing economic theories. Is the Keynesian, Neoclassical, or the Marxist school most accurate on the scenario regarding recessions? I don't know, you tell me. On politics, I think you're obligated to read political capital theory or else it's easy to defuse with thumpers, but I don't accept that you can fiat out of it. Generally I value strong and specific links when it comes to the impact calc.

Kritiks - I can follow along with the theory, though if you start using buzzwords and jargon you'd better be able to elaborate on that. If you run a K you should understand it well on a conceptual level. Like disads, specific links and contextualization to the aff are very important. On the aff side, I'm willing to follow along with K's bad theory, counter-kritiks, and really all bets are off here.

Send the email chain to yashkhaleque2@gmail.com, I'm also available for questions and case advice.

i have a lot of experience and do a lot of tings ‼️ just do whatever you do best and tell me how to evaluate.

Update for the TOC 2023: I am not well versed with kritik literature, so if you primarily run kritiks or k affs then I may not be the best judge for you. The same can be said about theory, I mostly judge small town tournaments in Texas, so I am not at all familiar with advanced theory that you may run at your national circuit/bid tournaments. I am a tab judge, so I will still try to evaluate theory/k's as fairly as possible, but if your case relies on my knowledge of these things you are likely putting yourself at a disadvantage. Aside from that, read whatever DA's, CP's, K's, or Theory you want as fast as you want. Will not vote off of racism good, sexism good, homophobia good, or any other ignorant arguments you make just to win the round. Please signpost and slow down for taglines and analytics

Add me to the email chain: cmm2001@gmail.com (pronouns He/Him)

Background: I did LD and a little bit of policy at Princeton High School. I qualified to UIL and TFA state as well NSDA a few times. I know a decent amount about policy, but I am more comfortable with LD. I do not mind a traditional round with no spreading, but I will also listen to very progressive rounds. It is up to the debaters to set the pace and to tell me why and who I am voting for. For some more about me, I am an Astronomer studying low-mass galaxies using the Hubble Space Telescope and received my B.S. in Astronomy at UT Austin.

K: I never ran K's in high school, but I have had a few ran against me, so I know some basic one's (Nietzsche, Set Col, Cap) but if you are running anything more progressive or any lesser known K's I only ask that you make sure you know what you are running and that you are not running it just to confuse me and your opponents. If I cannot understand the reasoning behind what you are saying I will have a hard time voting on it. This also goes for K affs, run them and if they are well constructed and you defend it well I will vote off anything

CP: Read away! If you say the CP is either conditional or non conditional in CX I will hold you to it.

DA: Run whatever, I will buy any link chain that makes sense in both LD and CX.

Theory: I have a high threshold for how well you prove abuse. There has to be some sort of in round and potential abuse. I will not vote for theory just because you ran it (of course, if it goes clean dropped by your opponent I will vote for it, but that should be assumed about any argument).

FW: Util unless otherwise told

Speaker Points:

30: reserved for exceptional speakers. I am not afraid to give 30 speaks if you do just an all around breathtaking job.

28-29: Amazing speaker with great organization and structure. Seamless transitions, signposting, and slowed down for taglines. An almost theatrical feeling where I want to stop flowing and just listen to the speech (I won't do this, it is just an example)

27-28: good speaker with organization and structure. Did not have to stumble or spend much time flipping or scrolling between pages in your speech. Slowed down for taglines, and analytics. I had to say clear once at the most

26-27: some organization and structure, but still hard to follow speeches, I had to say clear once or twice to get you to slow down

25-26:arguments/speaking lacked structure and organization. Little to no roadmap, or inability to follow speaker because no signposting or slowing down for taglines. I may have had to say clear multiple times to get you to slow down. This also includes poor evidence ethics, but not something for which you can be disqualified for. If you are maliciously or intentionally misrepresenting your evidence (as opposed to just being unfamiliar with the norms of debate) I have no problem reporting you to the tournament director (although I would rather not have to do this).

20:Racist/sexist/other biggoted statements

All that being said, please be kind and respectful of both your opponent and myself/your other judges. Debate is an educational activity, nobody needs to feel excluded of this community.

I am a parent judge, and lack a lot of the technical lingo that goes along with the event. However, I have a good record at being a fair open-minded judge who is able to discern a good argument. If I cannot understand you I cannot effectively judge your argument.

I like to focus on framework and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to judge you. Being aggressive is fine, just make sure you don't say or do anything that is offensive. I like a great Cross-Examination.

Background

I am a former assistant debate coach from Texas. I debated in Lincoln-Douglas for four years in High School, and I did four years of both NFA LD and Parliamentary Debate in college.

Email: Mroets@princetonisd.net

Judging Philosophy

I'll vote off of pretty much anything as long as it's weighed.

I will judge traditional rounds, I will judge progressive rounds. I've debated in both worlds and have little preference.

Speed

Speed is fine. I will say "clear" or put down my pen if I can't keep up.

Kritiks

Kritiks are fine

Please explain the literature you read. If you name-drop authors and don't clearly explain through evidence/analytics what their theory entails, the argument is tough to land. Assume I am not familiar with the author you're reading.

I care about the alt. Make it make sense, please.

If you tell me in the first speech that some major real-world abuse is happening to a marginalized group in the aff advocacy and then abandon it a speech later for strategy, I will take speaker points.

Topicality

Full disclosure: I love good T debates.

The preference is for in-round abuse to be demonstrated.

Theoretical abuse is sufficient for a ballot if properly demonstrated in the shell.

I want the violation to be as specific as possible.

Standards and voters are essential.

All other arguments

Generally, I am okay with any argument. Give me impacts, an explanation of the literature, and a reason why it warrants a ballot.

Cross-Examination

I don't flow it, but I pay attention.

If you want points for C-X on the flow, put it on the flow during your speech, please.

Be respectful and polite where possible. Rudeness will lose you speaker points.

Ask specific questions in-round and you shall receive specific answers in-round!

Affiliation: Strake Jesuit

Treat me like a traditional judge with an emphasis on clear communication. Feel free to ask me questions before the round.

Please do not assume I know the jargon you use. Tell me how you want me to weigh arguments in the round and which arguments are voters. Signposting and crystallization are hugely helpful. Telling me where to start on the flow is a great idea. If you want me to vote on something, you have to extend through every speech. I want to see lots of weighing: rounds without weighing are very difficult to adjudicate. Make it easy for me to vote for you.

email: adebatejudge@gmail.com

I debated in high school for four years and competed at UIL State, among other high level/international tournaments. Additionally, I earned over 700 NSDA points during my time as a competitor. With that said, I know debate and am prepared for any type of debate you throw at me. As a judge I am what most people would call a gamemaker, I believe debate is a game and I'm prepared for whatever you give me. However, there are some exceptions:

1) FOLLOW THE TOURNAMENT RULES, I don't care if my preferences contradict the tournament rules, ALWAYS FOLLOW THE TOURNAMENT RULES FIRST AND THEN FOLLOW MY PARADIGMS.

2) Absolutely no racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia/xenophobia. If you raise any argument of these themes, you will get as little speaker points as I can give you as well as make you lose the round. However, I will not accept baseless accusations that your opponent is racist, etc. I have a similar definition about my perception as Justice Potter Stewart said in Jacobellis v. Ohio, "I shall not attempt to define... and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it." Although his subject matter was different than what I'm talking about, the sentiment is similar when defining what is and what isn't offensive.

3) Insults, Teasing, and being aggressive are a no go. We're here to learn and have fun, don't be rude.

Like I said, I will judge anything. Just contextualize it, if I want to hear some funny case I can just read it, don't run it just because you know I'll listen. I want a good debate and I want you to bring the best you have. I love speed and you can go full speed with me, just stay clear. I believe debate is free-form art, do with that form as you like.

As for specific notes about args:

- I like advocacy/non-plan cases but I need it contextualized for the real world. Show me what the world of the advocacy looks like, saying the case is a good idea isn't good enough.

- Method vs Method debates are fun, one of my most important values in judging that sort of round is root cause.

Additional notes to make me like you:

-Always Roadmap

-I love wild kritiks and kritik affirmatives (but you must explain it well enough, i.e. don't throw some crazy kritik plan out there without contextualizing it with impacts, etc)

-New in the 2 is fine, I'm not going to buy any abuse arguments unless they sandbag like 5 new args in the 2

-If you make good puns I'll give you more speaks

-I love speed but if you go supersonic get me a copy of your speech

-I'm a sucker for quality analytics, beyond just blocks that you've written down. Show me that you know what's happening in round.

-disclosure theory always sucks

LD Paradigms

I debated in high school LD for four years, primarily on the TFA circuit, with a couple national and UIL tournaments. That is to say, I'm familiar with most forms of argument. I will flow just about any argument as long as it's warranted. Framing and impact calculus are important to me. Tell me how the round ought to be weighed. Otherwise, I'll default to utilitarian cost-benefit analysis.

TL;DR-- I'm fine with any warranted arguments, framing and impact calc are important.

Background-- I debated high school LD for four years, also doing some extemp and occasionally congress. I have participated in UIL, TFA, NSDA, and national circuit tournaments, though my own style most aligns with that of TFA. That being said, I am probably familiar with any style of argument you might present me, and if I'm not, I'm fairly open minded-- explain it to me, warrant it, and tell me what it does for the round.If the logic flows, I will flow it.

I'm overall tab. I'll vote on arguments I don't like if they make sense and are winning, that being said, I have some preferences like anyone else.

Framework-- I appreciate strong framework in the round. I want you to tell me how the round will be weighed and what the purpose of this round is, how I will decide the winner. If your opponent challenges your framework or you are proposing a competing framework on the negative, I want you tojustifywhy your framework is the best way to evaluate the round.

Framework does not exist in a bubble. Impacts and stock arguments ought to be viewed under the framework and connected back. Make it clear to me at the end of the round how your arguments connect back to the framework and show how you win under framework. Example: if neg shows we end up in a nuclear holocaust under the aff, but agreed to a framework that we decide the round based off of "stealing is bad," I will vote on an aff that shows the aff world still reduces stealing more.

I don't mind what framework construction you use: value/criterion, standard, role of the ballot, plan text, or something I have never heard of. Just justify it and evaluate the entire round through it.

If neither side gives me any framework, I'm forced to choose how the round is viewed, and will generally default to a material utilitarian cost/benefit analysis, but I really don't like to do this. Tell me how the round is weighed.

TL;DR--framework will tell me how I view the round. Justify your framework. I will weigh all (non-apriori) arguments through the framework, but I'm not going to extend arguments for you.

Theory-- I get tired of theory (particularly given its a priori nature), but I understand the occasional necessity of it. When you read a T-shell, be ready to justify it and actually explore your warrants. If you read 5 points in the underview and one is "no RVIs," I'm not just going to drop your opponent because you come back your next speech and say "They had an RVI but I said no RVIs." You'll have to actually elaborate and explain why something like RVIs are bad if you want to extend that (and particularly with points on the underview, I will hold you to a rigorous standard, as I get tired of people spiking the whole alphabet on underview in bullet points), and explain to me how dropping them solves the problem. Once again, warrant your arguments.

Side note-- if there is one place I err from being totally tab, it may be on certain theory arguments. I will have a very high standard to buy very exploitative arguments like NIBs or disclosure theory, so really think about if those arguments sound reasonable and if you can firmly prove them and how they help the debate.

K-- I have read a good bit and debated even more, so if I can't follow your Kritik, that is a problem. Make sure you understand the material you are citing and you can explain it well. I'm happy to vote for a valid Kritik, maybe even a K-Aff occasionally, but I'm not going to vote for an argument I don't understand. If you fly over my head and your opponent's head, you're not winning this argument.

Let me re-iterate, Ks are fine and I'm familiar with most of your run-of-the-mill stuff, Nietzsche, Wilderson, Marx, Kant (if you want to do some old-school deontology), and I lovephilosophical arguments in LD. But communication and understanding is important. I want to be sure the argument is warranted, and that you actually know what you're arguing. A good standard is to just check occasionally if it looks like I'm following.

TL;DR-- Ks are fine, make sure you and I know what you're saying. If I look confused, that is a bad sign, but if I'm engaged, you're doing fine.

Stock Issues/Case-- Once again, the way I weigh this all depends on framework. I am happy with any warranted arguments here. Make sure that your impact makes sense under the framework (the bees dying is horrible, but it'll be hard to convince me to weigh that in a round framed on Social Contract theory). I first vote on a priori issues like K and theory, but I love a good stock case with clash, and love to hear engagement with your opponent. Don't be afraid to kick moot args in the round, but be sure to extend voting issues.

Topicality-- Tell me why your resolutional interp best serves the round and how your opponent has compromised it. Basically, most of what I said about warranting and a high standard under theory applies here too.

Misc-- If you have some radical style of argument, that's great, I'm all for it, I love novelty. Just make sure it makes sense and walk me through it. I'm fine with flex prep and new cards as long as it's not the last two speeches. If your opponent drops something, tell me what that means for the round, what they agree to, and how that hurts their arguments. Just saying they dropped does nothing but make sure they don't extend it. I won't flow new arguments in the last 2 speeches and won't flow after you've been called out for a drop (don't worry, I keep a thorough flow. I know when drops are real or BS and won't drop an arg just because your opponent says so. Point out when they do drop, though) unless you can extend an answer to the harms from the drop off another arg or something.

And don't just cry abuse if your opponent does something bad. Explain what they violated, why that standard is important, what the harms are, and how that should affect my decision. Even if you don't run it as a T-shell, explain it to me. I'm not going to just take you at your word without warranting on abuse arguments 90% of the time.

K Affs? Fine. CPs? Cool. A traditional aff framed on deontological ethics? Also fine. I really am happy with most any argument,as long as it is warranted.

TL;DR-- explain weird args, flex prep is fine, new cards are fine in the 1NR, explain what drops mean, don't be abusive in final speeches.

CX Paradigms

I primarily judge LD, but I have judged CX several times. Most of my paradigms for LD hold for CX as well, but for a CX round I especially want to see effective sign-posting, extending, and a clean flow. I don't necessarily expect as much gritty work on framework in a CX round, but weighing is still important. Show me why you won the round.

If you have any other questions, about my opinions on args, style, my background, etc, feel free to ask before the round. I'm happy to explain. I'm fairly chill.

I am a parent judge.

I am ok with spreading as long as I have your case with me and prefer less spreading during rebuttals.

I pay special attention to CX and Rebuttals and you score higher if you logically tie your case, questions and rebuttal arguments. In your conclusions do summarize why your case is stronger than your opponent's.

Be organized, treat your opponent with respect and time your selves.

I like to reflect on the round before I submit the ballot so it may not be possible for me to disclose at the end of the round.

All the best.

I would like you to really focus on communicating with me rather than just on saying what you have to say. Use common examples and make sure that I can really understand what the impacts mean to me or could mean to an individual in the world.

I am looking for you to really focus on prioritizing the arguments and impacts that matter most. Many arguments aren't completely won or lost as there may be harms and benefits to both sides. It's your job to tell me why those specific harms or benefits are impactful enough for my vote.

Use overt organization. Signpost. Be cordial.