Please Note: ADD me to the Email Chain [dbraswell@chicagodebates.org]

My Paradigm is as follows,

I am a stickler for structured organized debate. As a previous high school and college debater; I stress the importance of the AFF team hitting all stock issues (Inherency, Harms, Solvency, Plan, and T), signposting, line by line clash, Impact Cal, poise during cross ex, and leaving no argument unaddressed. For the NEG Team, I welcome off case and on case arguments, they must be clearly signposted (If DA- Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact. ETC for T/K/CP/Theory arguments), use line by line, Impact Cal, and politeness as well during cross ex (Keep It Cute). I am a firm believer of strategy as well, so go for whatever strategy you feel works best for you IN the debate round. I can flow spreading however IF you are spreading, IT MUST BE CLEAR AND CONCISE. Actual spreading doesn't sound like gibberish and run-on sentences. If it is a digital debate with files online, PLEASE set up Email Chains and Flash Drives before the round, it takes away from actual debate time. I do signal how much time you have as time goes down and you can finish your sentence when the timer goes off. In the event someone has to go to the restroom, it would be counted as prep time. I have judged the following debate/speech events: CX, PF, LD, Congress, College Parli, OO, and other speech events. As I have been a debater, debate team captain, coach, and program assistant; My goal is to educate and build upon your knowledge of debate as well as help you grow as an aware and autonomous being. Debate has played a tremendous role in my growth and development; I hope it does the same for you. I do not disclose unless instructed to by the league however I do believe in giving meaningful feedback at the end of the round.

Respectfully,

Derrick Braswell

4 Years Policy Debate at Kelly High School

- Yes, add me to the email chain please: acamargo517@gmail.com

- I’ve ran a mix of Critical AFF’s and Policy AFF’s over the years but was more of a critical arg debater who usually went for the K, rather than the CP, DA, or T. Anyhow, I’m open to anything you throw at my plate and I will do my best to put my biases and debate past aside.

Delivery:

-Clarity over speed. I can flow spreaders, but if I legit can’t understand because you try to go Eminem—Rap God without the clarity, then I simply won’t flow.

-Make a clear distinction between the tag, cite, and the evidence.

-Sign post!

Key Arg Points:

-I’m cool with K Aff’s, as long as you all establish a connection with the resolution. So run them, express yourself, and be creative.

-DA: I need to see some clash on the impact level of both sides.

-CP: There should be in-depth debates on the competitiveness, solvency, net ben levels of CP vs plan and vice versa.

-K: Clear articulation/refutation of Fw, Link, Alt, Impact, and Perm on both sides.

-T: I want to see comparative analysis for standards and Reasonab vs Comp Interps. Please don’t read like a hundred T’s in the 1NC.

-Theory: Don’t really love it but I will vote on it if the opponent drops it.

-Do the work for me because I’m lazy! Paint me a portrait of how you all want me to vote or see the debate round, particularly in rebuttals.

-Tech over Truth, unless you’re making some very messed up args (you should know when to stop)

ALSO, be NICE to each other. Otherwise your speaks will go out the window.

Good luck to you all and remember to have fun!

Pls say "and" or something of the sort in between cards !!!!

About Me:

Email: pranav.chillappagari@gmail.com

Computer Science major @ SJSU

Debated for Dougherty Valley High School for 4 years, now debate for SJSU (mainly do speech now tho).

Call me whatever pronouns you want, I default to using they/them unless specified.

Have done Congress, LD, Policy, Parli, and a bunch of speech events, this paradigm is geared mainly for LD/Policy.

Preferred K debate in high school, read many performance affs, now I prefer plan-based debate (policy).

Plan Affs:

I mean pretty straight forward, make sure impacts are relatively recent, I appreciate an overview of the aff in the 2AC or 1AR and this is where I would like impact calculus to happen (IMPACT CALCULUS SHOULD BE HAPPENING).

CP:

I LOVE advantage counterplans, every chance I had to read them, I would. Specify how the cp solves the case’s impacts and specify how its competitive (if it is). Don’t spread through every plank of a counterplan, go a little slower so I can write what’s important of them. Run however many you want in however way (not literally, but I don’t mind cheaty CPs).

DA:

I don’t really like ptx DA’s, Ill still evaluate them obviously, but they can be called out so easily and all it takes are generic cards with no real warrant to beat some of them. But if they drop your terrible uq, go for it :). Impact calc, case turns, and case analysis are all important. The more specific the links, the better.

I like process counterplans, I feel like the impact debate becomes a little more nuanced depending on whoever passes, and even though meticulous, it is fun for me to watch.

T:

These are fun regardless of what you read them against. Legal precision and reciprocity are super influential to me. I default to Competing Interps on T. LINE BY LINE THE STANDARDS, why are y’all not putting offense on the actual standards. Remember to externalize voters and give a good interpretation as to why your definition isn't just better for the round but debate (not necessary, but added layer of defense).

Framework:

One off fwk is strategic, must have a TVA: and use it as offense against the aff.

ALSO EXTERNALIZE YOUR TOPICALITY IMPACTS OUTSIDE OF THE DEBATE ROUND.

Kritik/K-affs:

All of what I ran my last two years in hs debate, I am going to be critical when judging, but don’t be scared I still want the round to be educational so I will give good feed back.

How come half of y’all can’t spread clearly, I understand the words are long and annoying but is it THAT BAD. Overall, I am pretty well versed in a lot of generic K literature and have an extensive knowledge in identity based arguments. I would like if framing explained how I am supposed to evaluate impacts rather then just saying a ROJ/ROB. Like if your opponent gives a counter performance or is able to materialize their impacts according to your framework, I need to know what goes into the argument that “best solves [ROB].” Because that’s super arbitrary. IF YOUR OVERVIEW IS LONG, IT BETTER BE THE ONLY THING ON THE K SHEET OF THE 2NR. Otherwise, short overview explaining the story (and further explaining the alt) and an efficient line by line is good. If you are going to read a K, don’t just arbitrarily question the framework / case of the AC during cx. GO IN on the links you want to generate from them, this can save you a lot of time with your link walls since you can just say “refer to cx” rather than some long explanation. Other than that, impact turn and collapse. AND ENGAGE WITH CASE IF THE K IS SUPER SHORT OR GENERIC.

Piks / Word Pics -- honestly I don't hate word pics if the discourse needs to be called out, but I have never voted for a PIK (and probably never plan to).

K-aff specific: Explain why your model of debate matters against framework / t-usfg, this will probably be what I am going to be voting for in the round, so it matters. Other than that explain what the advocacy and ballot does. And yes answer the “what does the aff do?” Question.

Theory:

Default reasonability, I use a brightline of evaluating potential and actual abuse, putting more of an emphasis on actual abuse > potential abuse. I like condo bad, pics bad, and disclosure. But am easily swayed with these arguments as long as you impact out your standards properly.

I love new affs bad (I will never explain further).

Phil:

just explain well, go slow on analytics. Not your best judge for these, but I am more tolerant than most.

Tricks

cruel optimism, I go into debate rounds hoping that each debater will get something substantive from the round, and by the time the round is over I have effectively left the community.

But in all seriousness, go for it, I will evaluate it how you tell me too, and maybe you will be the one who helps me change my mind about these arguments.

Hey!

I'm a current junior at Cornell and debated throughout middle and high school (PF & LD).

I would categorize myself as a flay judge. I can pick up on spreading fairly well, but I would caution that if I can't understand what you're saying, I won't be able to evaluate your contentions/rebuttals, etc. Interpret that however you'd like.

A few other things:

(1) Please make sure to be efficient with your time(!!)

[Make sure to take advantage of the time allotted for speeches and cx. For example, if you're given 4 minutes for a speech, please try to hit that 4 minute mark as best as you can.]

[a 15-second grace period will be given]

(2) I believe there is a fine line between being an assertive debater and being a jerk. (Zealously advocate for your team, but remember that decorum matters)

Best of luck, you got this!!

she/they, lay-uh, not lee-uh

leah.clarkvilla@gmail.com

[Judge Info]

A) I've competed and coached high school and college policy debate since 2008.

B) I've taught new novice students and instructed K-12 teachers about Parli, PuFo, LD, and Policy

C) I am an educator and curriculum developer, so that is how I view my role as a judge and approach feedback in debate. I type my RFDs, please ask your coaches (if you have an experienced coach) to explain strategic concepts I referenced. Otherwise you can email me.

D) I am very aware of the differences in strategy and structure when comparing Policy Debate and Lincoln-Douglas debate.

d)) which means I can tell when evidence from one format of debate [ex: policy -> ld] is merely read in a different format of debate for strategic choices rather than educational engagement.

heads up: i can tell when you are (sp)reading policy cards at me, vs communicating persuasive and functionally strategic arguments. please read and write your speeches, don't just read blocks of evidence without doing the persuasive work of storytelling impacts.

Parts of an Argument:

Claim - your argument

Warrant - analytical reasoning or evidence

Impact - why the judge should care, why it's important

Impact Calculus:

Probability - how likely is it the impact will happen

Magnitude - how large is the harm/who will be negatively affected

Timeframe - when this impact will occur

Reversibility - can the harms be undone

prewritten analytics should be included in the doc. we are online. transparency, clarity, and communication is integral in debate. if you are unclear and i miss an argument, then i missed your argument because you were unclear

for policy and/or ld:

1) AFFs should present solutions, pass a Plan, or try to solve something

2) K AFFs that do not present a plan text must: 1. Be resolutional - 1ac should generally mention or talk about the topic even if you're not defending it, 2. Prove the 1AC/AFF is a prereq to policy, why does the AFF come before policy, why does policy fail without the aff? 3. Provide sufficient defense to TVAs - if NEG proves the AFF (or solvency for AFF's harms) can happen with a plan text, I am very persuaded by TVAs. K teams must have a strong defense to this.

3) Link to the squo/"Truth Claims" as an impact is not enough. These are generic and I am less persuaded by generic truth claims arguments without sufficient impacts

4) Critique of the resolution > Critique of the squo

5) NEG K alts do not have to solve the entirety of the AFF, but must prove a disadvantage or explain why a rejection of the AFF is better than the alt, or the squo solves.

6) Debate is a [policy or LD] game, if it is a survival strategy I need more warrants and impacts other than "the aff/alt is a survival strategy" with no explanation of how you are winning in-round impacts

7) Framing is FUNctional, the team that gives me the best guide on how/why I should vote for X typically wins the round. What's the ROB, ROJ, the purpose of this round, impact calc, how should I evaluate the debate?

8) Edu is important. Persuasive communication is part of edu. when the debate is messy or close I tend to evaluate the round in terms of 1. who did the better debating, 2. who best explained arguments and impacts and made me more clearly understand the debate, 3. who understood their evidence/case the most.

9) Dropped arguments are not always necessarily true - I will vote on dropped arguments if it was impacted out and explained why it's a voter, but not if the only warrant is "they conceded _____it so it's a voter"

10) I flow arguments, not authors. It will be helpful to clarify which authors are important by summarizing/impacting their arguments instead of name dropping them without context or explanation.

Hello,

This is my second year as a parent judge. While many "k affs" are cleverly conceived, I value and adjudicate in favor of those debaters who focus on the core issues of the assigned topic and can most clearly and logically lay out their case.

Hello, hello, and greetings! I hope you're doing well.

As fellow speech and debate enthusiasts, we share a unique connection within a devoted community. I deeply respect the dedication, time, and personal sacrifices you commit to excel in debate. I hold both the Donus D. Roberts Coaching Excellence Award and I am a first time Diamond Award coach. My journey in Policy Debate started in middle school, and today, I coach various debate teams, including the debate squad, moot court team, mock trial teams, and shark tank teams. This commitment has given me valuable insights into the demands of this activity. My background spans the financial world, law, and a strong passion for history. I have been actively involved in debate since 6th grade and coaching since 2012, maintaining my profound love for this distinctive pursuit. I've judge CX, PF, LD, BQ, Moot Court, Mock Trials, and High School Shark Tank Presentations. It's worth acknowledging that you've chosen to embrace a challenging endeavor that many may shy away from.

Nickname: My nickname is Judge Kinshasa, in a round, you can just call me "Judge".

Also, I am not responsible for your feelings. Win graciously, lose graciously. I have no problem giving feedback to ones coach, and my email is in the RFD for your coach to contact me for more information on my RFD. I'll use sharedocs on the NSDA platform so there's no need for any personal email to be exchanged among the rounds participants.

I don't disclose except in elimination rounds.

Let's dive into my judging philosophy by sharing how I look at the components of a debate:

1. Framework (Affirmative and Negative):

- What it is: A set of rules and principles that define the scope of the debate.

- What it is not: A case-specific argument or evidence.

2. Role of the Ballot (ROB):

- What it is: A statement explaining what the judge should prioritize when making their decision.

- What it is not: An argument against the opponent's case.

3. Plan (Affirmative):

- What it is: The proposed policy or action the affirmative team advocates for.

- What it is not: The entirety of the affirmative case; it's just one element.

4. Counterplan (Negative):

- What it is: An alternative proposal presented by the negative team.

- What it is not: A critique or disadvantage argument.

5. Topicality (Negative):

- What it is: An argument challenging the affirmative's compliance with the debate topic.

- What it is not: A critique of the affirmative's content.

6. Disadvantage (Negative):

- What it is: An argument showing the negative consequences of the affirmative's plan.

- What it is not: A counterplan or a critique.

7. Critique/Kritik (Negative):

- What it is: A critical analysis of the assumptions or ideology underlying the affirmative case.

- What it is not: A traditional argument based on evidence and impacts.

8. Cross-Examination (CX):

- What it is: A period during the debate where one team questions the other to gather information and make arguments.

- What it is not: A time for making speeches or presenting new arguments.

9. Rebuttal (Affirmative and Negative):

- What it is: Speeches aimed at refuting the opponent's arguments and reinforcing your own.

- What it is not: A time for introducing entirely new content.

10. Evidence/Contentions (Affirmative and Negative):

- What it is: Factual information and arguments that support your case.

- What it is not: Personal opinions or unsupported assertions.

11. Flowing (Judge's Role):

- What it is: Taking detailed notes of the debate to track arguments and make an informed decision.

- What it is not: Making decisions based on personal biases or emotions.

12. Time Limits:

- What it is: Strictly enforced limits for speeches and cross-examinations.

- What it is not: Flexible or arbitrary timekeeping.

13. Case Overview (Affirmative and Negative):

- What it is: A brief summary of your main arguments at the beginning of your speech.

- What it is not: A replacement for in-depth analysis.

14. Permutation (Affirmative):

- What it is: An argument that combines the affirmative and negative positions to demonstrate compatibility.

- What it is not: A standalone argument; it relies on other contentions.

15. Voting Issues (Judge's Decision):

- What it is: The key points or arguments the judge should consider when rendering a decision.

- What it is not: An exhaustive review of every argument made in the debate.

16. Cap-K (Capitalism Kritik) in Policy Debate:

- What it is: A critical argument challenging the fundamental assumptions and impacts of capitalism as a social and economic system.
- What it is not: A traditional policy argument focused on specific policy proposals or impacts.

17. Settler Colonialism in Policy Debate:

- What it is: An argument that critiques the historical and ongoing processes of colonization and displacement of Indigenous peoples.
- What it is not: A case-specific argument or a traditional policy debate contention.

As your judge, this represents my approach to evaluating debate rounds and how I assess arguments within them. The following offers further insight into my judging philosophy and perspective.

1. Communication Rule:

- Rule: No communication is allowed between teammates or judges during the debate round to maintain fairness and integrity.
- Consequences: Violating this rule results in immediate removal from the room; failure to comply leads to team disqualification.
- Purpose: Strict enforcement deters interference and ensures adherence to fair competition rules and guidelines.

2. Focus During Rounds: I take judging seriously and maintain a laser focus during rounds. No social media or phone distractions for me – I'm all about the debate!

3. Debate Strategy: Also, please look at the judge, not at your opponent. I appreciate well-structured arguments and expect respectful conduct. I don't favor profanity, yelling, or ad hominem attacks. I’ll give one warning, and if the violation continues, I’ll end the round, and have no issue conversing with your coach about the matter. If your strategy relies on divisive or disrespectful arguments, I'm not the right judge for you.

4. Role of the Aff: Remember, the Aff plan isn't the debater; you are. Address your opponents as "Neg" or "Aff" or “Opponent to maintain professionalism.

5. Counterplans and Solvency: I prefer Neg to run a Counterplan (CP) because attacking solvency without addressing the problem isn't convincing, and doesn’t make the CP a better option, and in essence the Neg says that their either isn’t a problem to solve, or the problem isn’t big enough to solve.

6. Flowing: I'm a meticulous judge who highly appreciates well-structured flow sheets as they enhance my ability to assess the round thoroughly. My preference is to manually record my notes on paper because typing on a laptop keyboard can be distracting for debaters. I actively encourage teams to maintain their own flow sheets, not only to enhance their skills but also because I might refer to them to ensure no critical arguments are overlooked.

7. Engagement: Engage with me, the judge, as you present your arguments. Spreading is fine, though I prefer you do not, but clear and effective communication is key. If you’re spreading to get as many arguments as possible in to trick your opponent to drop arguments, you’re just reading, not making an argument in support of your position. I don’t vote based on dropped arguments.

8. Questions in Cross-X: Meaningful questions are more valuable than questions for the sake of it. Avoid open-ended queries and be respectful.

9. Clash:

- Explanation: Clash is the central battleground in policy debate, where debaters engage in direct argumentative confrontation.
- Importance: Effective clash demonstrates your team's skill in challenging your opponent arguments, influencing my decision beyond exploiting dropped points. Please don't debate based on winning by dropped arguments, win the debate utilizing clash.
- Strategy: Strategically use clash by presenting strong arguments, addressing your opponent's contentions, and highlighting weaknesses. It showcases argumentative prowess and critical thinking.
- Outcome: Clash quality significantly impacts my decision, making it a crucial skill for winning policy debates.

10. Defense versus Offence: In policy debate, "defense" challenges the opponent's case, while "offense" advances the negative's position. Winning the debate requires strong defense to undermine the affirmative and effective offense to persuade me. Debaters balance these elements, adapting to my preferences for a strategic advantage.

11. Debating Off-Topic in Policy Debate:

- Warning: Stick to the resolution's scope for meaningful debates. If your strategy is to not debate the topic outside of a K-Aff, I'd advise that you stay on the resolution and or the topic.
- Issue: A problem arises when debaters go off-topic, using unrelated strategies and tactics.
- Concerns: This hinders the educational value of debates, straying from the critical analysis of policy proposals within the resolution.

12. Non-Voting Issues Clarification:

- To provide clarity, my primary focus in evaluating the debate is on the affirmative plan's capacity to effectively address the specific problem outlined in the resolution, rather than on the persuasive aspects of a speech. Therefore, arguments centered on topics such as "the blacks" "white supremacy," "whiteness", "anti-blackness," "anti-women," "anti-white," "anti-religion," "bias arguments," "oppressed communities," "marginalized communities," claims that "America is racist," or assertions that "everything is racist," including the use of racial slurs within a round, are not voting issues to me, essentially, they do not constitute decisive factors in my decision-making process. Racial slurs use din a round will result in a round being ended and a vote against the team that used it.

- For example, when examining the Fracking resolution for the 2022-2023 season, it was common, and understandable for debaters to discuss the impact of fracking on marginalized communities. While the affirmative plan may directly address the issue of fracking, it does not automatically prove how the plan will directly alleviate the marginalization of these communities. Essentially, fracking is banned, yet the marginalized community remained marginalized, and that is a great opportunity to show how the plan could improve the marginalized communities mentioned in the round. Otherwise, such arguments do not significantly influence my judgment in the debate.

It's essential to note that my perspective is not rooted in censorship yet know that what I listed are not voting issues. I vote on what's and desire to maintain relevance to the resolution's specific context. Behind the numbers are real people, treat them as such, not a prop used to win a round. If you require further clarification on this matter, please feel free to ask me before the round.

I don't like theory arguments as it's a theory, not a fact, and facts are what I vote on, not theory.

Essentially, it comes down to which solves the problem that the resolution addresses; the Aff Plan or the Status Quo.

13. Perm Do Both: "Perm Do Both" must be supported by a clear, persuasive explanation of how the affirmative plan and negative counterplan can work together effectively to solve the issue without conflicts. Mere mention of "Perm do both" without a well-reasoned narrative won't be enough. It should demonstrate how these actions complement each other and why this integrated approach is the best way to address the problem in the debate, presenting a compelling case for choosing both proposals over separate considerations.

14. Evidence and Warrants: In debate, assessing an author's credibility extends beyond qualifications. It's about ensuring their expertise aligns with the specific argument being made, as even experts can make unsupported claims. Debaters must evaluate qualifications, relevance, and argument consistency to ensure evidence is credible and directly supports the warrant. Showing how the author supports your teams position increases your chances of winning a round.

15. Falsifying information: Request: Debaters should refrain from fabricating information during a round, particularly when it involves inventing financial figures, historical facts, law, or other details. I'll know it.

16. Prep Time: I don't allow prep time for cross-X. If an tournament has stated to judges that there is an allotment of time for tech issues, that will be kept to the second.

17. Selling Your Position: Persuasion is key. Convince me; speed isn't everything.

18. Speakers' Points: I base these on coherent arguments, strong rebuttals, good clash, and respectful conduct.

20. A Respectful Environment: I maintain a respectful environment and expect respect from all participants. No profanity, ad hominem attacks, or disrespect is tolerated. I'll give one warning, if it continues, it's an automatic disqualification, and I'll convey the reason in my RFD, and with the disqualified team's coach.

21. No Direct Messaging During Rounds: If I suspect messaging, I'll ask to see your computer screen. Messaging during rounds is grounds for an immediate disqualification.

22. No Bias: I judge impartially.

23. Reason for Decision (RFD): I provide constructive feedback to help debaters improve. I’ll share what debaters did well, and what each debater should work on to improve as debaters. I've seen instances where my feedback was applied in subsequent rounds. Remember, I'm available for questions and discussions during the tournament, and it's a good idea to take notes during feedback sessions to make the most of them.

Thank you for the privilege of judging your round. I want to remind you that as debaters, you are an integral part of a truly exceptional and dedicated community. As we embark on this tournament together, let's keep in mind the essence of our shared purpose: to engage in meaningful and thought-provoking debates. So, let's make this tournament memorable and engaging for all involved because, at the end of the day, we are here to debate and celebrate the art of discourse. And best of luck to you in the future on your journey in speech and debate.

Thank you very kindly,

Mr. Dibinga - Chota

put me on the chain: sofia_funk@brown.edu

if you're a novice don't stress

generally tech > truth, but the more outlandish your claim, the less work needs to be done on the flow by your opponent to win it

i don't care what you argue if you explain it clearly and aren't discriminatory

debate should be accessible

spreading is ok as long as you are clear and share your doc but not preferred (spreading =/= speaking quickly which is always fine)

ask me any specific questions before the round

policy: don't send me a disorganized doc

I am a former high school and collegiate debater (policy and parliamentary).

I can handle speed, but value clarity of speaking, as well some sort of signposting or narrative pauses soallyourargumentsandanalysisdontruntogetheronmyflow. I don't mind critiques/kritiks, performative debate, stock issues debate, or debate theory -- I do look for you to be convincing in your advocacy for any of these positions, and expect you to demonstrate that you understand the philosophy behind the arguments you're running, not just chasing taglines or casual "it's a voting issue" assertions.

I am happy to roll with whatever arguments you make in-round, but at the end of the round you must TELL ME WHERE AND WHY TO VOTE. What am I voting on, why is your argument/case/neg strategy better than your opponent's? Do the work for me so it's easy for me to sign the ballot in your favor (instead of having to look at my flow, examine the arguments that ended up in the final rebuttals, and decide where I want to vote because no one told me where/why to vote!).

I love a "big picture" story in final rebuttals - tell me the big picture of the round, of the world you're advocating for as aff or neg, of the world that the aff or neg wants us to live in, of debate (probably pick one, not all tho?) - tied in with your voting issues and arguments that remain in the final speeches, making it really easy for me to vote for you.

Also, be kind to each other - your debate partner and your opponents. We're all in this together.

Thank you!

Teams can always drop me an email post-round if you'd like any additional feedback / explanation of my decision - my email is my name at gmail.com

I am a parent judge. I've judged mainly lay Policy for the last 3 1/2 years. I prefer usage of stock issues. Please do not spread or read Ks with me.

I am okay with judging anything in round. I firmly believe that debates should be left up to the debaters and what they want to run. If you want to read policy or a new kritik; I am good with anything y'all as debaters want to run. Do not read anything that is homophobic, racist, ableist, or sexiest in round. Debate should be a safe place for everyone. A little bit about me I was a 1A/2N my senior year. I recently graduated from Sac State with a major in Communications and Women's Studies. I am currently applying to Law school and will be attending a law school in fall of 2024. I am currently a policy coach for the Sacramento Urban Debate League, coaching at CKM and West Campus.

Kritikal Affs: I love identity politics affirmatives. They are one of my favorite things to judge and hear at tournaments. I ran an intersectional k aff my senior year. If you run an identity politics affirmative then I am a great judge for you. For high theory k affs I am willing to listen to them I am just not as well adapted in that literature as identity politics. But on the negative, I did run biopower.

Policy Affirmative: Well duh.... I am good at judging a hard-core policy round or a soft-left affirmative. Once again whatever the debaters want to do I am good with judging anything.

Framework: I feel like the question for framework that debaters are asking here is if I am more of a tech or truth kind of judge. I would say its important for debaters to give me judge instruction on how they want to me to judge the round. If you want me to prefer tech or truth you need to tell me that, and also tell me WHY I should prefer tech or truth. The rest of the debate SSD, TVAs etc need to be flushed out and not 100% blipy. But that's pretty much how I feel like with every argument on every flow.

CP/DA: If you want to read 9 off you can.

Theory: I will be honest; I am not the best at evaluating theory arguments. I know what they are, and you can run them in front of me. But if you go for them, judge instruction is a must, and explaining to me how voting for this theory shell works for the debate space etc.

I like being told what to vote for and why. I am lazy to my core. If I have to look at a speech doc at the end of the round I will default to what happened in the round, not on the doc.

On a side note, go follow the Sacramento Urban Debate League on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. Also, I want to be in the email chain. My email is smsj8756@gmail.com thanks!

I had no experience competing, coaching, or judging speech and debate prior to becoming a teacher coach for Yerba Buena High School's speech and debate team in 2020. Since then, I have judged policy, public forum, world schools, original oratory, and impromptu.

I enjoy listening to all types of arguments, but please treat me as a layman judge and thoroughly explain your arguments, especially if uncommon debate jargon/terms are involved. As an English teacher, I expect every argument brought into a round to be followed with strong evidence and warrants. I tend to favor a well-supported argument over several weak arguments (quality > quantity). I prefer that debaters do not spread because this often leads to my missing important points/arguments; as a non-debater, I cannot follow arguments in the same way that debaters do. Whether or not you spread, providing a roadmap before your speech and signposting during your speech will make it easier for me to follow your argument.

For email chains: lae@esuhsd.org

I am a parent judge. Speak up clearly and avoid using technical jargon.

I am parent judge, who has been a lawyer for 30 years. I have no competition experience, and this is the second tournament I am judging. I will judge you with a view to how I expect lawyers to debate:

* Speak slowly--don't make me or your opponents struggle to understand your arguments.

* Avoid jargon. Talk in plain English.

* Winning in oral advocacy is not about making every point, but selecting the most important points to illustrate the logic of your position, and anticipating and fairly responding to counterarguments. It is quality, not quantity.

* Acknowledging points you cannot win builds credibility; it's best to find a way to explain why those points are not dispositive.

* Use logic and reason, not emotion.

* Don't engage in hyperbole.

* Do not use pejorative, and always be polite and respectful to the opposing team. If I don't trust you to debate with dignity, I will tend to distrust your arguments.

* Arguments grounded in fairness and justice tend to prevail.

* Have fun!

Unlike many judges, I participated in mock trial for 4 years and coached it for 2. But I have been judging debate (mostly policy) more recently LD for a year. TLDR do not spread. I will not necessarily take away points but I highly prefer having one single well-developed argument than 100 ones you spit out as fast as possible. If I can't understand you, your speaking points will suffer. If I'm not making constant eye contact it's because I'm processing on paper/flowing -- I am paying attention to you. That also means I tend to vote on the flow and want you to tell me how to evaluate the round. I am more of a flow and classical judge.

I'd be careful with progressive debate -- if you have a K, T, DA, PIC etc please, please, please tie it back to the main argument/question -- EVEN if you're using it to dismiss the main argument I need to hear that so I know you understand what you're doing and are not just regurgitating some technique a friend or coach told you about. Progressive debate techniques have potential but I really dislike when they are used as a reason not to even address the topic at all -- just be clear about why you've chosen your direction.

I can't emphasize enough my preference for a rich, in-depth, well-developed, argument. I prefer that over "gotcha" statements against your opponent. If you do pull a "gotcha" don't just leave it hanging (that's why I don't like them to begin with), explain why your opponent's oversight reinforces why you're right beyond just saying "and that's why we're right" -- ie "my opponent has clearly failed to consider issue x, allowing it to be dropped" or "my opponent's willingness to conflate these two issues in their framework is why our framework does the question justice." If you're "got" by your opponent please do explain why it wasn't actually a "gotcha" moment if possible -- it's totally possible to flip it on them and I do appreciate that.

I strongly prefer concrete examples over abstract theory. If you use theory, I prefer some use of historical or contemporary real world examples to show how your ideas would be implemented.

Explicit examples go a long way!

email - mloupeda@stanford.edu

I am a parent judge who has had experience for the past 3 years. Please don't spread.

Policy:

I would prefer it if you debate using stock issues (harms, solvency, DA, etc). Please make substantive arguments that can win you the debate.

LD: 

I am looking for clarity of thought, structured and substantive arguments (where you keep track of and rebut your opponent's argument), and effective cross-examination.  

Please explain why the reasons you have won at the end of the debate. 

Good luck to all competitors.

I have judged a total of 7 policy debates. The first debates I have judged were in October of 2020. I was able to judge two rounds, round 2 and round 3. I was then able to judge again for a weekend tournament from Nov. 20-22, 2020. For this tournament, I judged three rounds the 1st, 5th, 6th, Quarters, and Finals.

I find that being able to judge is both rewarding and encouraging to be able to see some of the young people develop their speaking and debate skills.

I am fairly new judge. I pay attention to what each team is saying, slowing down will help me.

Points for you:

- point for you if you have good arguments, of course

- if your opponent does not have good rebuttal for your argument

- if you can summarize coherently at the end what your opponent missed to rebut

Who is this judge?

I am an Economics and Government Classroom Teacher. I have also taught World History and United States History. My background is in Anthropology. I have co-coached debate for three years and predominately judged Policy Debate. I go by he/him pronouns.

What does this judge care about?

The debate for me is about civil discourse and should be honored in that respect. I emphasize equity of voice and time management. Debaters should not seek to dominate the air time, but find balance in the discussion. Debaters should track their own time carefully as well as that of their opponents. Before starting speeches or taking preparation time you should check with judge and opposition in order to ensure and equal and fair competition as possible. Debaters should ensure that judge, opposition and partner are ready before launching into their arguments/rebuttals.

How does he award Speaker Points?

Purely based on who the best speaker is, which is a totally subjective system. If you can speak clearly yet quickly, maintain eye contact when appropriate and keep filler words to a minimum you'll get higher speaking points. If you can find a way to speak to me instead of at me, you'll get higher speaker points. Don't feel like you need to do anything special.

How fast can I go?

As fast as you want while remaining clear. Do not spread, speak quickly. If you must spread, make sure the tag and author/date are very clear. If I can make out the individual words you're using, I can keep up. I'm not going to tell you if I can't keep up, you should be able to tell if I can keep up by watching me. I am usually much more in favor of a smaller amount of well supported and reasoned arguments though. Technical skill alone will not win a round judged by me.

2022 update

Prob not an ideal judge for you if you will go for

a. high theory

b. theory debates

Background:

Currently a graduate student at USC

I will be able to adjudicate any type of round, as I've run all from an Ocean Energy aff/politics to a Lacan aff/anti-blackness; I know you've done the work to refine whatever argument you want to read, so I will respect that - just tell me what to do with my pen. Admittedly, I’m no longer debating. I’m still confident in my ability to make a coherent decision, but probably won’t know the topic literature. Ask me anything here before the round or if I can do anything to make the round/tournament better for you :) christopherp1322@gmail.com.

TLDR: Debate whatever arg you want, don't be mean, put me on the email chain

LD Update: Everything below applies - a few comments specific to the format

1. Do I vote for RVIS? Yes and no? Yes, as in I'm open to voting for any argument. No, as in I've never voted for the argument because

a. teams don't give me reasons why I should vote for it.

b. The only justification is that "they dropped it!"; just because they don't specifically answer the RVI doesn't mean that the rest of the speech is probably a response already

c. given the nature of the argument, its probably difficult to win. Though I'd be conducive to hear a "drop the debater because they're ableist; here's why" - though that's probably theory

d. (UPDATE) Voted a team down because the other team clearly pointed out ways the other team made fun of black female scholarship and told me why that mattered.

2. Since AC's are short in time teams often have terrible internal link chains. Negs should point this out

3. I don't think I'll vote on a completely new AR argument (unless maybe hinted before or actually super abusive?).

General comments about me:

• Put me on the email chain
• I often close my eyes, put my head down, etc. Many people think that this is because I'm sleeping; nah, that's just my preference to avoid having my facial expressions influence the round. If that's something you're not comfortable with, just let me know
• I dislike the phrase "is anyone not ready". In the wise words of Richie Garner, "it is a linguistic abomination (see: bit.ly/yea-nay)."
• Please don’t read at a million wpm at the top of your rebuttals/theory args - its not very fun to flow in this situation.
• I guess I like the K? But please - read whatever argument you want to. I do my best to not let my biases affect my decision in relation to being more or less receptive to certain arguments. Rather, the only extent to which I let my kritikal background affect my process of adjudication is that I can provide more comments/feedback post-decision with kritikal arguments because of my background, rather than with arguments involving specific legal/political intricacies. In summation, the burden is on you - k or policy - to lead me through the ballot, but I'm more productive in discussions of k's after the round. Trust me, I probably won't be able to answer your super-specific resolutional question.
• I read mainly psycho, anti-blackness, Marx, and ableism in college debate.

Everything else is alphabetical:

CP: The following statement is probably my default lens for judging any argument: if the counterplan is your go-to I’m all for it. I expect the CP to solve the case or at least a portion of it, and is competitive to the plan. I’ve read a lot of abusive counterplans in the past like Consultation/Agent CP’s/PICs and don’t mind them. Obviously if the aff can effectively debate theories against these CP’s that’d be great.

DA: Contextualize the link. If the link’s warrants are in the context of the travel ban and the aff is entirely different and the aff points this out, I’ll probably err aff (unless the negative can effectively articulate that the aff is similar to what the link story says). I don’t find politics arguments too interesting, but if that’s your go-to let’s do it.

K-affs: I’ve run these affirmatives before. I’ll vote on your advocacy if you can explain to me why your model is valuable. I'll flow your performance or anything you do in your speech (make sure to extend them). Although I like critical arguments, be careful about tangential relationships to the topic because it makes me more sympathetic of TVA's, as I think that k-affs should still probably be topical. It doesn't need to include a hypothetical implementation of a policy, but you should still somehow reduce restrictions on immigration/affirm the resolution. Be creative with the definitions and explain why I should value your definition of immigration vs a legal one. Just criticizing and discussing the resolution will probably make you lose vs T a lot. If you don't affirm the resolution I'm still down for that, but be ready to impact turn everything and defend your model of debate.

- PS: If you know you’re hitting a school with historically less resources and you’re running some high theory Baudrillard aff, come on. Obviously I won’t vote you down based on your argument choice, but endorse an accessible reputation for debate. You can try to flash your blocks/analytics/full 1AC, don’t sidestep in CX, or maybe run a more intellectually accessible aff. If not, I can’t stop you but it’d be a really nice gesture - might help your speaks.

Kritiks: I’ve mainly been a kritik debater throughout my four years of debating. With that being said, don’t assume I’ll be hip with your postmodern theory and/or be more sympathetic of your psychoanalysis/antiblackness k. Just follow the same advice above and explain your k, tell me what to focus on, etc. Explain how the aff entrenches x and how that leads to a bad implication, how the link turns the aff or outweighs it, the productiveness of my ballot if I vote negative, how the alternative resolves something that outweighs the aff, and how the alt overcomes the UX of the link (although if worded correctly, I’ll vote for an alternative that is a leap of faith.) A good k debate to me will help your speaks! Also if there's a long OV or FW block let me know to put it on another flow.

T - USFG/FW: You shouldn't exclude their 1AC based on the premise that its "non-traditional"; you aren't reduced to just being able to say racism is good. Likewise, you shouldn’t read the same definition requiring the same USFG action. I say this not because I hate T (which is the contrary), but because your performance/substance probably won't be great with that strat. Be creative! My favorite FW debater is radical and explains why there is intrinsic value in having discussions rooted in the legal realm/reducing restrictions on immigration within the context of the aff’s impacts. If you can contextualize your education/fairness impacts against the 2AC and/or explain how you turn the aff, I’ll be loving your debate. I will be less sympathetic to generic FW blocks that just articulate fairness and education without reference to the aff.

Theory/Topicality: This is the area where I'm the least literate on, so please keep that in mind if your strategy involves a legitimate interest in theory. Just do meaningful comparison and tell me why I should be erring towards your model of debate over theirs. Obviously if theory is dropped by the opponents and that becomes what you go for, I’ll (probably?) vote for it. However, if the theory is otherwise read for just time skew and the other team sufficiently answers the argument I’ll generally disregard it. If you can articulate a substantive impact then it probably has a purpose and I’ll be more sympathetic – I’ll be less sympathetic to 20 second blippy blocks meant to outspread the 2AC. To be transparent, I haven’t judged many non-T theory debates. I’d be extremely interested if you can perform a well-articulated theory debate.

Otherwise, please have fun! This round is for you.

Don't whine. Ensure you have citations for your references. Speak slow enough that I can understand your arguments, else I'll ignore them.

(For email chain: michael.christler@gmail.com)

Background: I did college LD and Parli for two years but I'd like to stress I'm still developing as a judge. I'm familiar with a fair amount of debate concepts but I'm not an expert. Just putting that out there.

I'm a flow judge. You tell me to extend, I'll extend. Tell me to cross-apply, I'll cross-apply.

Overview: I prefer the debate to be about the resolution. I think no matter what kind of argument you want to run, it's a way for all of us to at least be on the same page.

Spreading/Presentation: For LD/policy, I'm fine with y'all spreading evidence so long as I have cards to look at (prefer speechdrop but can do email chain if it's necessary) and I can follow along. Parli, not so much. Would definitely prefer you not spread for either when it comes to analytics. I won't dock speaker points for this but please keep it in mind.

What I probably will give higher speaker points for (for those who care) is good presentation: pacing, voice inflection, staging/use of the room's space, etc.

Impacts: The debate for me comes down to impact calc. Telling a powerful story with your speeches is really important to me. I.e., what does your world look like at the end of the day and why should I care about it.

T's: I'm very much a topicality guy. Not strong on other theory/procedural arguments but you can bet I'll vote on a convincing T. As an English major, I love semantics debates and reasons to prefer one definition/interpretation over another. In the debate space, you can argue whatever you please so long as you tell me why it matters.

K's: I'm fine with Kritiks but please make them understandable and accessible to everyone in the room. If I look confused, it's because I'm not following your K. Make it organized, structured, and easy to follow. Go for the Alt and Impacts, compare to the Aff. Alt solvency and strong links are really important to me. For the ROB, explain clearly why my vote has an impact within and outside the round.

(Note: I'm not a fan of Critical Affs)

Signpost well and please make the flow organized as much as you can.

A final note: Please be courteous and respectful to your opponents in round. In my year of debating I met people I was happy to debate with and people who made the activity worse for me. Please do not be like the latter.

If you have any questions, let me know before the round starts. I'm happy to answer any to the best of my ability.

Good luck.

If you keep up with news you will probably receive a winning ballot from me. Please don’t run a case without knowing the most current info on your topic.

Hi! I'm Jen (she/her)

Kamiak '21

UW '25

Please add me to the email chain: jenniferx2021[at]gmail[dot]com

tldr - tech over truth, clarity first, best for policy rounds, err on overexplaining, cx is binding, my prefs can always be persuaded otherwise, write my ballot for me in the last speeches, be nice & have fun!

ask me if you need clarification on my paradigm!

top level:

an arg has a claim, warrant & impact - all three parts need to be present in order for me to vote on it. I won't cross apply args or do work for you and I try not to read evidence post-round because of judge intervention. I'm pretty flexible with 2ar extrapolations BUT should be able to draw a line between the 1ar and 2ar despite the 2ar pivot. theory args are usually more of a reason to reject the arg than the team and I don't like voting on it, but am willing to if need be. case debates are often under utilized and I wish more neg teams would spend time on the case flow to contest the i/l and solvency of the aff. I'm very flow oriented so if you're reading off a bunch of k tricks at 100 miles an hour, likelihood is I'll miss a couple but slow down a bit and I'll be fine. if an arg or comment made by a team is violent and / or offensive (ie psychologically violent, racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, or similarly violent and / or offensive in nature) the round will be stopped, the team will be dropped and tab and their coach will be contacted

online debating:

fine with speed but start at 50% speed then work your way up to 85% max speed. SLOW DOWN ON ANALYTICS or send them in the doc - you're only spreading as fast as I can flow. sending docs isn't prep until it becomes an issue and if my cam is off, I am not there / ready for the speech

cp:

neg needs to win cp + net benefit and should have a solvency advocate but not a deal breaker unless persuaded otherwise. won't judge kick unless explicitly asked & given a justification. not sure yet how I feel about cheat-y cps; sometimes I find them fun, sometimes I don't - but debate it well and I'll vote for it either way. aff perms need to be explained especially if this is what you're counting on in the 2ar

da:

tell a clear story with impact weighing, turns analysis & evidence comparison. I'm a big fan of das that are specific & contextualized to the aff and will reward good research through speaks. will vote on solid aff defense but have a high threshold - 0% risk is very unlikely BUT 1% risk doesn't necessarily mean I auto vote neg. love love love a good da+cp or da+case debate :)

t:

a full shell has an interp, violation & standards - I need all three in order to vote on t. I default competing interps and am unlikely to vote on reasonability unless it's mishandled or I'm provided a standard on how to determine reasonability. if you're going to go for t, please please please spend a good chunk of time in the neg block developing all your args ie the entire 1nr or at the very least, 3-4 minutes. explain what your model of debate looks like and why it's better - I find myself more persuaded by limits than ground args but debate well and I will pull the trigger on either.

ks on neg:

even if I know the k you're running, assume I'm unfamiliar with the lit and clearly explain the k so both teams can better engage in the debate. if it's a new k I've never seen and I don't understand it by the 2nr, I'm unlikely to vote for it unless massively mishandled by the aff. for both teams: try not to be generic & vague ie k links should be specific to the aff and aff answers should be contextualized to the round. a lot of times, framework ends up being a wash - that said, I'll probably end up weighing the aff in some way. similarly, framing also ends up very messy in most rounds but it doesn't really matter through turns case args. I'm not a big fan of long k overviews and would rather you spend that time on line-by-line. the neg needs to win alt solvency and aff perms need to be explained instead of just remaining as three word phrases like "perm do both".

ks on aff:

same thing as ks on neg - I won't vote for it if I don't get it & assume I'm unfamiliar with the lit. I'm not the best judge for rounds with k affs, but be ready to justify your model of debate and answer impact turns and framework args. I think the aff should still have some tie to the topic but can be convinced otherwise. I find tvas persuasive but the aff should already have a built in reason for why tvas don't resolve their impacts.

misc:

speaks (are weird and arbitrary lol) start at 28.6 for me, then I go up or down from there. tag-team cx is fine, but the person who is supposed to be cx-ed or cx-ing should still be part of the convo. I'm ok with flex prep but encourage you to use all the cx time to ask questions and set up the debate. try not to talk over each other during cx, it gets really messy and no one wins. please don't steal prep, it's really obvious and your ethos & speaks will take a hit.