I am a parent judge and you will need to persuade me with your arguments. I don’t do a detailed flow so please feel free to repeat. Speaking clearly will definitely help me understand your stand better. Value and value criterion are very important to me and my decision will be based on the values used to debate your case. Speak at a medium speed (3) so I can understand. Foul language and use of jargons is unacceptable.

Dulles '23
WashU '27

I debated for Dulles High School and broke at the TOC my senior year.

Speech docs are good for numerous reasons, especially evidence ethics so send them.

Email: nathaniel.nj12@gmail.com

If you have any questions about my paradigm please feel free to email or messenger me.

Shortcut

Policy: 1-2

T/Theory: 1

Generic Phil: 1-2

Generic Ks: 1-3 (check kritik section)

Niche Phil: 2-3 (depends on explanation)

Niche Ks: 4

Trad: 2

General Things
1) Truth over tech is WACK - A complete argument (claim, warrant, impact) if dropped is automatically true. However, the strength of that argument is still proportional to its warranting therefore 2 dropped arguments do not have the same strength.

2)I will vote on anything, and I will try my best to not let my bias towards arguments influence how I evaluate them. That being said, I will be open about my biases within this paradigm.

3) I'm not the best flower since I type very slow and have been out of debate for a while. It would be in your best interest to go 80% of your normal speed if you know you are much faster than the average circuit LD debater, especially for analytics not sent out. Of course sending analytics is your choice, but recognize that if I miss an argument because you're too fast, I can't vote on it.

4) No new 2AR or 2NR arguments unless previously justified. If the argument's warrant is only heard in the 2AR or 2NR, it is new. The 2AR is usually too late to do new layering (unless the debate is irresolvable without it).

5) Please weigh, but I will default to strength of link. I also default to giving credence to weighing arguments made earlier in the debate.

6) Lying in cross or flex prep can never be justified. I will reject arguments that contradict cross-x.

7)I will not vote on the "give both sides 30 speaks" spike

My judging philosophy is heavily influenced by Brett Cryan, Jarvis Xie, and Samantha Mcloughlin

Traditional: I did lay debate in the beginning of my freshman year and more than happy to evaluate a non-spreading debate about the pros and cons of the topic. In front of me, I recommend that traditional debaters skip the value debate (there is hardly any difference between morality and justice), and focus on debating and weighing the contentions. Its a lot better to argue why this specific instance of structural violence in the debate matters more than your opponents impact than to have a convoluted philosophical debate about structural violence versus util in general.

Policy:I'm familiar with all fundamental policy arguments however I likely won't be researching the topic too in depth. Zero risk is a thing but hard to win. Underdeveloping off in the 1nc = they get less weight in the 2nr. Rebuttal ev explanation/spin > initial ev quality, but if your opponent's ev sucks and you point that out, that falls under the first category. You only get credit for the parts of the evidence you do read but I will read cards to understand context. Instruct me on how to read evidence (i.e. check if it's reverse casual, check for intent to exclude, ect.) if you want me to read evidence.

T/Theory: Read this frequently and I will vote on any shell even bad ones. I default text over spirit, norm setting>ira, no rvis, and competing interps. A shell that lacks a warrant for DTA or DTD has no implication. I feel reasonability and DTA are very compelling on majority of shells however debaters often don't do enough warranting these paradigm issues. Theory before other layers should be ideally be done in the 1AR. RVI's are a hard sell but will vote on if won.

Generic Phil:I'm relatively well versed in most LD phil. Good for many types of phil debates (naturalism vs non-naturalism, internalism vs externalism, ect) Phil debate shouldn't be immune to standard vs. standard interaction and offense weighing. Hijacks are also great. If you want to avoid this debate- simply read TJFs

Generic Ks: I primarily read the cap K, but also occasionally read setcol and mollow. I'm good for the cap K and have researched it a bit. I'm okay for security Ks as long as you can win framework. I'm terrible for IR Ks, these arguments are interesting, but I have never researched it nor do I have any understanding of them. I'm good for evaluating identity based pessimism Ks and psychoanalysis, but i have a much higher bar for warranting than most judges. I also believe psychological theories that have been rejected by 99% of psychologists and readings of history that have been rejected by 99% of historians are probably silly – there’s a reason they exist in debate, English departments, and nowhere else. However, if you feel confident in your ability to out tech your opponent despite reading these arguments, feel free to read them, I will still be tab.

Tricks: Good if they do have warrants, because I understand most logical tricks and am open to evaluating any spikes you read (if I find one creative or very strategic, i may bump your speaks), but bad if you all you do is extend conceded claims or don't explain the warrants well because then I will disregard them and lower your speaks. I'm also not evaluating any part of the debate early, so no eval theory after 1ar or eval after 1nc.

K affs: I really like K affs with a relation to the topic and can be compelled that the value they provide may outweigh marginal skews in fairness.

Prep: 1. I prefer that you don't use cx as prep time. 2. It is ok to ask questions during prep. 3. Compiling a document counts as prep time. 4. Please write down how much time you have left.

Against novices/trad debaters: I will still be tab in making my decision, but if you (as a circuit debater) want good speaks I expect you to be accessible. To get higher than 29 speaks, you shouldn't spread if they don't spread (unless they let you), and stay away from reading Ks and highly complicated frameworks (these tend to be the most confusing arguments). Almost any policy argument(DA, CP, Impact Turn), should be fine. For this, a novice is defined as someone in their first year of LD that only knows lay/trad debate.

Speaks:These are primarily based on strategy, but can increase if you are nice to novices/debaters much worse than you/traditional debaters, read funny arguments, make funny debate jokes, or give speeches with 0 prep.

Hi!! I'm Chloe. TLDR - my ideal debate round is one in which competitors are confident and articulate in their arguments. Just read what you want to, not what you think I want to hear.

About me

• Please add me to your email chain: crself10@gmail.com
• my pronouns are they/she; which means either she/her or they/them
• I competed in LD for 2 years at Dulles HS
• I currently study chemical engineering at Rice University
• I play guitar and love music :)
• I qualified to and competed at the TOC

Debate Preferences

I like everything! You can read whatever you want, and I will evaluate it as straightforwardly as I can. I don't really want you to base your strategy around me, so just focus on your opponent and read relevant, well-structured arguments.

Until an argument is made otherwise, presumption affirms and permissibility negates.

I'd prefer you err on the side of explaining debate jargon, since it's been a year away from the circuit. I don't remember exactly what a floating PIK is, but anything less complicated than that I probably understand.

I do not flow cx by default. If you're thinking about saying something that you think needs to be on my flow, please signpost that clearly to get my attention. Other than that I won't flow anything or take it too seriously, since I think it should be a time for you to talk to each other instead of to me.

What to do

The way I see it, the most straightforward way to win a ballot in the 2NR/2AR is to

1. Start with a short overview that explains the key arguments in the round, and the very short version of whatever argument you're going to expand on in the rest of the speech. For example, if going for theory, I think it would be wise to first explain the interp and violation, then briefly signpost your voting issues at the start of the speech so it's clear what you're going for.
2. Do a ton of weighing and crystallization. I don't want to do any work for you, so please weigh your arguments clearly and explain specifically why you're winning those arguments and why they matter more than your opponent's. Crystallization (in my opinion) refers to the idea that the individual parts of your speech should all work together to make a ballot story that is especially coherent, compelling, and strong. Which I think is a good thing, so you should do that. Sometimes rebuttal speeches are just a flurry of arguments on the line by line without any big picture analysis, which obfuscates my understanding of why they should win for whatever arguments they read.
3. Identify voting issues clearly and explain why they win you the round.

What not to do

Here's what you should definitely not do in front of me, because I will probably not vote for you if you do (if you don't like it, don't pref me!)

• argue explicitly/intentionally for any kind of bigotry
• misgender someone
• use ad hominems or personal arguments
• read anything that could be potentially upsetting without warning the audience

Here are some things that I would prefer you not do, but I would only take off speaker points for

• Read something you are confident you will win with, not what you think I'd be pleased to hear!As a debater, I read mostly philosophy, tricks, and theory. That's what I'm most used to, but I don't want to put out the impression that I wouldn't like to hear something different. It gets boring hearing the same arguments round after round.
• Try to organize and delineate your docs, and send them as word docs if possible. I don't like google docs but if that's all you have then it's okay :p
• Theory violations that are vague, like: "you did" or "you didn't"
• Speaking faster than ~450 wpm will probably be lost on me, and I can't flow what I can't hear
• Being rude instead of assertive. As an example, I HATE when people ask questions in cx and then interrupt their opponent as soon as they start answering the question. Not only are you being rude, but it's just stupid!!! You didn't even hear the answer to the question, so why ask it to begin with? Debate is toxic enough, and if you're nicer to your opponent, I'll probably give you higher speaks regardless of the flow

Feel free to email me if you have any questions!

Dulles '21

Stanford '25

Email Chain: abhinav2002sinha@gmail.com

Hey, I’m Abhinav! I competed on the national circuit for three years, qualifying and clearing at TOC (2x)/TFA (3x), 10 bids senior yr, won some tournies (Bronx, Harvard RR, Grapevine, Strake, etc). I mostly read T/Theory, Phil, and policy style arguments.

I’ll try to be relatively tab – I will attempt to fully consider any argument that has a warrant as long as the argument doesn’t exclude debaters from the activity (No oppression good). However, I have debate preferences, though I will try not to let those preferences influence my decision-making. Although Tech>>over truth, I think a truer arg is easier to win

Quick Pref Sheet:

T/Theory- 1

Phil/Policy Args- 1/2

Trix- 2/3 (no blips please :(, cannot flow), also check trix section before reading

Ks- 3-5 (if you can explain it/be tech about it, I’m good)

Important Rules

- I'm bad at flowing soooo slow down for analytics like really slow down/OR JUST SEND (yes this is a rule like the be slow part)

- CX is binding – If you say something is Uncondo in CX and kick out of it in the 2NR, if the 2AR points it out, it’s an auto-loss with few exceptions.

- Evidence Ethics Claims (Clipping, Miscutting, etc.) stop the round and the challenging debater must agree to stake the round on it. Whoever loses the challenge gets an L-0.

- I have a higher threshold of warranting on independent voters. You can’t just say something is an “independent voter” for three seconds and collapse to it for 6 minutes in the 2NR. An independent voter needs clear warrants as well as clear reasons why it’s a reason to drop the debater. I am willing to not vote on a dropped independent voter if it had basically no warrant for why it’s a voter in the last speech.

- AD HOMS: I really really really don’t like ad hominem arguments that call out x debater for being a bad person out of round. If it’s won, I’ll grudgingly vote on it, but speaks WILL suffer, and I have a low threshold for responses.

- Be nice to novices and traditional debaters. I don’t like it when the debaters are just jerks to each other in CX. Prep can be CX not the other way.

- I don’t consider arguments about speaker points or double wins or going beyond the time given. Any argument past the timer is disregarded, and if you keep going, it’s an L-0.

-+.2 speaks per minute of speech not used

If you want to stop reading, you can stop here, everything below here is just argumentative preferences, but I thought it was useful to read what a judge thinks about various positions before preffing them, so read if you want.

More Info

Argument Defaults

- I default whats assumed in the round but if someone says x argument wasn’t made (i.e 2nr says no one said fairness is a voter, I will no longer default fairness as a voter)

- DTD, no RVI, CI, epistemic confidence, policy presumption cuz less arbitrary, theory>t>everything else, f+e voters, comparative worlds

Theory/T

- I love theory debate! A good theory debate is fun to judge and probably something I’m qualified to judge

-Flash interps/shells

-If paradigm issues arent contested I don't think you need to extend them.

-I got confused when judges would say I think x shell is “probably” true or not, I’ll vote on any shell thats won through the paradigm issues in the round. Bad shells obviously have true answers, so they are easier to beat back (font size theory, shoes theory, must label tournament name, etc.), but you still have to make the arguments to beat it.

-No new 2ar fairness/edu weighing

-Reasonability needs either a substance education bright line or something else-it’s probs true vs more friv shells, but again make the argument

Larp

- Did only policy debate my freshmen/sophomore yr and did quite a bit my senior year

- Spin>>evidence quality but good/bad evidence should be pointed out

-Smart analytics vs Pics/das/cps are all really important and can be collapsed to

-I probably wont read ev unless you tell me too, but you still have to do ev comparison

-Judge kick has to be justified

-I really like creative/well researched CP/DAs vs small affs

-PTX is fun, but have good cards or else you’re gonna lose to analytics

-Zero risk could be a thing

Phil

- Did lots of Phil debate, so I appreciate good ones

-Must weigh framework justifications in 1ar/2nr/2ar

-Familiar with most Phil lit, so read what you want but explain it.

-2nrs/2ars need to collapse

-NOTE TO UTIL VS PHIL DEBATES, to win extinction first you MUST win consequences matter or else I will be VERY hesitant to vote on it and phil debates must point out why consequences don’t matter. Ext o/w is a fine argument just win consequences matter and Phil debaters must beat consequences matter. Excluding consequences through syllogism>>calc indict

Ks

-I read/went for a couple of Ks my senior year, but please explain your K. Don’t try to win a round just because you don’t explain your position to your opponent

- LBL >>>>>> Long overviews

-Winning a theory of power or how the world works is important but you must explain how that applies to other flows.

-2nr NEED to explain links whether to plan (yay!) or not (boo!)

- I don't like doing work from overview to specific arguments, so do that work for me

-Aff/neg framework is usually hella important so both debaters need explain why winning their interp means they win/or why losing it doesn’t matter.

-T framework vs K affs: I think fairness 2nrs are great but skills 2nrs are also good, if you need to win a tva explain it, if not dont. As a non-t aff debaters I prefer creative answers and just pure impact turns(and flash analytics here cuz most people go way to fast for me to understand)

Tricks

- MUST EXTEND warrants for conceded arguments like for anything besides paradigm issues 1ars/2nrs/2ars need to extend warrants

- Do not like long underviews, plz don’t read super tricky affs, plz lol

- I like cool and innovative trix> recycled trix

- P/p is p important so explain it/how it functions in these rounds

- SLOWWW DOWN I CAN'T FLOW AGAIN(lol)

- I like cool logical trix >1 liner “no neg analytics”

- Don't be sketch in CX(like tell people apriori/implications)

Other Notes

- Yell clear twice before stopping to flow

- Feel free to ask me any questions before round!

-be funny and you’ll get higher speaks

Speak scale- based on in-round performance.

29.5+: expect you to win the tournament/really good speech

29-29.5: expect you to get to late outrounds

28.5-28.9: bubble/expect you to break/early elims

28-28.5: don't expect you to break

27.5-28: really don't expect you to break

Parent judge:

Hello all, I am a parent judge and I have been judging LD, PF, and other individual events for the last 6 years.

My email is chetana.nataraj@gmail.com please use it for pre-round questions and for the email chain. Sending me your cases will help me flow and adjudicate your round better.

FLOWING: I will flow a line-by-line analysis. Please start out with specific arguments and then summarize at the end. I am tolerant of going slightly over time limits. I am fine with moderate spreading and persuasive speeds. in the case of persuasive debate, I will weigh the argumentation, and will consider intonation, inflection, diction, clarity, and truth of the arguments in question.

DECISION: I evaluate framework, arguments, reasoning and evidence. Please have a clear framework that's well explained, I default to Util but explain how your impacts function under that FW.

OTHER PREFERENCES: For speaking, please speak clearly and speak to the point. In terms of speed, please do NOT SPREAD. Speaking marginally fast is okay as long as you slow down at the impactful parts, tags, numbers you want me to flow, etc. Do NOT RUN THEORY . If I do flow part of your theory argument , it will not be a major evaluation in the debate. Please don't read Kritiks or dense philosophical fws. Counter-plans are fine if you explain them well and show why they are preferable to the aff.