I am a parent judge and judged mostly PF since 2020 including some TOC bid tournaments this year. But please strike me if you don’t want deal with lay judge

1) I am OK with above average speed but please don’t speak too fast

2) Key points clear and well supported

3) Make good and logical arguments

4) Be respectful to your opponents and try to not interrupt too much during crossfire.

Have fun and good luck!

I haven't judged much LD and I cannot judge spreading. I need to understand the argument to vote on it, and I want to clearly see your defense. Also, I do not like theory - at all.

I am an experienced English teacher. I focus on rhetoric and overall persuasive appeal. I do not think spreading is the best plan of attack. I appreciate when debaters adapt to their competitor and the judge with focus on pace, information, and explanation.

I need to feel passion in your argument. Prioritize defense.

Truth over tech.

CX is binding.

PF is about public appeal; present yourself accordingly.

Hello, my name is Ray Chacko.

I believe how we say is as important as to what we say. Teams, during debates, ignore the fact that their facial expression, tone and respect for the rules are delivering a subtle message about the team. They may have empirical arguments with supporting evidence but I believe in order to create a solid impression on the judge, each team member needs to adhere to the ground rules of respect, display a pleasant demeanor and be willing to express their opinion without argument or insults. I believe they also should take criticism of the opponents creatively and be willing to adjust the tone/message accordingly.

Updated - 11/18/2023

Email: njenningsuh@gmail.com,

Experience:

Coached debate at HAIS (1), Crosby (3.5), Dulles (3.5), and Niles West (2.)

Debated policy for 4 years at Crosby (2004-2008), In College at UMKC (Fall 2009), and Houston (Spring 2009, 2012-2015)

Non-negotiables

• If you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me.
• If you think the appropriate response to other people explaining how they need to be included in debate is to say "West is best" or "Violence towards people like you is good" please strike me.
• Purposeful or dismissive acts of misgendering will result in a full speaker point loss and if the other team makes it an argument the possible loss of a ballot.
• All permutations must have a text.

What is Debate?

I think that we need to understand we are a community of people responsible for the activity, We are responsible for teaching and guiding students to make decisions that are descriptive of the community they wish to compete within.

Framework

Framework is very normally in high school debate used as a way of excluding debaters. Framework doesn't have to be this but unfortunately in the vast majority of HS debates it is used this way. The framing is an exclusionary one and doesn't have the nuance to get out of most of the aff offense.

If you read framework this way then I'm not the judge for you, not because I would be upset with you but rather because I will likely be very sympathetic to aff arguments about exclusion. If you think your TVA is a silver bullet it's not, and your SSD arguments a lot of time are overhyped. I think I agree fundamentally that most of these debates devolve into meaningless hyperbole on both sides. The aff is always debatable and somewhat predictable the question is how does the expansion of predictable limits make it so that the debate is worse and how that change is bad. In this way limits are generally an internal link to clash or fairness and I really think that a clear weighing and impacting out of these is of the utmost importance. I am substantially more likely to vote for clash if it is used as an impact filter/impact than I am persuaded by fairness.

Framework is best when it's simply a disagreement about the meaning of the topic/roles and the negative impact and weighing is about the relative change in the way that debate functions. The expansion of limits and the recognition of the affs value is important. Questions about the roles of the sides and preparedness for those roles. About the ground that the negative has under each interp and why one interp is better than the other. To me, the most important question the negative can push forward is "why negate?" a lot of the affs answers to this question seem problematic. This is not a question of value in fact it seems to assume if the affirmative is right about their normative claims about the resolution why should anyone have to affirm it and if that's the case how do we determine what we are debating about? Why is the negation of negation good? This puts a higher burden, in my mind, for the affirmative to win the framework debate. Most affs have great reasons why they are good but they do not tend to have good reasons why they should be negated.

Critical Affirmatives

Critical affirmatives should have a solid defense of both their importance but also the importance of debating it. There should be a clear area of debate that the negative can and should engage in. That being said I really enjoy watching good Kritikal affirmatives deploy the various ways of relooking at debate structures and topics. I find affirmatives that are either very small but willing to engage with whatever strategy the negative chooses, or conversely, very large structural affirmatives that will engage on a theory level with everything to be the best. Be ready to answer the core questions negation should ask you. Why this aff? Why this round? Why negate this? Why this ballot? If you think you have good answers to those then I'm likely going to enjoy watching the debate.

The Kritik

Kritiks need to have a clear link-impact scenario with a way of resolving those claims. That could be the framework Interp, or the alternative in most debates.

Framework debates can be very important. I think interps that ask me to wish away the affirmative impacts are lackluster. I'm more interested in how we should be weighing things than an argument that says we should artificially bracket off the affirmatives 8 minute speech. You can definitely win we must prioritize ontology, epistemology, or Ethics, or we should bracket off certain types of considerations if they are bad, however, I'm not generally willing to bracket off the aff's ability to advocate for their should statement but rather if their impacts are important or not.

I am way more willing to vote for specific instances of link-impact scenarios than I am for an uncontextualized larger theory of power claim. Specificity will almost always be important to win my ballot. I am a bit pessimistic about what we can achieve in debate rounds but also believe the entrance of different scholarships into debate can and do have value. It however is up to the debaters to make those arguments in a compelling way.

Non-Kritikal Debates

Theory

Theoretical rejections of the team have an incredibly high burden in my mind. Theoretical rejections of the argument have a much lower burden. For me to vote for a team entirely on theory they must prove that the debate was borderline impossible. Contrarily to win reject them argument you only have to prove the debate would be better without the argument. To me using theory to force a condensing of the round is a sound strategy. Also, generally, if you're conceding that conditionality is good then you're highly unlikely to get me to vote down the team on another theory argument.

DA's

Disadvantages are the core of all aspects of debating. Make sure you extend all three components when going for a DA. This includes when going for Disadvantages from any perspective.

CP's

Calling into question the legitimacy of many different types of counter-plans should be a portion of your strategy. Too many affirmatives allow the negative to get away with a lot of abuse on the counter-plan that they shouldn't. CP must have a text, a clear solvency mechanism and a net benefit. Please make sure you extend each if you go for the argument.

1. Do not talk fast. If I do not follow your argument, I cannot give you points for it. I take notes but do not mistake that for flowing the round and thus start speeding up.

2. In general, I feel that the quality of contentions is more persuasive than quantity.

3. It helps to have Aff to my right and Neg to my left.

4. Please keep time yourselves.

5. I prefer not to give verbal feedback and instead will try to do so via the ballot comments.

*** I wish both teams happy debating - and always, may the best team win!!! ***

UT Austin 2025

Policy debater for 4 years at Dulles High School (class of 2021), TFA State for 3 years, NSDA Nationals for 2 years.

Please add me to the email chain at adrienne.li1034@gmail.com

CX Paradigm

I'm a tabula rasa judge; I flow all arguments and will only evaluate them as much as you ask me to (even if you tell me to drop the argument). Make sure you do impact weighing and write out the ballot for me; the less work I have to do in choosing which arguments to prioritize, the easier it is for you to win my ballot. I mainly default to tech over truth; I want to minimize judge intervention as much as possible. Every argument needs a claim, warrant, and impact.

In terms of speed, feel free to talk as fast as you are comfortable. I'm generally fine with speed, but it's been a while since I've debated and judged rounds, so I might be slower than before. Just make sure to slow down on the taglines and clearly emphasize the arguments you think are the most important.

Aff

I'm not super familiar with this year's resolution (2021-2022), so make sure you explain your solvency mechanism well. I believe the burden of the aff is to provide a plan that's better than the squo. As a 2A, I mainly read policy affs and occasionally read K affs, but feel free to read whatever it is you're most comfortable with. I will have to say that I'm not the most familiar with performance affs, but I definitely will still evaluate them. Make sure you prove to me why your specific performance of the aff can solve the impacts you outline (solvency mechanism).

Neg

As a 1N, I mainly took Topicality and Counterplans, so those are the off cases I debated the most. With that in mind, feel free to read whatever you're most comfortable with. I've read Ks, DAs, CPs, Topicality, Theory, and Framework, and I'll evaluate whichever combination you choose. In terms of Kritiks, I'm not the most familiar with some of them, so treat every K like something I've never read before. I'm definitely not the best judge for K tricks, so I probably won't evaluate them the way you want me to. Again, this year's topic is new to me, so fully explain your DAs and CPs.

All Other Events

For all other debate events, treat me as a flay judge. I've judged a few PF and LD rounds, but not enough for me to be super knowledgeable on the topic. As such, make sure you give me adequate voters and tell me what I should be evaluating in the round. Feel free to read whatever you're most comfortable with; I'll try to adapt to you.

For speech events, do whatever makes you comfortable. I've done impromptu and extemp, but other than that, I'm not the most familiar with certain speech events. I'll try to judge to the best of my capabilities.

---

Overall, read whatever you want and write out the ballot for me (overviews are also great). I try to adapt to the debaters, but regardless of any round, voters are crucial in the round (evidence comparison can be used to your benefit!). Feel free to ask me any questions about my paradigm before the round and remember to have fun!

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!

This is how I usually like debates to go.

I like them in order so no skipping Grand cross

Please state your contention before moving on

EX: Contention 2: Worldwide income

then you can continue with your speech

SPEAK SLOW ENOUGH FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND

This is probably going to be what decides the round because I don't have much experience

Also

State your impacts as clear and short as you can

Always weigh

claim-warrant-impact

The simpler your contentions are, the better.