C_boreczky75413@berkeley.edu

Brief update for Stanford LD competitors - I primarily judge circuit and CA-circuit policy debate, but much of the below should apply. I'm not primed for any category of LD arguments over another, and don't have an inherent preference for circuit arguments and styles, but I'm very open to them.

Four years of policy competition, at a solid mix of circuit and regional tournaments. I generally do enough judging these days to be pretty up-to-date on circuit args.

Generally comfortable with speed but I tend to have issues comprehending overly breathy spreading. And please, for everyone's sake, make sure your tags are clear and don't try to give theory analytics at full speed. You can do whatever feels right, of course, but I can only decide based on what I catch.

Broadly, I default to an offense-defense paradigm and a strict technical focus. It's not exactly hard to get me to depart from those defaults, however. I'll vote for anything, and it doesn't take any 'extra' work to get me to endorse performance advocacies, critical affirmative advocacies, etc - just win your offense, and framework if applicable.

I'd love to be a truth over tech judge, but I just don't believe that's an acceptable default orientation for my ballot. That said, engaging with that preference and doing it well is a pretty convincing approach with me. This most often comes across in impact calc.

Evidence quality is extremely important to me. I tend to grant much more weight to card texts and warrants than to tags, and I'm perfectly happy to drop ev that doesn't have warrants matching the tag, if you articulate why I should do so. That said, I don't discount evidence just because I perceive it to be low-quality, and if it gets conceded, well, it might as well be true.

My bar for framework and T/theory tends to depend on what you're asking me to do. Convincing me to drop a states CP on multiple actor fiat bad requires fairly little offense. Convincing me to drop a team on A-Spec is going to be an uphill battle, usually.

Novice judge

Not a fan of spreading. Clarity and congency of argument are more important to me.

About me: (she/her/hers/ella) Sonoma Academy'19 & Dickinson College '23

I debated all throughout high school on the local and national circuit level. I went to CNDI camp and was a 1A/2N. I did four years of policy and one year of parli. GGSA #1 will be the first tournament I judge this year and exposure to the topic (no camp experience) keep this in mind.

I want to be on the email chain: ibanezae@dickinson.edu

Please feel free to ask me questions before and after the round or just say hello and introduce yourself if you'd like. I want to do what I can to make you feel that the round is an assessable and comfortable space.

Zoom: This format of debate is new to us all that being said it's not an excuse to steal prep or contact others outside the round. Please adhere to the honor code of former debate rounds. Time yourselves please. I will be doing so as well so I will know if you're running over time intentionally for prep.

Speed/Speaks: I am fine with spreading but with the added variable of zoom please go 80% your normal speed. If I can't understand you I won't flow it. I won't interrupt you to say clear, if you see me staring at you or clearly not flowing, adapt. I flow the speech not the doc. Good way to get good speaks from me is to give me clear instructions in the beginning:order, placement, and extension of arguments throughout the speech not just titles and authors. Etiquette to all in the round will also reflect in your speaks. Debate is meant to be a fun and educational space not one to be ungraceful or rude.

Affirmative: You should know your aff like the back of your hand. 1AC I expect you to shine in the CX.

CX: One of my favorite parts of debate itself. I think it is sadly underutilized but it's a key place for speaks to me. I want to see you shine in CX. I'm impartial to tag team just get consent from the other team. Be respectful and try to not talk over one other (no one enjoys seeing a repeat of the 2020 Presidential debate) I believe CX is binding, so be specific and careful.

Case: Case debate is very important. I love seeing it well played out.

Kritiks: I am fine with Ks and K affs. In high school, I leaned towards policy debate. However, I've studied critical theory and am familiar with some lit but again not everything so be very clear. I believe in round solvency and that a key point in the round should be the roll of the ballot and the a well explained alt. I would rather have a mediocre policy round than a bad K debate. Please only read Ks that you are comfortable and knowledgeable in.

CP: I love effective and specific CP/DA combos. Please do an effective block split each should have one speaker dedicated to either or one speaker to both. The first thing I should hear about DAs in any speech is that they outweigh and turn the case. Generic CP/DA combos are fine but you need to really focus on the link to the aff.

LD:

I am a parent judge and not familiar with the particular topic or the speech times

I am usually pretty generous with speaker points, but my main focus will be Cross-x and argument quality.

Inside the debate space, I do look for competitiveness but not to the level where it becomes aggressive.

Share files with my email - vandana.kdr@gmail.com

Public Forum:

Teams should do a good job explaining the topic.

I have judged more policy debate than public forum, so as long as I have an idea of what the topic is I can follow the arguments.

Policy:

I am a parent judge, but pretty familiar with this year's topic and some affs

No spreading please

Aff: I have mainly judged the death penalty aff, if your aff is complicated, please spend a little extra time explaining it.

Neg: Da's and CP's are good No Ks or Theory

In the last aff and neg speech write my ballot for me, tell me what to vote on - be clear about impacts and what are the most important arguments in the round.

How I give speaker points

27-28.5: Below average

28.5-29: Average

29-29.5: Above average

29.5+: Exceptional

Congress:

Speak well, be convincing and make yourself stand out in the chamber. If I don't remember your speech you will most likely not get a 1 or a 2. Delivery is most important.

Please add me to the email chain: policyaf@gmail.com

I have debated policy for 4 years, primarily at lay tournaments but I have gone to a few circuit tournaments. I was the 1A/2N during high school and ran mainly policy arguments, never touched Ks until the last semester of my senior year. This is my first tournament for this topic so I don't really know what popular arguments or acronyms stand for. Please be respectful to each other!

If you have anything specific, feel free to ask me before round.

General:

Write the ballot for me, focus on outweighing your arguments against theirs and why that argument matters. I tend to look for impacted out arguments, so tell me how it affects the round and my decision. Don't just shadow extend, tell me why it should be extended and what it means for the round. Make sure to signpost, organization is very important during round. I'm fine with tag team CX and sending emails doesn't count of prep time. I haven't been on the circuit for a while, so please don't spread at your fastest. Slow down on the tags and important parts if you do. Tech>Truth

Case:

- please interact with each other's case argument, so specifically answer them

DA:

- please explain the links and the internals, I shouldn't have to assume how the DA works

- impact calc is very important, outline to me why your impact is more important and how

CP:

- make sure it has a net benefit

K:

- I'm not familiar with any high theory arguments, but I will vote for it if you are willing to explain it to me

- make sure to contextualize your links specifically to the aff

T:

- I do vote for topicality, but both sides have to clearly explain their standards and interpretations.

All in all, I really do think policy debate is amazing so please have fun!

I am the father of a debater in policy from Dougherty Valley High School. I judge in policy and LD with 2 tournaments of experience. I award speaker points based on how clear and understandable you speak, so please make sure I am able to understand what you are saying. I make my decision based on the reasoning of your arguments, and I also pay more attention to your rebuttal speeches, but this does not mean the constructive is disregarded. When I take notes on the debate, I write down the general argumentation, but not too much detail. For cross-examination, I pay more attention to how you speak than what questions are asked and answered, but this does not mean that you can say whatever you want.

This is just a basic overall paradigm, feel free to ask me more specific questions during a round.

I have experience competing in college for the last few years in Parli and LD and I.E's. I've judged for the last few years of high school policy, LD, PF, Congress, some I.E's, and Parli.

I'd like to consider myself a flow judge meaning that I will examine every argument and evaluate the debate based on what is on the flow.

That being said I usually follow the rules of each syle of events whenever I'm judging unless I'm told otherwise in the debate as for examples why rules are bad.

In terms of speed/spreading, I'm ok with it since I can keep up with it. That being said I care more about accessibility into the round, meaning if you're going too fast for your opponents and they try clearing you or telling you to slow down, it is probably a good idea to try and adjust your speed in those situations.

I'm open to any type of argument. My only preference is that arguments are impacted out in the round. I'm a lazy person by nature and like to do the minimum amount of work, meaning I prefer when teams tell me exactly where and what to vote for on my flow. Don't assume I know which arguments you are going for at the end of the debate. I also tend to protect against new arguments in the final speeches. Additionally, treat me as someone who has no sense of direction and needs to be given clear instructions to any destinations that you need me to go to.

And finally, don't be jerks to your opponents.

So the bottom line is to do whatever you'd like to do, have fun and throw in a joke or 2, even make references to anime, European football, or anything for that matter.

I have been judging mostly LD and Policy events and have been judging for 4 years

In a round, I prefer loud, clear, concise speech. I appreciate arguments that get to the point and spoken relatively slowly and clearly. Empirics are extremely important.

I would consider the following when I award speaker points

-how you speak

- if you are courteous and would let opponent complete their thought

- how you conduct during cross-ex

Please add me on the email chain and feel free to contact me at zbp1@williams.edu

Pronouns: she/they

About me: First year out, debated at Sonoma Academy under Lani Frazer + Laila McClay. I ran both policy affs and k affs named after MTS songs.

Accessibility in debate is super important to me. Let me know if you need to adjust the round in any way. Any sort of request will not affect your speaks.

General:

Do what you do best. This isn’t about me. I’ll minimize judge intervention as much as possible.

Just explain and impact out your arguments and you’ll be fine. I don’t have a ton of argumentative preferences, but I’m probably not the best judge for super high theory args. I think they lead to pretty annoying and substance-less debates. That said, I’ll vote on pretty much anything as long as you tell me why I need to vote on it. Please be organized. Signposting is important.

Sass is fun, but try not to be overly mean. Debate is stressful enough as it is. Don’t be terrible.

If you make racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, classist, ableist etc. comments, I will nuke your speaks and contact your coach.

Speed: If you can, a camera on while you're speaking would be great. I’m fine with whatever speed you want to go at, just be clear. If I’m staring blankly at you, you’re not being clear enough.

Theory: Fine. I find theory debates pretty boring, but if you impact out what you’re saying and explain why it matters, I’m fine with it. If you want me to vote on it, do at least two minutes of work on it in the 2NR/2AR.

Topicality: Sure, I’ll vote on it. I don’t love Ks of T, but just explain it well and I’ll be fine. Tell me why I should vote on it.

Ks: Hell yeah. I’m not super familiar with a lot of high theory Ks, but that doesn’t mean I won’t understand them if you explain them. Pls know your lit and know how to explain it. One of my biggest pet peeves is when k teams try to confuse confuse the other team in cx by shouting out buzzwords and not actually saying anything.

Specifics: Framing is important! Contextualize your links. Links of omission=bad. I also generally believe that debate is valuable and educational, but if you win that it isn't I guess I'll vote on your Baudy k. If I have to.

K affs: A lot of the above still applies. I’m more comfortable with advocacy statements, but I don’t need one. Just do whatever you want as long as you put in the work and explain what you want me to vote on. But generally, if you don't explain how your aff functions and just repeat buzzwords, I'll be annoyed and have a difficult time voting aff.

FW vs K Affs: I think your aff should have some relation to the topic. Explain what the ballot does and why voting aff does all the things you say it does. That seems pretty self-explanatory, but apparently it's not.

DAs: “Throw em at me.” If you read politics, you better hope it's unique and you have specific link ev.

CPs: Cool. Have a solvency advocate pls.

Prep: I can tell when you're trying to steal prep. Emailing and tech malfunctions are not prep.

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

This is my first tournament on the criminal justice topic so make sure everything is clearly explained so I don't miss out on information that can help you later in the round. If I don't get it, I'm likely to not vote for it.

Tech > Truth

I'm a current college sophomore (go bears) and was a policy debater throughout my four years of high school. I can understand most arguments if clearly explained as to why it matters to the round. I'm fine with CPs, DA's, Ks, Theory, FW, and most circuit arguments. Please remember that if your opponents don't want to spread, be respectful of that otherwise I WILL dock your speaks.

Organization is super important to me. Please signpost and slow down and be clear on your taglines and analytics so I can follow along when I flow.

WRITE MY BALLOT FOR ME. Please explain to me what specific arguments you have won and why they sway in your favor. I love a good impact calc!

Logistics - I'm fine with tag team CX as long as both teams are, flash/email chain time is not counted as prep time. Feel free to ask me anything specific about certain arguments or logistics before the round starts.

(I will automatically drop you if you personally attack your opponents, or you are if rude, offensive, disrespectful, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.)

I want to see you do well, so be confident I believe in you :))

No spreading. Speak at a normal pace. I won't listen to you if you are spreading.

Clarity

1. Give me a roadmap before you start.

2. Sign post clearly and often in the speech.

3. Refer to your partner and their work in your speeches.

4. Enunciate.

Framework

1. Prioritize what arguments on the flow you want me as the judge to vote on. How do you want your arguments to be judged? What reasons do you give me to vote your way?

Spreading

1. Spread at 50% on tag lines and analytics. I do not particularly like spreading in general, but if you must spread, spread only on your read evidence.

Args and Evidence

1. I don’t know K very well, so please do a thorough job of explaining the K to me, if you want me to vote on it. Otherwise, I probably won’t vote for you.

2. All args are ok, UNLESS you don’t explain them well, provide warrants, or impacts.

3. Don’t make hasty generalizations.

4. Use the evidence! And KNOW the evidence.

General:

1. Good clash = better speaker points

About me: She/Her, I debated for Sonoma Academy 4 years in policy, 1 in parli. I was a 2A/1N for most of my debate career. GGSA 1 is my first tournament judging this topic, and I didn't work at a camp, so keep that in mind during the round (I won't know your acronyms or topic specific jargon)

please let me know if there is anything I can do to make the debate more accessible for you.

ask me as many questions before/after the round as you want.

I want to be on the email chain: clairestep23@gmail.com

At the end of the day I think debate has tremendous value and is not just a game (however you choose to interpret that value is debatable.) I want you to read what you like to read and have fun in the round. Don't waste time adapting to me as a judge if it means sacrificing your performance in the round or fun.

This format is whacky! Be patient with me and I'll be patient with you. Because all of this is over zoom, if you decide to spread, please go 80% your regular speed. Getting good speaks is also about being adaptive!

Etiquette: Please be nice to the other team. I know debate is a competitive activity but that doesn’t mean you can be a jerk. Don’t clip. Don’t steal prep. If flashing takes more than 2 mins it will start coming out of prep. Tag team is okay.

Speaks: I base your speaks on attitude, CX, clarity, how well you know your arguments, and rebuttals. I think that ethos is super important and I like voting for teams that really CONVINCE me they won the round. I would prefer a nuanced explanation in your own words over a bad piece of evidence.

I’m fine with speed but only if it’s clear. BE WARNED! Do NOT attempt to spread if you are unable to do so with clarity! If you see that I’m not flowing and staring blankly at you, you need to be clearer. Any arguments I miss are on you. Especially over zoom, there is a high risk that I will miss some of what you say if you are going max speed.

Tech > truth but truth is easier to win. Even if the argument is morally repugnant I think the other team should answer it. That being said I hold the answers to those arguments to an EXTREMELY low threshold so if you make a sexist/homophobic/racist/transphobic/etc. argument there is a 99.9% chance you are losing the round.

CX: I think CX is underrated and it’s one of the best places to earn speaks. Please don’t speak over each other in CX excessively. If someone is being rude in CX my face will show it. I think CX is binding.

Affirmatives: Please know your affirmative. You should shine in CX of the 1AC. If you don’t know your aff, your speaks will reflect it. I’m down for performance affs/K affs. Do what you do best!

Case: Case! Debate! Matters! I get super excited about a good case debate.

Kritiks: I'm studying literary theory in college, so I will most likely be familiar with your lit, but if you're misinterpreting the lit you will make me sad. During my debate career I was fairly policy oriented so keep that in mind if you decide to read your high theory debate-specific K in front of me though. I believe that debate is a unique space that allows for broader discussion of social issues and justice and I believe that in round/community solvency exists. The perm debate is very important, and you should treat it as such. Grouping all of the perms puts you in a vulnerable spot if the other team calls you on it. You need to be able to articulate what the alt does in order for me to vote for it. The role of the ballot should be one of the most important aspects of the round in these debates. Only read kritiks that you know. Bad K debate is worse than bad policy debate.

CP: I’m a fan of specific DA/CP combos and I will reward you for specific links. I know this is league and it tends to be full of generics and it’s fine if you read those, but I’d rather not have every 2nr be a generic DA/CP combo. I err aff slightly on CP theory. I think that CPs that result in the whole aff incentivize bad debate so if the aff makes the argument you’re going to have to do some work on the theory front (but if you have actually have a solvency advocate for your consult/delay/agent CP this doesn't apply nearly as much). I have an intense appreciation for a good specific politics DA and an intense hatred for bad ones.

Topicality: Debate it well. I think too often T is used as a time suck but I also think these debates are fun to judge when done well so do with that what you will. If the team is genuinely untopical I will definitely lean towards you. Good T debaters don’t rely on blocks and can contextualize the standards/violation to the specific aff/round. That said, I don't really think that fairness is an impact but that shouldn't preclude you from trying to persuade me that it is. Otherwise I am pretty neutral on topicality and will evaluate it based on however the debaters present it.

Framework: pretty much the same as T but I think this is less of a time suck. Really sell me on the standards and why your interpretation of debate is better for the activity and you will win. Coming from a small school I recognize that a lot of the time straight up policy affs are more accessible to teams with limited resources and I think it’s a legit argument against kritikal teams. At the end of the day make sure you're still being respectful though, it gets dicey when read against AFFs focused on identity and in round/community solvency.

Theory: I have a high threshold for theory and will most likely default to reject the argument not the team

CPS '21 (current policy debater), he/him

put me on the email chain - dsuplica@college-prep.org

Preliminary stuff: time your own prep / speeches. Sending isn't prep because I'm not a boomer. You should stand up while speaking but I won't enforce it. Things that I cannot verify are things that I cannot vote on. (If it happened out of round I need proof / a screenshot)

TLDR: Do whatever you want and be nice. Warrants pls

I will vote for you if you win the debate. Tech >>>>>>>> truth. I am open to voting on any argument as long as you win that I should vote for you on it. This includes aspec, death good, multiple perms bad, the rider da, intrinsicness, and probably anything else you can think of. A "bad" argument should be easy to beat.

If I'm judging you, I should just be a guy in the back of the room until the RFD. Go for whatever you're interested in, and you'll do great. Don't try to adapt to me. I try to be unbiased and minimize judge intervention because judge intervention is bad, but since anyone who tells you they're entirely unbiased is lying, here are some of my opinions (tbh this paradigm is mostly just me writing thoughts on debate down). Have fun!

Okay one more thing - warrants pls. Extend warrants. Use them. They're wonderful

Case:

Yes please.

case only is a viable 2nr if you're winning a turn or conceded defense

0 risk is probably a thing, but it's hard to win.

Case answers should be in every 1nc, and aff teams should leverage their very high / 100% risk of case against teams that either don't answer case or do a bad job at answering it. Don't forget about the aff at every point between the 1AC and 2AR

DAs:

Yes specific links - elaborate on how the link explicitly interacts with the aff

Straight turns are cool

Extend the whole card / its warrants, don't just re-read tags and expect me to do the work for you

Only say "turns and outweighs" if it's actually true, but turns case arguments are great for impact calc

CPs:

The less "competitive" they are, the more work needs to be done on the net benefit for it to outweigh the perm.

If you have a "gotcha" moment where you explain how the cp magically does something that it really doesn't look like it does (this should probably happen before the 2nr), explain it clearly.

Judge kick if it's somewhere in the 2nr

Perm explanations ideally happen in the 2ac ("not mutually exclusive" isn't a complete explanation). They should be at least somewhat fleshed out before the 2ar

presumption is real but so is 1% risk

Ks:

they're cool. Bad k debate can be very bad though (I know from experience on both sides of this lol)

kicking the alt is legit.

Same opinion on gotcha moments

Explain your links - the more generic your link is the easier it is for the aff to win the all other instances perm.

"Links are disads to the perm" needs an explanation

Alt explanation is good. I should know what it does before the 2NR. Floating pik should be vaguely somewhere in the 2NC.

Framework is great. You can use it to moot the entire aff if you win. I probably lean towards the aff having to defend their reps, but if the aff wins their impacts its probably a reason why the affs reps are good

Perfcon isn’t an automatic reason to sever your reps

You can go for the impact turn if it’s legit (always fun to answer a cap k with “yes we are corporate shills deal with it.”)

"Group the perms, thery're all severance, voter" is almost always an insufficient perm answer. On the aff, explanation of the perm should happen before the 2ar

K affs:

Cool. I read one at one tournament, usually go for framework against them

Probably get perms

I default to fairness as an internal link but can be convinced to vote on it

Theory:

"Cheaty" is an argument, not a description. Rules are determined by the debaters. I default to "Both teams can do whatever they want" on most theory questions, but will definitely feel comfortable voting on theory if you win it.

Good argument if you go past reading 10 year old nonresponsive blocks

I default to everything but condo being a reason to reject the argument, not the team, but saying "voter for x" or "reject the team" makes it a voter

T:

If you're extending it past there and not using it as a time waster, there should be explanations past reading your 1nc shell with different words.

Caselists are fantastic.

Lots of interps are terrible. Intent to define does a lot to impact your warrants

The phrase "not a voter blah blah blah" can beat any t argument if it goes conceded.

I generally think reasonability is a really bad interp that invites judge intervention and means you get to be lazy on the impact flow, and that affs should defend their model, but you can win on it if you out-tech the other team.

RULES (the only thing not up for debate):

If I think you're intentionally clipping, I'll say it. I'll read along with the speech doc. You get 1 reminder, then -2 speaks, then a loss and referral to tab.

I prioritize maintaining a safe and healthy environment above everything else. If you do something that makes the environment unsafe (racism/sexism/homophobia/etc.), I will either tank your speaks and/or drop you and email your coach.

Use trigger warnings where applicable. (that means you have to talk to the other team about it before the round and accommodate their requests). Changing your advantage's name or dehighlighting a word isn't enough. Have another aff ready just in case.

"I don't vote for [mean people]" - John Hines

I would be a hypocrite if I said mildly passive aggressive cx is always bad but don't go too far. If I legitimately don't like you by the end of the round because of your in round conduct I probably will give you lower speaks

Speaks:

+.1 speaks if you make me laugh

+.1 speaks if you disclose (WITH CITES) on the wiki before the RFD

-.1 speaks if your wiki doesn't have cites (unless there are tech issues, I know it's been annoying lately.) This doesn't make trying to research a team's past positions by opening 198237 different word docs any less annoying. Opensource is meant for open source, not cites (sorry I get really cranky about this)

-.1 speaks if you start off the 1nc with "Aspec they didn't clash ground voter fairness education"

he/him/his

Pronounced phonetically as DEB-nil. Not pronounced "judge", "Mister Sur", or "deb-NEIL".

Policy Coach at Lowell High School, San Francisco

Email: lowelldebatedocs [at] gmail.com for email chains. If you have my personal email, don't put it on the email chain. Sensible subject please.

Lay Debate: I care deeply about adaptation and accessibility. I find "medium" debates (splits of lay and circuit judges) incredibly valuable for students' skills. I don't think I'd ever be in a setting where I'm the sole lay judge. In a split setting, please adapt to the most lay judge in your speed and explanation. I won't penalize you for making debate accessible. Some degree of technical evaluation is inevitable, but please don't spread.

Resolving Debates: Above all, tech substantially outweighs truth. The below are preferences, not rules, and will easily be overturned by good debating. But, since nobody's a blank slate, treat the below as heuristics I use in thinking about debate. Incorporating some can explain my decision and help render one in your favor.

I believe debate is a strategy game, in which debaters must communicate research to persuade judges. I'll almost certainly endorse better judge instruction over higher quality yet under-explained evidence. I flow on my laptop, but I only look at the speech doc when online. I will only read a card in deciding if that card was contested by both teams or I was told explicitly to and the evidence was actually explained in debate.

I take an above-average time to decide debates. My decision time has little relationship with the debate's closeness, and more with the time of day and my sleep deprivation. I usually start 5-10 minutes after the 2AR, so I can stretch my legs and let the debate marinate in my head. Debaters work hard, and I reciprocate that effort in making decisions. My decisions themselves are quite short. Most debates come down to 2-4 arguments, and I will identify those and explain my resolution. You're welcome to post-round. It can't change my decision, but I want to learn and improve as a judge and thinker too.

General Background: I work full-time in tech as a software engineer. In my spare time, I have coached policy debate at Lowell in San Francisco since 2018. I am involved in strategy and research and have coached both policy and K debaters to the TOC. I am, quite literally, a "framer", as a member of the national topic wording committee. Before that, I read policy arguments as a 2N at Bellarmine and did youth debate outreach (e.g., SVUDL) as a student at Stanford.

I've judged many excellent debates. Ideologically, I would say I'm 60/40 policy-leaning. I think my voting records don't reflect this, because K debaters tend to see the bigger picture in clash rounds.

Topic Background: I judge and coach regularly and am fully aware of national circuit trends. I'm less in the weeds as many other coaches. I don't cut as many cards as I did in the pandemic years, and I don't work at debate camp.

If you're reading the web3 UBI affirmative, I implemented one of the first CBDC pilots back in 2018/19. If you know what you're talking about, I'm the best possible judge. But if you don't, I'll be much more easily persuaded by the negative, especially on the case debate.

Voting Splits: As of the end of the water topic, I have judged 304 rounds of VCX at invitationals over 9 years. 75 of these were during college; 74 during immigration and arms sales at West Coast invitationals; and 155 on CJR and water, predominantly at octafinals bid tournaments.

Below are my voting splits across the (synthetic) policy-K divide, where the left team represents the affirmative, as best as I could classify debates. Paradigm text can be inaccurate self-psychoanalysis, so I hope the data helps.

I became an aff hack on water. Far too often, the 2AR was the first speech doing comparative analysis instead of reading blocks. I hope this changes as we return to in-person debate.

Water

Policy v. Policy - 18-13: 58% aff over 31 rounds

Policy v. K - 20-18: 56% aff over 38 rounds

K v. Policy - 13-8: 62% aff over 21 rounds

K v. K - 1-1, 50% aff over 2 rounds

Lifetime

Policy v. Policy - 67-56: 55% for the aff over 123 rounds

Policy v. K - 47-52: 47% for the aff over 99 rounds

K v. Policy - 36-34: 51% for the aff over 70 rounds

K v. K - 4-4: 50% for the aff over 8 rounds

Online Debate:

1. I'd prefer your camera on, but won't make a fuss.

2. Please check verbally and/or visually with all judges and debaters before starting your speech.

3. If my camera's off, I'm away, unless I told you otherwise.

Speaker Points: I flow on my computer, but I do not use the speech doc. I want every word said, even in card text and especially in your 2NC topicality blocks, to be clear. I will shout clear twice in a speech. After that, it's your problem.

Note that this assessment is done per-tournament: for calibration, I think a 29.3-29.4 at a finals bid is roughly equivalent to a 28.8-28.9 at an octos bid.

29.5+ — the top speaker at the tournament.

29.3-29.4 — one of the five or ten best speakers at the tournament.

29.1-29.2 — one of the twenty best speakers at the tournament.

28.9-29 — a 75th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would barely clear on points.

28.7-28.8 — a 50th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would not clear on points.

28.3-28.6 — a 25th percentile speaker at the tournament.

28-28.2 — a 10th percentile speaker at the tournament.

K Affs and Framework:

1. I have coached all sides of this debate.

2. I will vote for the team whose impact comparison most clearly answers the debate's central question. This typically comes down to the affirmative making negative engagement more difficult versus the neg forcing problematic affirmative positions. You are best served developing 1-2 pieces of offense well, playing defense to the other team's, and telling a condensed story in the final rebuttals.

3. Anything can be an impact---do what you do best. My teams typically read a limits/fairness impact and a procedural clash impact. From Dhruv Sudesh: "I don't have a preference for hearing a skills or fairness argument, but I think the latter requires you to win a higher level of defense to aff arguments."

4. Each team should discuss what a year of debate looks like under their models in concrete terms. Arguments like "TVA", "switch-side debate", and "some neg ground exists" are just subsets of this discussion. It is easy to be hyperbolic and discuss the plethora of random affirmatives, but realistic examples are especially persuasive and important. What would your favorite policy demon (MBA, GBN, etc.) do without an agential constraint? How does critiquing specific policy reforms in a debate improve critical education? Why does negative policy ground not center the affirmative's substantive conversation?

5. As the negative, recognize if this is an impact turn debate or one of competing models early on (as in, during the 2AC). When the negative sees where the 2AR will go and adjusts accordingly, I have found that I am very good for the negative. But when they fail to understand the debate's strategic direction, I almost always vote affirmative. This especially happens when impact turning topicality---negatives do not seem to catch on yet.

6. I quite enjoy leveraging normative positions from 1AC cards for substantive disadvantages or impact turns. This requires careful link explanation by the negative but can be incredibly strategic. Critical affirmatives claim to access broad impacts based on shaky normative claims and the broad endorsement of a worldview, rather than a causal method; they should incur the strategic cost.

7. I am a better judge for presumption and case defense than most. It is often unclear to me how affirmatives solve their impacts or access their impact turns on topicality. The negative should leverage this more.

8. I occasionally judge K v K debates. I do not have especially developed opinions on these debates. Debate math often relies on causality, opportunity cost, and similar concepts rooted in policymaking analysis. These do not translate well to K v K debates, and the team that does the clearest link explanation and impact calculus typically wins. While the notion of "opportunity cost" to a method is still mostly nonsensical to me, I can be convinced either way on permutations' legitimacy.

Kritiks:

1. I do not often coach K teams but have familiarity with basically all critical arguments.

2. Framework almost always decides this debate. While I have voted for many middle-ground frameworks, they make very little strategic sense to me. The affirmative saying that I should "weigh the links against the plan" provides no instruction regarding the central question: how does the judge actually compare the educational implications of the 1AC's representations to the consequences of plan implementation? As a result, I am much better for "hard-line" frameworks that exclude the case or the kritik.

3. I will decide the framework debate in favor of one side's interpretation. I will not resolve some arbitrary middle road that neither side presented.

4. If the kritik is causal to the plan, a well-executing affirmative should almost always win my ballot. The permutation double-bind, uniqueness presses on the link and impact, and a solvency deficit to the alternative will be more than sufficient for the affirmative. The neg will have to win significant turns case arguments, an external impact, and amazing case debating if framework is lost. At this point, you are better served going for a proper counterplan and disadvantage.

5. I will not evaluate non-falsifiable statements about events outside the current debate. Such an evaluation of minors grossly misuses the ballot. Strike me if this is a core part of your strategy.

Topicality:

1. This is about the plan text, not other parts of the 1AC. If you think the plan text is contrived to be topical, beat them on the PIC out of the topic and your topic DA of choice.

2. This is a question of which team's vision of the topic maximizes its benefits for debaters. I compare each team's interpretation of the topic through an offense/defense lens.

3. Reasonability is about the affirmative interpretation, not the affirmative case itself. In its most persuasive form, this means that the substance crowdout caused by topicality debates plus the affirmative's offense on topicality outweighs the offense claimed by the negative. This is an especially useful frame in debates that discuss topic education, precision, and similar arguments.

4. Any standards are fine. I used to be a precision stickler. This changed after attending topic meetings and realizing how arbitrarily wording is chosen.

5. From Anirudh Prabhu: "T is a negative burden which means it is the neg’s job to prove that a violation exists. In a T debate where the 2AR extends we meet, every RFD should start by stating clearly what word or phrase in the resolution the aff violated and why. If you don’t give me the language to do that in your 2NR, I will vote aff on we meet." Topicality 101---the violation is a negative burden. If there's some uncertainty, I almost certainly vote aff with a decent "we meet" explanation.

Theory:

1. As with other arguments, I will resolve this fully technically. Unlike many judges, my argumentative preferences will not implicate how I vote. I will gladly vote on a dropped theory argument---if it was clearly extended as a reason to reject the team---with no regrets.

2. I'm generally in favor of limitless conditionality. But because I adjudicate these debates fully technically, I think I vote affirmative on "conditionality bad" more than most.

3. From Rafael Pierry: "most theoretical objections to CPs are better expressed through competition. ... Against these and similar interpretations, I find neg appeals to arbitrariness difficult to overcome." For me, this is especially true with counterplans that compete on certainty or immediacy. While I do not love the delay counterplan, I think it is much more easily beaten through competition arguments than theoretical ones.

4. If a counterplan has specific literature to the affirmative plan, I will be extremely receptive to its theoretical legitimacy and want to grant competition. But of course, the counterplan text must be written strategically, and the negative must still win competition.

Counterplans:

1. I'm better for strategies that depend on process and competition than most. These represent one of my favorite aspects of debate---they combine theory and substance in fun and creative ways---and I've found that researching and strategizing against them generates huge educational benefits for debaters, certainly on par with more conventionally popular political process arguments like politics and case.

2. I have no disposition between "textual and functional competition" and "only functional competition". Textual alone is pretty bad. Positional competition is similarly tough, unless the affirmative grants it. Think about how a model of competition justifies certain permutations---drawing these connections intelligently helps resolve the theoretical portion of permutations.

3. Similarly, I am agnostic regarding limited intrinsicness, either functional or textual. While it helps check against the truly artificial CPs, it justifies bad practices that hurt the negative. It's certainly a debate that you should take on. That said, if everyone is just spreading blocks, I usually end up negative on the ink. Block to 2NR is easier to trace than 1AR to 2AR.

4. People need to think about deficits to counterplans. If you can't impact deficits to said counterplans, write better advantages. The negative almost definitely does not have evidence contextualizing their solvency mechanism to your internal links---explain why that matters!

5. Presumption goes to less change---debate what this means in round. Absent this instruction, if there is an advocacy in the 2NR and I do not judge kick it when deciding, I'm probably not voting on presumption.

6. Decide in-round if I should kick the CP. I'll likely kick it if left to my own devices. The affirmative should be better than the status quo. (To be honest, this has never mattered in a debate I've judged, and it amuses me that judge kick is such a common paradigm section.)

Disadvantages:

1. There is not always a risk. A small enough signal is overwhelmed by noise, and we cannot determine its sign or magnitude.

2. I do not think you need evidence to make an argument. Many bad advantages can be reduced to noise through smart analytics. Doing so will improve your speaker points. Better evidence will require your own.

3. Shorten overviews, and make sure turns case arguments actually implicate the aff's internal links.

4. Will vote on any and all theoretical arguments---intrinsicness, politics theory, etc. Again, arguments are arguments, debate them out.

Ethics:

1. Cheating means you will get the lowest possible points.

2. You need a recording to prove the other team is clipping. If I am judging and think you are clipping, I will record it and check the recording before I stop the debate. Any other method deprives you of proof.

3. If you mark a card, say where you’re marking it, actually mark it, and offer a marked copy before CX in constructives or the other's team prep time in a rebuttal. You do not need to remove cards you did not read in the marked copy, unless you skipped a truly ridiculous amount. This practice is inane and justifies debaters doc-flowing.

4. Emailing isn’t prep. If you take too long, I'll tell you I'm starting your prep again.

5. If there is a different alleged ethics violation, I will ask the team alleging the violation if they want to stop the debate. If so, I will ask the accused team to provide written defense; check the tournament's citation rules; and decide. I will then decide the debate based on that violation and the tournament policy---I will not restart the debate---this makes cite-checking a no-risk option as a negative strategy, which seems really bad.

IMPORTANT: I will only vote on an ethics violation about previously-read evidence (missing an author, missing a year, paragraph missing but no distortion, etc) if the team alleging the violation has evidence that they contacted the other team and told them about the issue. Clearly, you had the time to look up the article. As a community, we should assume good faith in citation, and let the other team know. And people should not be punished for cards they did not cut. But if they still are reading faulty evidence, even after being told, that's certainly academic malpractice.

Note that if the ethics violation is made as an argument during the debate and advanced in multiple speeches as a theoretical argument, you cannot just decide it is a separate ethics violation later in the debate. I will NOT vote on it, I will be very annoyed with you, and you will probably lose and get 27s if you are resorting to these tactics.

6. The closer a re-highlighting comes to being a new argument, the more likely you should be reading it instead of inserting. If you are point out blatant mis-highlighting in a card, typically in a defensive fashion on case, then insertion is fine. I will readily scratch excessive insertion with clear instruction.

Miscellaneous:

1. I'll only evaluate highlighted warrants in evidence.

2. Dropped arguments should be flagged clearly. If you say that clearly answered arguments were dropped, you're hurting your own persuasion.

3. Please send cards in a Word doc. Body is fine if it's just 1-3 cards. I don't care if you send analytics, though it can help online.

4. Unless the final rebuttals are strictly theoretical, the negative should compile a card doc post 2NR and have it sent soon after the 2AR. The affirmative should start compiling their document promptly after the 2AR. Card docs should only include evidence referenced in the final rebuttals (and the 1NC shell, for the negative)---certainly NOT the entire 1AC.

5. As a judge, I can stop the debate at any point. The above should make it clear that I am very much an argumentative nihilist---in hundreds of debates, I have not come close to stopping one. So if I do, you really messed up, and you probably know it.

6. I am open to a Technical Knockout. This means that the debate is unwinnable for one team. If you think this is the case, say "TKO" (probably after your opponents' speech, not yours) and explain why it is unwinnable. If I agree, I will give you 30s and a W. If I disagree and think they can still win the debate, you'll get 25s and an L. Examples include: dropped T argument, dropped conditionality, double turn on the only relevant pieces of offense, dropped CP + DA without any theoretical out.

Be mindful of context: calling this against sophomores in presets looks worse than against an older team in a later prelim. But sometimes, debates are just slaughters, nobody is learning anything, and there will be nothing to judge. I am open to giving you some time back, and to adding a carrot to spice up debate.

7. Not about deciding debates, but a general offer to debate folk reading this. As someone who works in tech, I think it is a really enjoyable career path and quite similar to policy debate in many ways. If you would like to learn more about tech careers, please feel free to email me. As a high school student, it was very hard to learn about careers not done by my parents or their friends (part of why I'm in tech now!). I am happy to pass on what knowledge I have.

Above all, be kind to each other, and have fun!

I don’t really care for spreading. I want you to speak at regular speed. I’m a lay judge, and haven’t done policy before. I want to be able to understand what it is you are arguing, and to weigh the debate for me. I need to understand what you are arguing and why your arguments are better than the other side.

School Affiliations: Dougherty Valley High School

About me: Hi, my name is Roy Zheng, and I'm a parent judge who has judged for almost 6 years for my 2 daughters. One competed in Expository Speech all throughout high school, and the other is actively competing in Policy/LD Debate in high school right now.

Judging/Event Types: Policy, PuFo, LD, Speech Events

Speaker points: You can get good speaker points by being confident and having smart, concise arguments that are well-warranted and explained well. Please make sure you respect your opponents as well!

At the end of the debate, I like to look at arguments again and review which side made the best claims and had the best evidence for comparison. Impact weighing during your rebuttal speeches helps me a lot with my decisions too, so please make sure you don't forget to talk about your impacts! I will evaluate any type of impact, as long as you explain it well.

I take notes/flow the entire debate and listen to cross examination.

Feel free to ask me before the round starts if you have any questions. Please be kind and confident, as debate is supposed to be fun and we're all here to learn :-)