My introduction to debate started in College 2014 -2018 British Parliamentary. I taught BP debate at the College Of Staten Island Summer 2019.

I am not a Policy Debater. I do coach for SA middle school policy debate.

I will vote on framework if you tell me to vote on framework. I will vote on the stock issues if you tell me to vote on stock issues. I will not read evidence unless their is an issue of specific cards being read. I only flow what is said in your speech.

I am a huge fan of voters. Tell me exactly what you want me to know, the ROB and ROJ.

I'm a lay judge and this is my second time judging.

Please speak clearly and talk slower if possible. I appreciate logic and supporting facts in your speech.

Good luck to you all and enjoy!

seva.gaskov@gmail.com - please add me to the email chain!!
she/they

Mamaroneck High School '20, Palos Verdes Peninsula High School '23, Arizona State University 27', 5th year debater

Spreading
Go ahead, I am fine with high speed as long as you are clear. I will try my best to flow everything but if you're unintelligible, I can't guarantee that I will be able to hear everything.

Tech vs. Truth
I am a tabula rasa and tech judge and I will vote on whatever is on the flow as long as it's not offensive.

Policy vs. K
I am fine with most kritiks. If I don't understand what your K says, I won't vote on it, so if you run Baudrillard, explain it well.

In K aff debates, I will usually prefer neg on framework unless it's debated poorly. Also, I want you to make it clear how an aff ballot solves.

Impacts
I am fine with either big stick or soft left impacts, just make sure to prove why your impact outweighs.

T
I am fine with T debates but unless the aff is clearly abusive, I will prefer reasonability. Either way, make sure to have a lot of good evidence and comparison.

DAs
Make sure to have all parts of your DA - uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. I will treat the takeout of any single part of the DA as the takeout of the entire disad. So if the aff proves you don't link or that your DA is non-unique, I will vote aff on the DA. Give a clear story and do impact calc to explain why your DA outweighs.

CPs
I am fine with any CPs as long as there is a net benefit. I will disallow a type of CP only if the aff proves it's bad on theory.

Theory
I will vote on any theory but explain your standards and impacts well.

Speaks
30: You did something that really impressed me and I really enjoyed listening to your speeches. I have no doubt that you will win the tournament.

29 - 29.9: You did really well and your speeches were very interesting. You will most likely win the tournament or at least get to semifinals.

28.5 - 28.9: You did well and you had good speeches that made you win. You will likely break.

28 - 28.5: You did average and there are a lot of improvements to be made. Perhaps you were not clear or your speeches were messy. You could break.

27-28: You did badly and you need a lot of improvement. I will usually not give those speaks unless I really think that you messed up really badly in your speech. You would also get those speaks if you were unintelligible or if your speech didn't make sense.

27 and less: You probably said something that was offensive and made the debate really unpleasant for either me or your opponents.

peninsulalailai@gmail.com

Peninsula '24

Stanford '28

Novices, remember these things:

Do line by line. Try to answer your opponents' arguments in the order they made them.

Extend your offense first. This means if you're aff, extend your advantages first. If you're neg, extend your disadvantages first. Defense (responding to your opponents' offense) comes later.

I have found two extremes with evidence. In half of the debates I judge, cards get forgotten. In the other half, cards are overemphasized and rebuttals are referring to cites instead of making the actual argument. Remember to find a balance where you explain your arguments, but refer to authors to support your arguments.

Understand the arguments you are making. I understand it's easy to read the files your varsity teammates gave you, but really try to understand, please.

Ask questions!

Stanford '28

Peninsula '24

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

Disads

Bar explicit concessions made by the other team, zero risk does not exist and neither does 100% risk. That's true of dropped arguments too. Dropped arguments are only as true as the warrants are true, and their implications can still be debated.

For that reason, I will never vote on presumption.

Similarly, the link matters more than uniqueness because uniqueness is not a yes/no question. When you say, "Harris wins the election," you're not saying there's 100% certainty she will win. If that were the case, she would win even if the plan happened.

Counterplans

I dislike Process CPs because they make being aff hard and encourage block recycling. Go for theory. Although, it should be noted that many Process CPs do not solve the aff.

Conditionality is good.

Judgekick is my default.

Kritiks

are good when they disprove the truth of the aff.

add me to the chain: snockol2243@gmail.com

Tech always over truth.

I flow C/X, but it's up to you to use C/X in your speeches.

Speed is great, but be clear. Please slow down for analytics and blocks; I can't always catch all of it.

I'm biased towards DA/CP debate over T or the K.

For the K: I'm a firm believer in weighing the advantages of the hypothetical implementation of the plan against the impacts of the links. For framework I'm biased towards fairness over education.

For the K Aff: On framework, fairness > education. Please explain your advocacy to me like I don't know anything about it, because I don't.

(he/him); armangiveaway@gmail.com

Debated for four years at Peninsula

Currently at Cal (not debating) studying plant biology and data science

If I can't understand you I'll stop flowing. Don't expect me to compensate from the doc - I usually don't look at those until the end of the debate. Stay on the safe side and be clear even if it means sacrificing speed.

You must read your rehighlightings if you want me to evaluate them.

General notes: the rebuttals should be like an RFD, you need to explain a way in which I can feel comfortable voting for you while also taking into account your opponents offense. Please don't just extend arguments from your constructives but also interact with your opponents claims.

Plan-less affs: Please don't. But if you must I prefer if they be contextualized to the topic. If you're reading something complicated, I need a solid enough explanation in the round that's sufficient for me to understand what the argument you're going for is. Obviously T is the most intuitive argument against these positions and you should certainly go for it if you want to. I find that impact turning T is the best way to go if you're aff. Fairness is an impact. I also really like seeing contextualized and well researched Ks and PIKs against these sorts of affs. If you have one, don't be afraid to go for it.

Soft-left affs: I think they're great. You need a compelling argument for why I should shift away from the delusional impact weighing assumptions that policy debate has normalized. CPs that solve the aff are probably the best neg strat.

T v. plan: Don't really have any unusual thoughts on T. Go for it if you must. I have a limited experience going for or judging it but as long as you debate it well you should be fine.

K: I enjoy these, and I have found myself primarily going for them as I matured as a debater. I like specific critiques. If I listened to your 2NC in a vacuum and I didn't know what 1AC you were responding to then that's a problem so make sure to do the contextual work here to really impress me.

Framework for the K: I'm inclined to evaluate debates through an offense-defense paradigm. It's your job to show that the assumptions made in the 1AC implicate aff solvency/truth claims.

If you're aff in front of me and you're choosing between impact turning or link turning the links, you should impact turn unless you have a good reason not to. I find teams tend to be more successful in front of me doing the former.

Theory: you need in round abuse to go for it. I love theory 2ARs against really abusive CPs. It's probably your best way out. I think i'm pretty charitable to condo 2ARs.

Thoughts on competition: I don't default to judge kick and I don't think "the status quo is always a logical option" is a particularly good model since it invites loads of judge intervention. If you go for a CP and the aff has offense to the CP that outweighs the offense the neg has forwarded then i'm voting aff. Same goes for the alt.

I have a lower bar for aff victory on the perm than most people I know. The role of the perm is to prove that all of the plan and some of the CP/Alt could plausibly happen and not trigger the DA. As long as I reasonably believe this to be true, then i'm voting aff. I don't think the aff needs to win a 'net benefit' to the perm bc that makes the perm no longer about competition and warps it into some sort of advocacy that the aff could go for which isn't what I believe the perm to be.

LD Note: You can probably skip the part of the AC where you define all the words in the res. Not a fan of tricks.

arthur.v.qin@gmail.com

Don’t pref me if you don’t read a plan and care about winning.

It is true that every debater enters a two hour round wanting to win, and any argumentation otherwise will result in an immediate vote for the opponents in the spirit of unfairness, because you have just said that you do not want to win.

"When debaters walk in the room, they expect the judge to render a fair decision, not to rob them of years of hard work and dedication by substituting their personal biases for the arguments presented."

I try to make my speaks normally distributed (u = 28.4, sd = 0.5).

Prep ends when email is sent.

Topicality is primarily a question of truth.

Debate is better when debaters are dressed business professional (applies to online debate).

Cross-ex is binding.

Everything is probabilistic. You can win the full weight of a dropped argument and easily still lose the debate.

Peninsula Policy Debater add me to the chain pradyrajasai@gmail.com

tech>truth

Fairness is an impact

Don't say offensive stuff

Send me your analytics

I very much like traditional policy rounds than K rounds.

cp: Condo is usually good except when it's dropped. Sufficiency framing -- weigh the impact of the net benefit to the impact of the solvency deficit for me. I will vote on all theory arguments if properly debated and impacted.

da: Explain the link, and compare your link ev. It's not zero risk unless it is dropped or conceded.

Updated for NSDA Nationals 2024:

My name is Teja Vepa, please feel free to add me to the chain - Tejavepa {at} g mail

Current / Prior Roles and Affiliations:

Director of Speech and Debate - Collegiate School, NY (2022 to present)

Program Manager - Debate - Success Academy Charter Schools, NY (2019-2022)

Associate Director - Policy Debate - Polytechnic School, CA (2013-2019)

Debate Coach - Claremont HS, CA (2009-2013)

2023-24 Topic Specific:

I have not judged many rounds on this particular topic. I may need some common acronyms specified. If you make it clear early, that would be helpful.

Paradigm for NSDA:

As of this year, I have approximately 20 years of experience with policy debate. I think Nationals is a unique tournament and debaters are tasked with adapting to a varied audience. You do not have to debate specifically for me. I am capable of and enjoy evaluating rounds that range from stock issues, policymaking, plan v K, K v K, and K v Framework.

I will vote for planless affs. I have coached at programs that are significantly more K friendly (Polytechnic) and at programs that typically prefer Plan debates (Claremont). I think both of these models have value.

Specific Argument Types:

DA: The more specific, the better. I tend to disprefer generic DAs unless the link is highly specific. I tend to beleive that the uniqueness controls the direction of the offense.

CP: I do like counterplans and these are some of my favorite debates. Ideally your CP has an internal net benefit. Process counterplans are fine. Conditionality is probably good.

K: Go ahead, I am familiar with a series of K literature bases, and specifically more familiar/well-read with these literature bases: Cap/Neoliberalism, Settler-Colonialism, Lacan/Psychoanalysis, Foucault/Biopower, Threat Construction/ Heg, Agamben/Biopolitics, Zizek. Though I am less well-read on identity arguments than postmodern high theory Ks, I do have experience with the sections of the literature base that are used in policy debate.

K Aff: I think these are legitimate. Please have a stable advocacy and be sure to win your aff if you are using it to outwiegh T/Framework.

T: I am willing to vote on it--T is about technical execution. I tend to prefer limits over other standards, so please explain your impacts if they are based in ground etc.

Framework: I tend to value education over procedural fairness.

Questions:

Happy to answer them before the round, or feel free to email me.

Update for Loyola 2020

Honestly, not much has changed since this last LD update in 2018 except that I now teach at Success Academy in NYC.

Update for Voices / LD Oct 2018:

I coach Policy debate at the Polytechnic School in Pasadena, CA. It has been a while since I have judged LD. I tend to do it once a or twice a year.

You do you: I've been involved in judging debate for over 10 years, so please just do whatever you would like to do with the round. I am familiar with the literature base of most postmodern K authors, but I have not recently studied classical /enlightenment philosophers.

It's okay to read Disads: I'm very happy to judge a debate involving a plan, DAs and counter-plans with no Ks involved as well. Just because I coach at a school that runs the K a lot doesn't mean that's the only type of argument I like / respect / am interested in.

Framework: I am open to "traditional" and "non-traditional" frameworks. Whether your want the round to be whole res, plan focused, or performative is fine with me. If there's a plan, I default to being a policymaker unless told otherwise.

Theory: I get it - you don't have a 2AC so sometimes it's all or nothing. I don't like resolving these debates. You won't like me resolving these debates. If you must go for theory, please make sure you are creating the right interpretation/violation. I find many LD debaters correctly identify that cheating has occurred, but are unable to identify in what way. I tend to lean education over fairness if they're not weighed by the debaters.

LD Things I don't Understand: If the Aff doesn't read a plan, and the Neg reads a CP, you may not be satisfied with how my decision comes out - I don't have a default understanding of this situation which I hear is possible in LD.

Other thoughts: Condo is probably a bad thing in LD.

.

.

Update for Jack Howe / Policy Sep 2018: (Sep 20, 2018 at 9:28 PM)

Update Pending

Please use the link below to access my paradigm. RIP Wikispaces.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Vepa%2C+Teja

Peninsula '24

add me on the email chain: rithvik.veturi@gmail.com

Pronouns: he/him

Recording the debate is allowed and encouraged, it will help you get better.

Due to unexpected internet issues, I might ask you to send me your analytics at the end of the round if I need it.

Please read a plan, I personally do not have much experience with K affs.

tech > truth

Cross ex is very important in policy debate, don't underestimate it

FOR NOVICE: Don't send a google doc or a pdf

Don't read obviously morally incorrect cards ie Racism

I prefer traditional policy rounds as opposed to K aff rounds

Theory: Condo is sometimes good, but can easily be swayed if the negative doesn't refute this and/or reads like 6 off cases. I believe fairness and education are impacts, but it is up to you to tell me what outweigh. I will vote on all theory arguments if properly impacted. I will vote heavily on disclosure theory. You're probably in middle school if you are reading this, so the affs shouldn't be new. If they are, it's a voter.

K: I am a policy debater, and I do not know much about K literature. New debaters have a habit of running a K and not extending the alt. I highly recommend not to run Ks unless you are able to extend and explain it.

No specifications for DAs, T, Cps, read and extend what you think matters.

If you crack an office joke, my fingers might slip from laughter and accidentally bump your speaks up.

A good twss and I'll do it intentionally

Peninsula '23 | Emory '27 | Peninsula & OCSA

coralynnchiang@gmail.com

Tech over truth. To minimize intervention, I will accept what you say at face value and strictly evaluate technical concessions.

That being said, I think debates are best when clash and research are maximal. Thus, affs should be topical and negs should say that the plan is bad.

Similarly, tech over truth should incentivize engagement, not be taken to the extreme of shallow argumentation & cheapshots. I won't artificially enforce an argumentative threshold to exclude an uncontested premise, BUT if litigated, I am easily persuaded that embedded theory, floating piks, laundry list impact evidence & cardless counterplans are clash-avoidance devices, not arguments.

Coach for Peninsula

Plz put me on the email chain at Stevenyu0923@gmail.com

My default role in a debate isn't an adjudicator or an educator but an audience that needs to be entertained.

Jokes aside, being funny won't help you win, I will just like you more.

Unchangeables

1. When going for the K, framework is defense. You need an actual link to win.
2. Any argument goes. Death good, racism good, whatever you want. I won't automatically punish you for it. If it's a complete argument it's fair game.

Tech over truth, but I do find it easier to convince me of args I believe in.

Here few principles on getting my ballot:

Simplicity is good. The more complex an argument is, the more it deserves explanations. So, for the K teams with good link work, please cut out the 10 syllable poetic BS and speak normal English.

Every argument needs a claim, warrant, impact. If it misses one, opponent gets new answers or won't vote on it.

You should debate as if I have 0 understanding of the topic. So, explain acronyms and such which especially matters for intricate process CP debates or T debates.

I find myself somewhat expressive during the debate. Feel free to use that to your advantage.

Speaks

Hiding theory is cowardice. You can and might win but speaks = nuked. The act of hiding theory (reading theory really fast but not in the doc especially in the block) makes you guilty, even if they spot you and answer it. This is my way of trying to deter the practice.

For every min of prep you don't use I will give 0.1 of extra speaks up to a cap of 29.5.

Predispositions:

Fairness is likely an impact. Fairness paradox is likely true.

Condo is good.

Process CPs are bad but likely hard to win absent a good answer to arbitrariness.

Reasonability is likely bad.

Inserting rehighlightings is NOT ok, but the other team needs to say that as a theory arg.

Predictability > debatability

Debates and characterizations of ev > ev quality itself

Timeframe matters, determines directionality of turns case. Turns case is only as probable as the rest of the DA. if DA is 1% and turns case is dropped, it net values to 1% of turns case. So the aff weighs 99% of the aff vs 1% of the DA and only that 1% of the DA turns case.

PIKs are probably bad but likely theoretically justifiable against a K aff. (went for this a decent bit)

Plan text in a vacuum is stupid.

Experience: (2NRs senior year)

Adv CPs + impact turns are my favorite 2NRs in high school. (more than 50%)

Adv CPs + topic generic DA (20%)

Process CP (10%)

Ks/K affs

Fighting against fairness on an impact/impact turn level seems to be an uphill battle. Instead, mitigating fairness with logical internal link indicts or how the aff's FW or how the T interp solves fairness is a much better take. For that exact reason, I tend to think I'm actually better for the K team in these situations. Clash is too defensive and I don't recommend it.

Hiding Borjk in 2NC FW = eye roll.

• K v T FW. Subjectivity formation here is important. If voting aff can't change minds, I intuitively believe no matter what impact turns, microaggressions, or whatever the neg has committed doesn't matter. For the K team, I believe an impact turn to legal precision/predictability here (with the ontology args to impact turn "legal credibility" or "academic expertise about the state" are best). I also believe impact turns, PIKs, and counter advocacies are creative ways to negate K affs.
• Policy aff v K. Middle ground is likely the best interp. Whoever debates with that is likely going to win framework. FW Ks are strategic, but I will respect you more if you debate middle ground as a K team and actually engage substance of case.

LD

Try not to go for Phil or absurd theory. However, you reserve the right to do what you want, I reserve the right to not vote on it.

Lay debate

Please go fast. I dislike lay debate.

Middleschool:

Clarity > speed

Flow

Don't steal prep