Lexington HS '20 (Policy debate)

UC Berkeley '24

Tl;dr: Tech > Truth. Line by line is always good. If you don't explain why you win the debate or weigh your arguments against your opponents, then I may have to do some of that work for you and that's not fun for anyone.

For Policy: During my time in high school, I went from being a 2N who went for politics DAs and process CPs to being a 2A who ran a planless aff so I like to think I'm pretty middle of the road.

For LD: Most of what I have below should apply but keep in mind that I'm not very familiar with all of the theory and tricks arguments that are exclusive to LD.

For PF: Speak confidently, be organized, show your research, and clash with your opponent. Most of my PF experience comes from coaching and you should expect me to be more on the "evaluating arguments over speaking style" side than other judges.

Put me on the email chain: rsb0117@gmail.com

Case Debate

• Make sure your aff's internal links make sense. A lot of affs get torn apart due to low-quality i/l evidence.
• Good case debate is underrated and can be the difference between a win and a loss if you minimize the aff's offense. 1NCs that recut the 1AC are powerful.

Policy Strategies

• I love politics DAs but if you have a good topic-specific DA on this topic, I'll be impressed because that's hard these days. I like it when people put emphasis on the outweighs/turns debate but in my experience, the link and internal link are the weakest parts of the DA so that's what both teams should focus on.
• I don’t think any CPs are cheating unless the aff wins that they are on the flow. If you have a blippy one line arg on theory, it's an uphill battle to win it since you're kind of destroying its purpose. For what it's worth, I think neg ground has gotten progressively worse every year. Perm shields the link arguments are severely underrated.
• I like generic CPs that are argued well with clear reasoning and aff specific CPs that are well thought out with good evidence. Judge kick isn't a default unless the aff drops it after the 2NR brings it up.
• I don’t care what the T violation is, as long as you win it. T is about what you justify and want for the best model of debate. I also don't care about in-round abuse.

K Strategies

• It looks so bad when people read Ks without knowing what they're talking about and it becomes really obvious in CX.
• I am most familiar with literature bases about anti-blackness, settlerism, capitalism, gender, security, and biopower but I'm fine with anything.
• I like a good alt explanation but I'm not one of those people who thinks that an alt needs to resolve everything- I'm even okay if you kick the alt as long as you can explain how you get offense off of the links or framework.
• K v K debates tend to come down to who explains their method and theory of power better. My favorite ones will actually find problematic aspects in each others' scholarship.
• I understand the point of long overviews but if you drop the line by line, you're letting the aff get away with murder.

FW

• I like FW debates and believe they should be about which model of debate does the most good.
• The best FW 2NCs have shorter overviews and do most of the impact/TVA work on the line by line.
• I think affs should be tied to the resolution in some way but what that means is debatable. If your aff interacts with the debate space more than the resolution, I'll still vote for you if you explain why the ballot is key.
• Debate about how to approach the resolution but please follow speech times and don't ask for 30s.

Speaks

I’ll start at 28.0 and move up and down. I usually only break 29 when I judge people who I think should make it to elims.

I will lower speaks if:

• You’re sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. Debate should be civil.
• You read an aff with trauma impacts that goes into very graphic detail (there's usually one about gender violence or human trafficking every year) and don't give a trigger warning to make sure your opponents are okay with it.
• You say warming is good/doesn't exist. I think that's bad scholarship.
• You're unclear.

I won’t be mad if:

• You ask questions/postround- it's important for learning as long as you're being genuine.
• You use flex prep AKA ask CX questions during your prep.

hi! my name is devanshi (she/her), i'm a current junior at mcgill university (it's in montreal) and i debated policy at lexington before that. if you're reading this, i'm probably your judge.

if the round's about to start:

- email: devanshisbhangle@hotmail.com

- be organized - subpoints, good line by line, etc.

- tech > truth - if you win the flow, you win the round.

- p l e a s e be clear. if you don't think you can be clear, slow down a little: you're better off going at 80% speed where i can understand everything you're saying as opposed to 100% where i can understand maybe half. i'm not shy about asking you to be clear but tbh it's not a good experience for any of us so please let it not come to that.

- pf specific: speed is fine. theory is fine, progressive args are fine, identity args are fine: i'll vote based on what's on the flow; simply reading any of these arguments doesn't guarantee a ballot for or against you.

- my topic knowledge is p limited - i study microbiology + immunology, so i get epidemiology / pandemics / public health, but outside of that, assume my understanding is what you'd expect for ur average college kid

- please don't make arguments or engage in behavior that threatens the safety and wellbeing of the people in the room or marginalized folks writ large. this includes, but is not limited to: making racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic comments, deadnaming / (intentionally) using incorrect pronouns, saying slurs, etc. i will not tolerate it, and doing so will result in an automatic loss, laughably low speaker points, and a word with your coaches.

- if your opponents are making you feel uncomfortable or unsafe, please let me know! i believe every video conferencing system has a function where you can privately send people messages. you can also email me. similarly, if there's anything i can do to make your experiences better (including using correct pronouns, avoiding certain topics, etc.) please let me know in whatever way is comfortable for you.

- disclosure = good - show me you disclose, and i'll give you + your partner +0.2 points

- speaks are fluid and arbitrary, but i do my best to default to higher speaker points :')

- for pf specifically: i have 0 idea what defense being "sticky" is ??

other stuff / if you have more time:

- an aff has to do two things: 1) create change; 2) be tied to the resolution in some way. beyond that, i don't really care whether it's a k aff or not. either ways, you should be able to defend your model of debate.

- i won't meticulously comb through your evidence for you. if there's a specific card that's really good for you or damning for your opponents, point it out to me in round.

- kritiks --> i'm minimally familiar with antiblackness, cap, and feminist literature, but beyond that, assume i have a very basic understanding (except for pomo, in which case, i know literally nothing). either ways, i find jargon confusing + unnecessary - in my experiences, the best k debaters have also been the ones who could most clearly explain what their theories are and how they link to the aff

- i do my best to consciously distance my decisionmaking from any preconceived biases. that being said, here are the ones i won't budge on: death is bad, racism/sexism/homophobia/genocide/bigotry is bad, climate change is bad, cancer/disease is bad.

- impact calc <3

- i like when counterplans have a solvency advocate that's specific to what the text mandates.

- not a huge fan of dodgy politics disads; make sure they're extended well and supported by your evidence.

- try not to be aggressive?? especially to novices / younger debaters / people with obviously less power in the situation than you. if you need to make someone feel small to look better, you're probably not a good debater lol

- recommend me a book/show: if i've read/seen it, +0.1 points; if i haven't, +0.2 points; if it's one of my favs, +0.3 points.

- tell me how to vote in the 2nr/ar!

good luck, be nice, have fun! <3

Hi everyone! My name is Lilian and I'm a second-year parent judge. That being said, I'm still fairly new to the activity and would appreciate if you guys spoke slowly and clearly (no spreading please) and ran strictly traditional/lay arguments. Please remember to be respectful towards your opponents.

Have fun and good luck!

I am a parent judge who never competed in Speech or Debate. I fell into the world of Speech & Debate when my oldest decided to compete in LD as a freshman in 2019.
while I can keep up with fast talking I can not flow spreading. I do not flow off a shared case. My job as a judge is to listen to you speak your points and convince me your way is the better way. I vote off who is most convincing and impactful. I also don’t take arguments at face value. Arguments should be based in logic.

Stay respectful of each other and understand everyone is arguing a side they may not agree with.

Okay. So. I used to do debate for Needham High School in MA from 2009-2013. Since then, I have not touched debate at all. I used to debate both national circuit and local circuit. That all being said, I am now professionally employed as a designer and have had multiple opportunities to take my debate skills and put them to use in literal boardrooms full of literal CEOs whom I was trying to get to buy my company's designs. So let's talk about how all that history affects my judging outlook:

1) Talking quickly is one thing. Incomprehensible spreading is another. If you're spreading so fast that I can't understand you, I will not try to make the effort to figure out what you're trying to say. The burden is on YOU, the debater, to communicate so effectively that I, the judge, am moved enough to vote for you. There is no boardroom that's interested in how quickly you can talk, by the way. If you can use fewer, more carefully picked words to make your point, that's always going to take you further than if you just barf out whatever's inside your mind.

2) In that same vein, please resist the urge to say things like "You will be voting aff/neg." You can feel free to urge me to vote for you, or tell me to consider voting for you, but don't tell me what I will be doing. The only exception is when you've effectively argued a point and then logically the only option is to vote for one side, at which point you might say, "And so the only option here would be to vote aff/neg."

3) Theory is stupid but if you do it right I won't mind.

4) Skep is fine and if you do it right I won't mind.

5) Anything newfangled that was invented in the last 7 years since I left debate is going to fall really flat on me. Unless, of course, you do it right and explain yourself. But please keep in mind that I'm not in the loop with anything fancy and nat-circuit-y.

6) Finally, here's my point of view on speaker points: I am not the kind of judge who thinks that the winner of the round gets full speaker points. I am no stranger to awarding a win, and then dramatically low speaker points to the same debater. I consider your arguments to function completely independently to your speaking ability. Which means that if you're really nice, you take the time to explain yourself, and you conduct yourself with grace, I have no problem awarding even the worst arguments with full points. If you are a righteous jerk, I will not hesitate to award you ZERO speaker points. Yes, you heard me right. ZERO points is something I am more than happy to use if the situation calls for it.

I competed as an LD debater when I was in high school over 30 years ago. I now coach LD debate, but my preference remains for traditional LD cases that debate the resolution and allow your opponent to do so as well.

I strongly dislike spreading, because it is hard for me to understand. If I don't hear your contentions or evidence, then they can't help you win the debate. Plus "winning" a point because your opponent didn't catch it is a pretty hollow victory.

Both of these preferences link back to my perspective on the activity of debate--it should be an educational experience and provide you with skills that you can apply throughout your life. I haven't seen any evidence yet that spreading is of use anywhere in the real world.

I am a trained parent judge and started judging last year. I consider myself a lay judge. I work in marketing data analytics.

I prefer substantial arguments based on the topic.

I flow but I won’t flow if you’re too fast or hard to understand

I vote off the flow rather than arguments I wish someone had made.

Using clear voters and clearly weighing your best arguments against your opponent's best arguments is a major plus.

If your argument is counterintuitive, be sure to spend time explaining it.

Good speaking always helps.

Don’t be rude and don’t interrupt during cross-ex. (but don't be passive either- ) I know it is a fine line.

Don’t make sexist, racist or otherwise offensive or personal attacks or I will vote against you.

Updated Jan 12th, 2024

Purdue '23

Email (set email chain up before round PLEASE): jonathansumita@gmail.com

TL:DR

LARP-1

K/K aff-1

Theory-2

Performance- 2.5/3? I haven't seen good performative style args in a WHILE and I've been out of the game. At your own risk ig.

Tricks- 4? Do people even read these anymore? Is this just theory?

OV:

Online debate is mid. If you're going to spread, go slower than usual- (75% of your top speed) because sound quality is not as good as it may seem. I am hard of hearing so please focus on clarity.

Experience: CX 4 yrs, LD 1.5 yrs. I did LD and then CX in non-circuit NW Indiana. I'm not as lay as you may think or as my appearance may give off.

General

By and large I agree with Calum Matheson's debate paradigm, in part it reads-

Do as thou will shall be the whole of the law. All styles of debate can be done well or done poorly. Very little offends me. If you can’t beat the argument that genocide is good or that rocks are people, or that rock genocide is good even though they’re people, then you are a bad advocate of your cause and you should lose. If it’s so wrong and you’re so right, then it should be easy for you to win. Is that really too high a bar? If so, then I have a 26.5 here for you. Do you like it? I made it myself. Just for you.

I'm pretty unpredictable tbh. I like most arguments but that is not what I will judge you on. Tell me why you should win and weigh. If you don't like impact calculus, tell me why I should weigh your arguments and not impacts themselves. I do not want to listen to 20+ minutes of why you should win on a T violation unless you flesh out impacts. I'll vote for most anything if it's done well and (better than your opponents).

Please don't read AI = NW/Extinction in front of me. I don't think it's a real argument.I can be convinced ofc.

Specifics

K: I read a lot of Baudrillard (badly) at Purdue. I really like nuclearism style arguments (Masco), affect style politics/ security arguments get me hyped too. I have a background in philosophy and I really don't care for consequentialism if you must know, but I can be persuaded.

Theory: Sure.

DA's: Love em. Clear links are good, strong internal link chains even better. Give me a story about this issue w/ case.

CP: Love them too. Provide a net benefit pls. Solve the burden of competition or the CP is toast.

T: This ofc is similar to theory but in essence use your best judgement with T, I'll be a hard sell if 'reasonability' is an argument that is made. Ie: "arms control" vs "arms" control is a different story.

Tricks: I don't really care. I'll vote on theory but you gotta go for it in the 2AR/2NR

RVI's:Carefully.

LD General: LD holds a part of my heart so I decided to list a few things.

1. Value structure is the most important piece of a LD debate round. I think this should go w/o saying but it really matters. You must extend and frame the round around your value structure. In LD you can win a round in 3 easy ways and all three revolve around the value structure. If you drop it, it will be very difficult to vote for you.

2. Prefer analytics over evidence. There is a reason the time skew in LD is so bad, it makes it impossible to read new arguments and do good line by line if you aren't spreading. If you read a piece of evidence, it must be very crucial to why I should vote for you. LD attempts to preserve this thing we call "clash" and I support it 100%.

3. Collapse arguments and offense down. The affirmative especially should be doing this in the 2AR. The Negative will try early in their 1NC to spread the AFF thin and what results is where the round goes. The AFF should not be responding to each and every argument, you should aim to eliminate the NEG offense and extend your own offense.

PF General: For Public Forum, there are some important things.

1. You should not be introducing new evidence in the summary speeches. I would even go so far as to say fewer pieces of evidence in the rebuttals, more analytics. Card-dumping is never fun to flow especially given many of you do not create evidence chains.

2. I do not particularly care about crossfire. I do however, pay attention to grand crossfire. With that being said, I will only flow what you tell me to.

3. Do not collapse down until you have kicked it. What does that mean? It means you have terminated any offense that particular argument held. I hate the response "It was a wash/stalemate" when there is clear offense on an argument that you are trying to collapse.

4. Always impact frame from case. Impacts are crucial to why I should care about either side. If you don't, presumption flips AFF and as said above, I will be forced to intervene. IF anything, weigh impacts in the round.

Speed: I can handle most speed and will signal (clear) if I cannot handle it. I will give you several chances to fix it before I stop flowing. (send your docs ofc).

Speaker points: I will generally follow tournament norm. Please note that speaker points are entirely subjective. They reflect how much I like a set of speeches as a performance / technical ability to argue. This means I'll most likely start at 27 and move in increments of =+-.1. If you want a 30, read a shell about it? idk do what you want dog.

Any questions about rounds or whatever, my email is at the top.