Affiliations:

I am currently coaching 3 teams at lamdl (POLAHS, BRAVO, LAKE BALBOA) and have picked up an ld student or 2. I am pretty familiar with the fiscal redistribution and WANA topics.

I do have a hearing problem in my right ear. If I've never heard you b4 or it's the first round of the day. PLEASE go about 80% of your normal spread for about 20 seconds so I can get acclimated to your voice. If you don't, I'm going to miss a good chunk of your first minute or so. I know people pref partly through speaker points. My default starts at 28.5 and goes up from there. If i think you get to an elim round, you'll prob get 29.0+

Evid sharing: use speechdrop or something of that nature. If you prefer to use the email chain and need my email, please ask me before the round.

What will I vote for? I'm mostly down for whatever you all wanna run. That being said no person is perfect and we all have our inherent biases. What are mine?

I think teams should be centered around the resolution. While I'll vote on completely non T aff's it's a much easier time for a neg to go for a middle of the road T/framework argument to get my ballot. I lean slightly neg on t/fw debates and that's it's mostly due to having to judge LD recently and the annoying 1ar time skew that makes it difficult to beat out a good t/fw shell. The more I judge debates the less I am convinced that procedural fairness is anything but people whining about why the way they play the game is okay even if there are effects on the people involved within said activity. I'm more inclined to vote for affs and negs that tell me things that debate fairness and education (including access) does for people in the long term and why it's important. Yes, debate is a game. But who, why, and how said game is played is also an important thing to consider.

As for K's you do you. the main one I have difficulty conceptualizing in round are pomo k vs pomo k. No one unpacks these rounds for me so all I usually have at the end of the round is word gibberish from both sides and me totally and utterly confused. If I can't give a team an rfd centered around a literature base I can process, I will likely not vote for it. update: I'm noticing a lack of plan action centric links to critiques. I'm going to be honest, if I can't find a link to the plan and the link is to the general idea of the resolution, I'm probably going to err on the side of the perm especially if the aff has specific method arguments why doing the aff would be able to challenge notions of whatever it is they want to spill over into.

I lean neg on condo. Counterplans are fun. Disads are fun. Perms are fun. clear net benefit story is great.

If you're in LD, don't worry about 1ar theory and no rvis in your 1ac. That is a given for me. If it's in your 1ac, that tops your speaks at 29.2 because it means you didn't read my paradigm.

Now are there any arguments I won't vote for? Sure. I think saying ethically questionable statements that make the debate space unsafe is grounds for me to end a round. I don't see many of these but it has happened and I want students and their coaches to know that the safety of the individuals in my rounds will always be paramount to anything else that goes on. I also won't vote for spark, trix, wipeout, nebel t, and death good stuff. ^_^ good luck and have fun debating

I competed for 2 years with Irvine Valley College forensics, locally and internationally. I competed in IPDA, NPDA, Impromptu, Extemporaneous, and Persuasive. I’ve judged for a variety of elementary, middle, high school, and college tournaments.

For debate, I’m a common sense judge. Show me the impact calculus and clearly demonstrate why you should win. I’m open to any argument, T, K, etc. you want to run as long as you can explain it well. Please be respectful to one another.

I debated 4 years at River Hill High School in Clarksville, MD and then graduated from the University of Southern California (did not debate there).

I am just getting into judging so am not too familiar with the topic or developments in the past 5 years or so. However, I will follow the arguments made in the debate and evaluate them within the framework established by the debaters in the round. As a debater, I mostly ran traditional arguments but am familiar with some elements of critical arguments - they have relevance if debated well and if made relevant to the topic.

My email is houckmadeleine@gmail.com.

I am a former high school and collegiate debater (policy and parliamentary).

I can handle speed, but value clarity of speaking, as well some sort of signposting or narrative pauses soallyourargumentsandanalysisdontruntogetheronmyflow. I don't mind critiques/kritiks, performative debate, stock issues debate, or debate theory -- I do look for you to be convincing in your advocacy for any of these positions, and expect you to demonstrate that you understand the philosophy behind the arguments you're running, not just chasing taglines or casual "it's a voting issue" assertions.

I am happy to roll with whatever arguments you make in-round, but at the end of the round you must TELL ME WHERE AND WHY TO VOTE. What am I voting on, why is your argument/case/neg strategy better than your opponent's? Do the work for me so it's easy for me to sign the ballot in your favor (instead of having to look at my flow, examine the arguments that ended up in the final rebuttals, and decide where I want to vote because no one told me where/why to vote!).

I love a "big picture" story in final rebuttals - tell me the big picture of the round, of the world you're advocating for as aff or neg, of the world that the aff or neg wants us to live in, of debate (probably pick one, not all tho?) - tied in with your voting issues and arguments that remain in the final speeches, making it really easy for me to vote for you.

Also, be kind to each other - your debate partner and your opponents. We're all in this together.

Thank you!

Teams can always drop me an email post-round if you'd like any additional feedback / explanation of my decision - my email is my name at gmail.com

I started judging my two kids' speech and debate tournaments in high school. I judge IE's, LD, and Policy. And have continued judging these tournaments after my kids moved on to college.

I prefer that you speak loud and clearly. However I do not have a preference on speed. You may flow as fast or slow as you see fit.

Simply, debate is a very fun game that I used to play and enjoy watching. Do what you do best. I will vote for you if I think you win. And please be nice to your opponents.

As far as preconceived notions of debate go, here are a few of mine:

(1) I think the topic should be debated.

(2) I enjoy case debates and plan specific counterplans.

(3) I usually don't have speech docs open during the debate so your clarity is important to me.

I'm a senior at USC, debated for SPASH for 3 years in high school.

Add me to the chain: sarahc.kim03@gmail.com

TLDR: You can read anything you want in front of me. I've had policy experience and k experience.

General Things

- Quality > Quantity

- Tech over truth, but I want to see some level of truth or substance in your argument.

- Spreading is fine, but be clear

- Don't clip cards, if there is evidence of clipping I will end the round and give a win to the other team

- Flashing/emailing isn't prep but please don't take forever

- If you're reading theory slow down a bit, and tell me if you want it on a new sheet

- Dropped arguments are true arguments, but they still have to be impacted out

- I'll weigh a performance the same as evidence, I will flow it too

- Debate is whatever you tell me it is (If the negative reads framework and claims debate is a game..and the aff has no response..then it's a game)

-Don't be racist. Don't be sexist.

pronouns: he/him

Affiliation: Harbor Teacher Preparation Academy (Policy Debate for 4 years)

--- LAMDL T8 2023 (Novice/JV) ---

I'm super chill and I understand the nervousness of debate -- take a deep breath and remember that debate is a game and every round is a learning lesson. My primary goal as a judge is to make the space as welcoming to new debaters as possible.

Winning the round:

- tell me explicitly why you should win. How do your impacts outweigh? In the rebuttals, you should tell me what arguments I should focus on and why (this is called framing)

Cross ex:

- tag-teaming is fine; both partners should equally participate

Speaker points:

- best way to up your speaker points is to give clash (don't just tell me why you're right, but why THEY'RE wrong)

Miscellaneous:

- I love a lively debate; don't be afraid to put in your personality + passion

- I'd be glad to answer any questions/clarification before the round

- I'm fine with speed - but don't sacrifice clarity

- I tend to be slightly expressive while flowing, so feel free to read my body language with respect to your argumentation

Affiliations:

Downtown Magnets High School: 2018 to 2021

University of Northern Colorado: 2021 - Present

Things to know:

Be nice.

Have four years of policy debate (CX) experience, so I understand the concept of debate and everything that it entails. If you have any questions or concerns, email me as fast as possible (danielmangandi1029@gmail.com). To flash please send it to mang2626@bears.unco.edu.

Some background about me is that I am a gay/hispanic person (he/him/they pronouns), I am very fond of queer theory and have run it before. I am a psychology and philosophy major at the University of Northern Colorado, with a specialty in studying metaphysics and epistemology. I also have some experience in logic and identity theory (mostly feminist and queer theory).

Some things to take note of:

1. Interrupting your partners during cross-ex. Trust your partner's response or at least make them finish their thoughts before you add on. DON'T INTERRUPT them during their sentence.

2. Being homophobic, sexist, racist, etc. I will automatically stop the round and call it out. You will be punished with your speaks (0) and an automatic L. Debate is a safe space and those types of rhetoric/actions are not acceptable. Micro-aggressions committed would be called out during the round with a warning, if it continues I would stop the round. To add on, I will talk to your coach/team about what happened during the round.

3. Speed. If you are going too fast that it starts to become unclear I would warn you at most twice. If it still continues I would just stop flowing. In the top of your speech start off slow and build up your speed; so that it becomes easier to flow your speech.

4. Please have clash! Respond to your opponent's arguments and extend your own.

5. I will vote on the easiest argument happening in the round. If you drop the Disad I'm voting for it (if impacted out). If you drop the violation on T in the 2Ar I would vote for T for the Neg (if impacted out). Don't make me do the work for you. If I do an excessive amount of work to vote on you, you'll probably get low speaks. --Note-- Just because something was dropped doesn't mean I'm always gonna vote on it. Don't just say "they dropped [blank], vote for us" it needs to be explained as to why dropping the argument is something worth talking about (dropping a link defense is not the same as dropping a turn).

7. If you want to read a Kaff, please make it accessible for everyone (have a transcript to send it to everyone in the round. If you don't... I might not catch it, and if your opponents drop it then I'm not voting for it because you didn't make it accessible.). Also, make sure that you explain what your theory of power is and what are you doing about it. NOTE OF WARNING: Have your Kaff be in the direction of the topic, not gonna vote on something outside of the topic because I would be lost once the moment you send the 1ac (my brain can't handle your big brain energy).

8. For T, make sure that you have your interp, standards, and violation extended. One of my favorite off-cases so I am very nitpicky on how you run it and how arguments are impacted out. I think that fairness and education impacts are very persuasive but not fully impacted or articulated then I am prone to go with aff reasonability.

9. For Da's, articulate your link story, if its vague I won't buy it. Have an impact story and say why the impact outweighs.

10. Make your Cp's textually competitive. Also biased towards condo args (6 off-cases are fine but any more makes it iffy for me and tend to go aff leaning).

11. For K's make sure your links are contextualized as well as your alternatives. I have knowledge on cap, security, fem/queer, bio-politics/bio-power, topic generics (i.e the K everyone runs during the topic like for the cjr topic it was the abolition k), and settler colonialism. If you want to test your luck on very complex K's, I would recommend explaining it very well (don't use too much jargon... imagine you are explaining your k to a 5-year-old).

12. Good Luck! Remember that debate is a place for learning, safety, and fun.

Email:

andresmdebate@gmail.com

Cal Debate

For the most part I decide the debate through tech over truth. The baseline for speaker points is 28.5. Please don’t say anything racism, sexist, homophobic, ect…

Kaffs: I tend to think that having a strong link to the topic is better and more persuasive. If you want to run a kaff that doesn’t have a link then it would be best to give me reason for why that is important. Especially for the theory of power it is important to me that you explain the warrants behind the claims that you make.

Framework: You should definitely run it and I tend to think that whoever has a better articulation of their impacts tends to win the framework debate. Giving examples when it comes to debating limits and grounds is especially key for me and for my evaluation if the aff does explode limits. You should spend time and flush out your arguments beyond light extensions of the 1nc.

T: I tend to default to which interpretation creates better resolutional debates however can be convinced otherwise. An important note here is that a lot of teams should spend more time comparing impacts and giving me reasons why their model of debate is better than only focusing on standards.

DA/CP: Having great evidence is cool but you should spend more time impacting out why it matters. Oftentimes I think that there should be more work done on the internal links of your scenarios or explaining the process of the CP.

LD: I don't really know much about tricks, Phil,and other stuff

Have fun and do what you do best! :)

I have two years experience in policy debate at Downtown Magnet High School. I debated the climate topic (2016-2017) and education topic (2017-2018).

Email: cmiranda2300@gmail.com

School Email (if empty ignore):

General Notes:

• First and Most Important: I am returning from a break from debate so pref me at your own risk. I will do my best to judge the round fairly.
  
  Rounds judged:
  2023-2024: 22 rounds

• Speaker Points: I tend to hover around 28 by default.

• Spreading: I am not opposed to spreading on cards but when it comes to analytics I would appreciate it if you slow down.

Topicality/Theory:

I am not the best judge for these debates but I can vote on them if I am convinced there is a clear violation. Make sure your interpretations/counter-interpretations and violations are clear. Convince me that your impact is the most important impact in the round. If there are other theory arguments in the round then convince me I should value your argument over the others, otherwise I will default to topicality. T as a time skew is fine as well.

Do not spread any arguments that are not included in the document please. This is especially important for your standards and any turns/DAs.

Overall you may need to put more work into this argument if you intend on going for it.

DA/CP:

The UQ debate is probably the most important part of the disadvantage. More recent evidence is important and as long as the card is credible then that is enough for me. If you’re going to go for a nuclear war impact, please give me some context on how it happens. I will not give you an impact like that without any explanation. I find myself voting for structural violence impacts over nuclear war-esque impacts a majority of the time.

I usually do not have any issues with any CP you choose to run unless I am given a reason to. Net benefits can be a game changer for the negative. In general just convince me that your plan is better than the affirmative.

K:

I am not well-versed in the literature for most Ks so I would prefer that you explain your arguments well. Usually the most important arguments for me are the links and the alternatives. The links should be explained in the context of the affirmative. Some alternatives may be difficult for me to understand so I would appreciate some extra time explaining the alternative and what it does. If the alternative is in round solvency then make sure you give me a reason to prefer it over the aff. This means I would expect there to be a framing or a role of the ballot to help me analyze the round.

K AFF/Soft Left:

I am not well-versed in the literature for most Ks so I would prefer that you explain your arguments well. If you are going to perform or have an advocacy statement then I need to understand how you provide solvency. I would expect the aff to be in the direction of the resolution but if it isn’t then I would expect a valid reason why you are not. I expect both sides of the debate to provide their own framework and if they are similar then explain why your method is better.

Affiliations:

SVUDL 2018 to present

LAMDL 2020 to present

Yerba Buena High School 2018 to 2022

Stanford 2022 to present

Pref Recommendations (For LD):

1 - Policy, Ks

2 - T

3 - K Affs, theory

5 - Phil

Strike - Tricks

About me:

Hi, my name is Kastella/Kas. You can call me either of those. I debated at Yerba Buena High School in CX (2 years) then switched to LD (2 years). I mainly debated on the circuit and read soft left affs, ks (mainly cap k), das, and t. If it matters, I did not bid but broke multiple times at tournaments such as Berkeley, Nano Nagle, Loyola, Jack Howe, etc. 

My pronouns are she/they. I will use they for anyone I am not familiar with, please let me know if you would prefer otherwise. 

Add me to the email chain - kastella2004@gmail.com

Tech > Truth

Clarity > Speed

I LOVED spreading when I debated. It was my favorite part of debate, so feel free to do your thing. However, be clear. I'll say clear once or twice but after that, it's up to you to continue. Your speaks will suffer if I can't understand you.

Everything in this paradigm is simply preference. I have been removed from debate for a while, so while I am not as familiar as I used to be, one thing stays true: debate is what you make of it. Do what makes you comfortable and I will try my best to evaluate the debate fairly. However, I will not vote on any arguments or behaviors that makes the debate unsafe (racism, sexism, etc).

Stuff to know:

Sept/Oct Topic: I don't know anything about this topic, so beware!

Kritiks: This was my main strat when I debated. I think that ks are good and strategic. While I am most familiar with the cap k and its variations, feel free to run any k. However, I need a good link story, which can be developed in cx and in the 2nr. Without it, I have a hard time voting for you if I don't see how the aff links. I don't have as strong of an opinion on the alt or framework but if you are going one off, those matter a lot more. If you plan to run this on the aff, I have a similar opinion. You should be able to defend your model of debate and have a clear link to the topic. If you don't have a link, give me good reasons on why that is/why that's a good thing.

DAs: Love these! I appreciate specific links and good link chains. Basically, I like a good story. Each part of the DA needs work to be done to have a solid link chain: how does the link lead to the impact? Is your impact bigger than the aff? Is this DA likely? All things to consider. If the internal link doesn't make sense, there is a smaller threshold for the aff to answer the DA in my opinion. 

CPs: Should be competitive with the aff. PICs are questionable. I dislike multi-plank CPs. Don't have a huge opinion on CPs. If you decide to read multiple, theory is not your friend, especially if the abuse is clear. If not, then you're good. 

T: While I try to be fair, I err on competing interps. Interps should also be carded. Reasonability is something I would be willing to vote on but I probably need more than that to safely vote aff. As for the neg, your responsibility is convincing me that the aff is untopical, which means I need clear standards to your interp. 

Theory: I'm fine with theory. I have a higher threshold for voting on it but if there is a clear violation to a reasonable interp you set out, chances are I'll be voting on it if you do the work. However, I need it to be more than just a blip. Simply saying condo bad with no clear interp or standards is not enough. Reasonability means a lot to me and is underutilized. Also, if you plan to run RVIs, that will be an uphill battle but not impossible. As a disclaimer, I care a lot about disclosure as a former small school debater. I read disclosure theory a lot as well. That being said, there has to be a reasonable violation for me to vote on that as well. 

Framework: Feel free to run it. Similar to T, I need a clear interp, violation, etc. The aff should have to defend their model of debate and you should be able to defend yours. Definitely have a TVA. I enjoy tricky arguments on framework and creativity. 

Trad: I debated in trad, so I have a decent understanding. As long as you are able to defend your case versus an NC or a circuit debater's strategy, then feel free to run your strat. 

Phil: I don't have much experience in phil nor did I debate it much. I will evaluate it as long as you are able to explain it to me. Treat me as a parent judge in this regard.

Tricks: Not viable. I will not vote for it, so would not recommend trying.

Overall, these are just my opinions. You do you. Be nice. Have fun. 

Let me know if you have any questions or clarifications though. See you soon! :)

Email chain: I.claud33@gmail.com

They/ Them

Policy debate for three years in high school at regional circuit.

No oppressive language. No card cutting/ clipping. No hateful language. No more than 6 off.

These will result in low speaks or a losing ballot, probably both. None of that “X causes extinction” with no warrant/ highlighted word salad.

Tag team Cx is fine

Keep ur own time, keep each other accountable.

If I can’t hear/ understand you- I will let u know “clear”

If it’s not in the flow, it didn’t happen

Policy: I flow on paper so if u make a qwk analytic I’m so sorry to tell u, but I probably didn’t get it

General:

Pretend I am a big illiterate baby.

I have never seen a news outlet. I don't scroll social media. I don't look out windows. I have never ever existed before this debate round, explain everything to me.

So obvi if u give me an rfd/ 3 reasons to vote for u, its probably GGs

Specifics:

K

Love the k. I am sick of Ks with no specific link to the affirmative. That should be made very clear in the CX or the 1N. Link debate is typically what I evaluate the most. Highlight 1AC cards, pleassee

I’m familiar with: Set Col, Cap, Chicano, and Gender & Queer studies

But I'm always willing to become familiar with more :)

Aff

Good with any impact. Just pay attention to the framing.

Love the K Aff. Clarify neg ballot.

DA/CP

Internal link. Internal link. Internal link. If you don't make the storyline straight, I will not buy your impact. Ideally should be a net benefit to a cp.

Cp: Net benefit. Net benefit. Net benefit. I will one hunddo vote on tva or perm on presumption.

Debate is first and foremost a research game.

My name is Alexander Ramirez. I was a part of LAMDL debate for about 2 and half years when I was in high school. I competed in varsity, but did not continue debating into university. For a couple of instances during university and consistently after graduating with a BA, I continue to judge for LAMDL and spend time with my former high school team.

I do not prioritize certain arguments over others, but instead place a bigger emphasis on extending files; both on and off cases. DA, K, T, CP, and Case are all file types I am familiar with, but each file type has a way to win off of. Theory arguments are fine, but please make sure you explain your arguments well if you're planning on winning with a theory argument.

Let's have a good debate!

pronouns: she/her/they/them

contact information:lizethguadalupedebate@gmail.com

about me: i am a lamdl alumni! i debated for champs for about 3 1/2 years, 1 1/2 in varsity. i am a cal poly slo alum, and i am currently doing some preliminary courses for an education major at los angeles mission college. i work with middle schoolers at the moment, and I hope to become either a middle or high school spanish teacher. in terms of debate experience, i've mostly done policy, though i have dabbled in poetry and prose a bit.

tldr/5 minutes before round: i vote based on which side presents the clearest and comprehensive argument. i am not familiar with this topic, so making me understand the argument is key to making me understand what i am voting on. if an argument is dropped, i will not vote on it unless brought up in the 1nr/1ar. i allow tag-teaming, but if i notice that one speaker is taking over, i will knock down speaker points from both. i will time the debates and my timer will be the "official" time, but i would also appreciate if you kept track of time as well. i allow spreading as long as i can understand what you are saying, otherwise i will take of speaker points. jv/varsity: please send me your 1ac before the round starts, i would really appreciate it, rookie/novices: you don't have to send me the 1ac but it would be very helpful. other constructives (1nc, 2ac, 2nc) should be sent before that speech. for any other preference/questions, feel free to ask before the round official starts. ultimately, just have fun with it! :)

longer version:

general judging: i am somewhat of a picky and strict judge. don't get me wrong, i am nice and easy to talk to, but i definetly know how i like to judge. once again, as soon as the round begins, all of my biases are out the window and i will vote for the team with the clearest and most convincing argument. your job is to explain your arguments to me and to convince me, not the other team. I WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY RACIST, XENOPHOBIC, HOMOPHOBIC, CLASSIST, ABELIST COMMENTS, ESPECIALLY IF DIRECTED TO THE OTHER TEAM. first offense will result in low speaker points. second offence will result in automatic loss. third offense will result in me calling abuse on the round. In all three cases, i will intervine and i will speak with your coach post round. basically don't be mean and treat your opponents with kindness. yes, i love teams who are assertive but there is a fine line between assertiveness and agressiveness. other than that: tag-teaming is okay as long as no one is dominating the round, spreading is okay as long as i can clearly understand what you are saying, my timer is the official time, please remember to give me a roadmap, and arguments that are dropped won't be considered in the round.

case:case is the most important argument of the debate; it is essentially the core of the debate. if you drop case, that is an automatic win for the other team. it is totally okay to prioritize other arguments but do not drop case please. also remember to read a plan text or i will not vote on case.

disads and counterplans:i love a good counterplan paired with a disad. disads on their own are very iffy for me. counterplans on their own are pretty solid. ultimately, i am a big fan of cps paired with das. if you chose to run a counterplan, your job is to tell me why the counterplan is a better plan than the aff's plan. if you chose to run a da, your job is to tell me why the aff plan will do more harm than good and how the aff causes the disad. if running both, do as mentioned and tell me how the cp solves for the da.

t and other theory:t and other theory is fine for me, the line is drawn when you're are running it for an easy win. t and theory is a great argument when you know how to run it and defend it.

kritiks:i love kritiks, i'm a k debater. that being said, as long as you explain and defend the k well, you should be fine.

Former debater at LAMDL for 2 years and now debating for Nevada. My experience in debate is relatively versatile and I have no trouble comprehending most kritiks or theory arguments. Run whatever you wish to the best of your ability. I am particularly interested in kritik arguments, but they are not prerequisites. It would be nice if I ended up learning more about it from other debaters. Surprise me.

These are key things you need to know:

1. I will knock down speaker points for any racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. arguments (And of course, these are under my subjectivities). However, they do NOT determine whether you will win the round or not. If your opponent is making those kinds of arguments, it is ultimately up to you to recognize and call it out. Not doing so would be disadvantageous. I will speak about it in my RFD subsequently if such an instance occurs.

2. Other than that, I have no other limitations to impose on you and will try my best to understand your arguments.

3. I prefer substance over structure.

If you have any inquiries, you may use this email: nr.indrayani03@gmail.com

If I make judgements unfair on your behalf, please feel free to speak out about it during round. The goal is for me to make judgements that feel fair to both sides.

Always include me in the email chain'

Email: israel.debate.email@gmail.com

Affiliations: LAMDL - CSUN

Speaker Points:

I do not disclose speaker points. Overall your speaks will be determined on the quality of speech.

Spreading:

I am okay with spreading, clarity/speed.

Basics rundown for Policy

Every argument/off case will be flowed the same way. What I mean by that the way that you will win a flow is the consistency of your argument and the persuasion of your speech. I have no "bias" or preference of arguments or type of Affs. For the record CP's and Theory arguments are going to be evaluated the same way. I separated them for the sake of alphabetization.

Case: Traditional Affs; I am very familiar with many kinds of Affs (i.e. Hard right and soft left Affs.) You should know the content of your Aff. I have no preference on the type of Aff or content itself. If you persuade me enough to vote for you through out the round then the ballot will ultimately go to the Aff. I run "traditional affs" in LD and have been a USFG centered in high school - still need why youre net better.

CP- Remember that not all Cp's are plan-inclusive and to me at least all you have to prove is that your method solves better than the aff. Its more credible with Net-benefits and show me solvency deficit.

DA- Uniqueness... Link.... Internal Links.... Impacts. Best way and easier for me to flow as a judge. If you don't use the DA as a net-benefit for the CP then I will always think the sqou. is being advocated as well besides the CP.

Kritiks: In this flow I really need to see how your alt and how the Aff links. I'm fine with performance, narrative, etc. If the K is ultimately not ran properly as in the explanation of Links, Impacts, Alt, Alt solves, etc. I will not vote for the K.

Topicality For Traditional Affs: On this flow there should be the most clash on. I need to know why and how the aff is not topical and why it matters to me as a judge.

You decide your fate of the ballot. Tell me why I should vote your way and I feel that you did a good job on executing that then I'll sign the ballot to you.

Contact: lizzyramirez732@gmail.com

Pronouns- She/her/hers idrc though call me whatever

Maybe don't laugh during the round about the other team's evidence/perf. or try to trigger them, I will drag your speaks to hell. A dropped arg isn't a wrong arg, I will not vote you down if you carry an arg once its dropped IF it's enough to influence my ballot/vote. Keep debates organized and DONT SPREAD TAGS!!! Thanskk :)

Note: this is my first year involved in policy debate and have minimal knowledge on everything. If it helps, I majored in Feminist Studies and Politics. Please explain everything like you would to an incoming debater.

Top Level Things:

-include me on the email chain: steve.valenzuela1@lausd.net

-go at a significantly slower speed than usual

-i have more implicit bias towards K Affs in terms of the orientation towards the state. Although that's the case, that doesn't mean I admire arguments that say the state can be a progressive actor. I, however, do prioritize fairness and competition as an internal link to education, so Kaffs should have a good counter-interpretation that resolves procedural standards. Please still link all your offense back to arms sales and not just your ontology of the world writ-large when going up against neg arguments.

Argument Specifics:

-I go into the round highly skeptical of each side, i vote for the most logical arguments. Truth>Tech

Case

-nuclear war affs are hyperbolic, you'll probably lose to a security K

-soft left affs with credibility advantages are just not true and built on false premises, you'll probably lose to a K

-I prefer human rights affs

-these debate usually come down to logical arguments---claim, warrants, reasonings.

DA

-case turns are infinitely better than nuclear war impacts against soft left affs

-affs should have sufficient defense against each scenario for nuclear war

-please have an internal link explanation, I can't do the work for you

CP

-have net benefits

-perms are viable, don't know about the DA being resolved through them though, you should have defense

K

-nuclear war affs are scare tactics

-soft left affs with credibility advantages are not true

-please explain how the alternative resolves the links and how it gets implemented materially

-assume I don't know your material, explain everything like you would to someone that doesn't know debate at all

T

-t debates are boring

-unless your aff is ridiculously small, please don't run topicality

Theory

-please don't, I won't evaluate it

Paradigm: "Leah Clark-Villanueva"

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=27318

LD:

The most important thing to me is framework in LD rounds. Unless I have a foundation that allows me to vote for you, I simply cannot justify it. The most frustrating rounds to me are the ones that have two very different, very interesting V/VCs and someone just drops theirs. That doesn't mean that 1) you can't win without winning your framework, you just have to make the other person's framework fit your case or 2) that if you two have the same framework to keep arguing because you agree. There's no reason for it.

After I determine who wins framework, I weigh the KVIs off of that framework. Again, it would take a lot for me to vote for you if you don't have any KVIs in your last speech. Those are the main points you're trying to share, and they're an easy way to narrow down the debate in your favor. If I haven't determined a winner from just framework and the KVI points, then I'll go through and look at every argument throughout the debate and determine who wins each one. From there, I usually have a winner.

I was an LD debater in high school for four years, so I'm fine with a lot of the terminology. As for the philosophies you might be running, I'm aware of a lot of possibilities, but I'm only really well versed in a few, so please take time to explain exactly what you mean (especially if it's a lesser used philosopher or a lesser known theory). I did four years of policy at USC, and am now a policy coach, so don't feel like you need to slow down for me, but I do not think LD is a place for spreading. I understand being a naturally faster speaker (I lost my own fair share of rounds because I didn't realize I was speaking too fast), but you shouldn't try to win solely on outspeaking your opponent.

Otherwise, just ask me any questions before the round that you may have.

Policy:

Hey, so I'm much different than I was in the past for Policy. I competed at the college level in Policy for USC for four years, and I am now coaching my own team, and it's been a learning experience. Here are my thoughts on things generally:

Framework/Topicality - I'm a sucker for a good T debate. It has to be good, and it has to be true, because if I'm not buying that the Aff isn't topical then you aren't going to win. But I think that FW and T args have a solid and underappreciated place in policy debate, so if you can do it well then go for it.

KAffs - I will never come into a round with a pre-conceived notion of what you should do with your debate round; however, considering how I feel about Topicality, if you're hitting a good T/FW team, then it's probably going to be somewhat of an uphill battle. I will obviously be as neutral as I can be, but we're all human and we all have biases.

K - I'm much more lenient in my feelings on the K on Neg than on Aff just because of how I believe ground works in debate. One of my partners only went for the K, so I got pretty used to how those worked. If you're running some high-theory K, then you're going to have to really explain it to me. I didn't do policy in high school, so all of those highly-circulated backfiles never got to me. Otherwise, if done well, I can be convinced of most arguments.

CPs - I almost never run these, I don't think they're the most effective argument, but I won't never vote on them. To be honest, I think they make the Neg's job significantly harder, but also, like I said before, this is your debate round. If you do a lot more work, and you end up being really good at it, then obviously you get the win.

DAs - This is usually the first half to my policy strat, so I do have somewhat of a preference for it. Make sure the link story is there and make sure you explain your impacts. I want to know that you know what you're saying.

Case Negs - This is usually the second half to my policy strat, so I also do have somewhat of a preference for this. Same as above, make sure you explain exactly why something won't solve, isn't inherent, isn't significant, etc. I think Case Negs are also under-utilized and underappreciated by debaters.

I believe that's it. Honestly, if you run anything else, that means I have no idea what you're talking about, so like explain it to me.

I'm really big into impact calc too. Extra points to whoever to fully explain to me the impact scenarios of the round and who is winning and why. It makes my job easier if I can just write down your impacts and vote from there, and that usually means it's your ballot.

Yes, I do want to be on the email chain. This email is different than before: taliamariewalters@gmail.com

Otherwise, if you have any questions, feel free to ask me in person. I'm really not that intimidating, and I LOVE talking about myself, so questions are welcome!

he/him/they/them

wvontrez@gmail.com

For college debate, use this email: debatecsuf@gmail.com

CSUF 22

Coach @ Harvard Westlake

--------------------------------------

S Tier - LARP, Plan v K
A tier - Clash of Civs
B tier - K v K, Phil
C tier - Theory debates, Trix

D/F tier - memes

I did policy debate for 4 years at Downtown Magnets (shout out LAMDL) and 4 years at Cal State Fullerton. I debated mostly truthy performance debates and one-off K strats in high school and debated the K in a very technical way in college. Currently coach flex teams in LD.

I would say my debate influences are Jared Burke, Shanara Reid-Brinkley, Jonathan Meza, Anthony Joseph, Travis Cochran, Toya Green, and Scotty P.

TLDR: I will vote for anything, as long as it's impacted out. The list of preferences is based on my comfort with the argument. Fine with speech drop or email chain.

--------------------------------------

General

I think debate is a game that can have heavy implications on life and influence a lot of things

Tech > Truth, unless the Tech is violent (racism good, sexism good, etc.)

Good for all speeds, but clarity is a must

I default my prioritization to theory, T, and then substance. This can be changed if argued

--------------------------------------

Theory

Disclosure is probably good, can vote on the impact turn though

Yes competing interps, lean no RVIs, DTD

Shells need an interp, violation, standards, voter

Reasonability OK but explain why you are reasonable

Need a good abuse story/how does my ballot set norms? Why does my ballot matter? How does this implicate future debates?

I think condo is good

--------------------------------------

LARP

Absurd internal link chains should be questioned

Default util

No zero-risk

Uniqueness controls the link

Impact turns are good

Perms are tests of competition, not new advocacies

Yes judge kick

New evidence in NR as long as it's a logical extension of the NC. I'm okay with the 2AR doing this as well to check back, but it may not be strategic.

Will read evidence if told to do so

Quality ev > Card dump of bad ev

CPs need to compete on a functional and textual level

--------------------------------------

K

I have a reading background in several critical literature bases. I am most read in anti-capitalist theory, afro pessimism, fugitive black studies, settler colonialism, and Baudrillard. For the sake of the debate, assume I know nothing and explain your K.

Winning theory of power important

Perm solves the link of omission

Specific link > state bad link

Contextualized link > state bad link

Affs should weigh the aff vs. the K, negs should tell me why this isn't possible OR deal with affs impacts.

Extinction outweighs debate probably good here

--------------------------------------

K Affs

I appreciate affirmatives that are in the direction of the topic. Affs that don't defend any portion of the resolution need a heavy defense of doing so

I try not to have a leaning into T-FW debates, but I find myself often voting negative. Similar to Theory/T, I would love to hear about the affirmative's model of debate compared to the negative's. Impact turns to their model are awesome but there is a higher bar if I don't know what your model is.

Read a TVA -- Answer the TVA

Fairness is an impact. Clash is important. Education matters

KvK debates are super interesting, but I hate when they become the Oppression Olympics. Perms are encouraged. Links of omission are not. Contextualize links to the affirmative and clearly tell me how to evaluate the round.

Presumption isn't gone for enough in these debates

Lean yes on perms in KvK/method debates

Performances should be used offensively. I will flow your poems/videos/whatever, just have a defense of it and utilize it to win

--------------------------------------

Phil

I think phil AC/NCs are interesting

Explain it well and you will be fine

Default epistemic confidence if the AC is phil

--------------------------------------

Tricks

Do not hide tricks

Answer them

Preferably not extempted

--------------------------------------

Speaker Points

Pretty much summed up here

If you make a joke about Jared Burke, +.1 speaker point

December 2020:

I debated in high school for Bellarmine (2004-08) and USC (2009-12) and coached at Loyola (2011-13), but it's been a long time since I've been an active member of the debate community. Since 2014 I've been working in health care.

I've started to judge a little bit again in the past year or so, but not a ton. At one point I knew what all the debate words meant and how they related to each other, but it may take me some time now and don't assume that I will be able to easily connect those pieces. In the few debates that I've judged recently, I've found that I just tend to ignore those portions of the debate if I can't clearly connect the dots and figure out the impacts of why they matter.

Realistically you are reading this because you want to know what arguments you can read in front of me. I don't have any preferences in terms of what arguments you read (policy vs. k, performance, cp/da, theory, etc.). I've judged, coached, and have experience with them all. When I debated - ages ago - we used to go mostly for center-left Ks and policy strats on the aff & neg, but I do think that negs on the whole tend to do an awful job strategically answering most big left K affs and let these affs get away with a lot of "cheating," and I tend to vote aff a lot in in K aff v Framework debates.

Now that I've been working in the "real world" for a while, a couple of things from my recent work and judging experiences stand out to me as important in debates:

1. An argument consists of a) a claim (what I'm saying) b) a warrant (why it's true) and c) an impact (what it means). Anything less than that isn't a full argument. If you are introducing an argument, it's your responsibility to provide each of these, particularly if you want it included in the final reasoning for why you should win the debate.

As an example: 2NC answers the perm by saying "perm is severance out of the 1AC that's a voting issue because it makes them unpredictable and skews our ground." This is not a full argument - it's missing a few key pieces: 1) the warrant - what part of the 1AC is it severing? 2) the impact - why does being unpredictable/skewing neg ground matter?

This means that "tech over truth" doesn't make much sense to me. An argument is not "true" and given 100% weight by default just because the other team didn't respond to it. It must be a fully fleshed out argument with a clear impact in order to be considered. I think debate teaches a lot of this backwards - I know it's something I used to believe when I was a younger judge - but I think it's a poor way of teaching argumentation and communication.

2. Debate is a communications activity - how you're saying it matters just as much as what you're saying. It's not enough to just make an argument once in passing and assume the judge will assign proper weight to it, even if the other team does not explicitly respond to it. If something matters a lot to you, be sure to communicate that.

3. I think I am probably more accepting now of logical, common sense arguments/call outs of silly arguments. You do not need to rely on cards to make arguments. Many parts of disads (e.g. internal link chains and big nuclear war impacts) can be defeated by pointing out the holes in their causal logic. Many debate arguments (across the whole spectrum of arguments, policy/k, etc.) are silly.

Feel free to ask if you have any questions.