Hi! I'm Yeji (she/her). I have done Lincoln Douglas, Parliamentary, and Public Forum debate all throughout high school. I love clash but please be respectful towards your fellow debater. I am not good with circuit/non trad arguments so if you are going to run them PLEASE explain VERY thoroughly and slowly. I flow cross and I will give feedback on them. Do not run any homophobic, racist, or sexist arguments and do not mansplain or be a demeaning debater.

General things I am looking for:

speed/tone: I am fine with you speaking fast but be clear. I like debaters who are very articulate and know how to project their voice. If you REALLY have to spread just email me your case please. I'll also dock you points if you're being a meanie.

args: Please try not to drop any args that have huge impacts. Make sure YOUR args have substance and impacts. PLEASE give me impact calc and rlly show me why I should care and the implications of your arguments. If you signpost and be really organized I will give you higher speaks just bc it makes my life easier LOL. If you and your opponent have different frameworks, argue and give me reasons why your framework is cooler.

time: make sure to time yourselves just in case! I will be timing though, but I don't trust myself 100% sorry...

Just in general, debate is meant to be educational and about persuading/talking to the judge about which world is better. I will be voting on whoever can prove to me that in the end, their world is superior for whatever reasoning/logic that I buy, will get the W.

Hello! I primarily do LD but am familiar with other forms of debate.

You can call me Cookie or Judge, whatever you feel more comfortable with.

Here's a list of my preferences on stuff.

TL;DR: I'm tech > truth. You can read whatever you want as long as you argue it well.

Aff

- make sure to have solvency

- im fine with K affs

Theory

I LOVE THEORY. I believe that theory is absolutely critical to debate. If you think that your opponent is doing something abusive, please don't hesitate to run theory. If you wanna run friv theory, im fine with that too. I will vote on any theory args as long as they make sense/your opponent doesn't defend against them properly.

Ks

I'm not that familiar with a lot of the literature, but I do enjoy a good round with a K. That being said, please be clear on links and ROB, for my sake and yours. Although, I hate limiting the options of debaters, if you read some hyper specific and you have any dependence on my knowledge of the lit, don't count on me

General

Be respectful to your opponent. That being said, I love an oppressive and aggressive CX. Just have some boundaries.

Racism, homophobia, etc. are all absolutely not tolerated

Have fun

*i am not versed in any of the topic literature*

hi :) my name is eunice (she/her) and i'm a sophomore in college, i debated PF for a year and LD for 4 years for cypress high school and honor academy!

please start and add me to the email chain -> eunicekim@college.harvard.edu

i'm a flow judge and i competed in southern california (jack howe, claremont, OCSL, la costa, NSDA nats, etc.)

i haven't debated or watched a debate in 2 years, i was a trad debater in hs, i'm not really good with progressive arguments like theory, kritiks, etc. with that being said, that doesn't mean don't run these args just THOROUGHLY explain them

general:

1. signpost; PLEASE SIGNPOST, off-time roadmaps are always appreciated.
2. impact calculus; if there are clashing fws you must argue which fw i should be judging with and impact out your args.
3. speed; don't spread, speaking fast but clearly is fine.
4. quality over quantity: collapse your args, dont just throw crap on the wall to see what sticks.
5. please time yourselves

if you have any questions, feel free to email me!

I prefer strong logical links over hard evidence or rhetoric.

Hi, my name is Cameron Mattingly (he/him) and I am a junior and a Parli captain at Cypress High School. This is my third year of Parli. I have judged both Parli and LD before. If you are disrespectful and/or say racist, homophobic, or otherwise harmful and derogatory things you will automatically lose. I know the rules of Parli, so don't try to cheese new evidence or last round POI's past me. I am ok with writing post its to your partner, but please do not whisper to them. Do not be abusive, because you will lose speaker points. Do not argue with me. I will grade strictly on content and loosely on physical speaking (stuttering, mispronunciation, etc.). I don't have a good poker face, so a look of confusion means I am confused. Debate is supposed to be fun, so have fun! Email me at cameronmattingly04@gmail.com if you have any questions!

I competed in PF for 6 years, so here are a few things I look out for:

1. Signpost Signpost Signpost (I judge based on my flow, but if you mess up my flow, it will be harder for me to vote for you).
2. Frontline! I expect the second rebuttal to frontline.
3. If you read a sensitive constructive argument with no trigger warning, I will drop you with 0 speaks. The best way to run a trigger warning is by creating an anonymous google form with a general summary of your case. If anyone claims that they are uncomfortable with the topic, you should be switching it out with a more neutral argument.
4. Engage with your opponents! I understand you have a block file with top-level responses, but make sure you're actually engaging with the nuances of your opponents arguments.
5. Weigh and metaweigh!!
6. Summary needs to collapse, extend, frontline, and weigh.
7. No new arguments after first summary, unless it's weighing.
8. Please be civil and kind - debate is a fun activity. If you make me laugh I'll boost your speaks (seriously).
9. I don't need evidence until it is contested in round but if you do need to send it to me send it to anthara@ucla.edu

Oh and please don’t shake my hand :(

Debate formats that I am most acquainted with: WSD, PF

I am a pretty standard flow judge, here are some of my personal preferences:

1. The fact that I am flowing does not mean that dropped arguments will automatically constitute a win for the team whose argument was not responded to. You need to articulate why your opponent dropping that particular argument wins you the round at some point in the debate, and a simple "our opponents did not respond to this argument" is not enough.

2. Do not just throw around vague concepts like "rights" or "economic detriment", I won't consider impacts that is not specific.

3. I won't do any of the work for you (I am lazy). I will not do any of the impact calculus for you unless both sides offer zero analysis. This applies to evidence as well, even if I know from outside knowledge that a specific point is factually wrong, if you do not tell me that it is wrong, I will have to judge the round as though that point is correct.