krutin.devesh@gmail.com

After a year of judging, I feel I am probably better at evaluating clash rounds than straight policy rounds, although I primarily judged the latter last year and enjoyed it. As a competitor, I was frequently on both sides of policy v kritik rounds and would happily judge these.

Good judge instruction feels like a lost art, but it will be rewarded handsomely. The best debaters make my job pretty simple by accurately pointing out the key issues in the round, explaining why those issues are key, and explaining why they are ahead.

I evaluate the debate after every speech.

I care far more about your grasp of the arguments you choose to read than the actual content of the arguments. Please demonstrate a high understanding of strategy, regardless of what you read. I would prefer if you stay away from exceptionally bad theory arguments.

Disclosure is good, but I'm more convinced debaters should make a good effort to allow for engagement in round that meet an arbitrary threshold of disclosure (e.g. open source v full text, etc)

Even though these were not my favorite arguments, I have voted for a state bad link, a "trigger warnings" theory argument, and Kant takes out settler colonialism.

I enjoy hearing creative/"cheaty" counterplan rounds. I am also a fan of politics rounds.Sillier impact turns (spark, CO2 ag) are more difficult to win if appropriately handled. IR-based impact turns are encouraged.

I much prefer specific K links to some portion of the aff instead of state good links packaged as having some relation to the topic.

I am least interested in judging arguments that rely on your opponent missing a barely-warranted argument or are attacks towards your opponent's character or background. Debate is about argumentative flexibility, not individual people. Please clash and weigh.

Please do not be mean or say something offensive. I can tank speaks for the former and drop you for the latter.

plano west '22, ut '26

did pf for three years at plano west, qualified to nats + silver toc junior year. did wsd senior year

for email chains: priyanka.gupta@utexas.edu and planowestdocs@googlegroups.com (both)

for ut tournament: i have zero topic knowledge so please make sure you explain things specific to the topic or you are risking me not understanding your argument. i will not vote on something that doesn't make sense to me.

debate is supposed to be a safe space for everyone!! don't say anything racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/etc., pls read content warnings for sensitive arguments, respect ppl's pronouns, etc. if there is anything i can do to accommodate u, pls email me.

general

standard flow judge

here's how i view the round:1) weighing tells me what impacts matter/to vote off of. 2) offense: basically whoever has offense that links into the weighing that won. this means you can win weighing and lose the round if you lose the turn/contention that linked in to the weighing. this also means you can lose weighing and win rounds through turns or link ins

tech > truth, but my threshold for responses goes down the more untrue an argument is. ex: if u say the sky is purple, someone telling me the sky is not actually purple is probably enough.

warrant!!!!!!! i won't vote off anything that doesn't have a warrant extended throughout every speech in the round.

actually implicate your responses or else they don't rly matter. this means telling me why defense is terminal, weighing turns, etc.

second rebuttal, at the minimum, should frontline any turns on case

if you choose to dump responses, PLEASE make sure everything has a warrant and don't go ridiculously fast unless you're reading cut cards

collapse in summary/ff

other

not too much experience with theory and none with k's -- only read theory if you feel like you really have to and i will do my best to evaluate it but be aware that i am not that familiar with it

ask questions before round

Hi! I'm a sophomore at Harvard who primarily competed in extemp throughout high school. I also competed a bit in congress and oratory.

Extemp: I would consider myself primarily a content judge, so pay attention to everything the question asks and make sure to have a super clear substructure throughout your speech so it's easier for me to flow. I will notice if you are straying away from the question's intent or not doing justice to the nuance of a situation. Because I care a lot about rigorous arguments and substructure, I'm honestly okay if you go into grace (even 7:30. Just don't go over that). Though I pay attention to content, confidence, fluency, interesting delivery, and funny jokes certainly don't hurt! Please be memorable.

Congress: Grab my attention and be confident–it's a long round and it's easy for me to forget what's happened. That said, don't do anything unreasonable, and keep everything concise and within reason. Please be good human beings. Have a clear structure and make sure it's immediately apparent how your argument directly applies to the legislation (I likely won't have read over the legislation super closely, explain it to me). Don't rehash, please refute but make sure your refutations are substantial and interesting. Canned rhetoric is a no-go, it adds nothing to your speech and only wastes valuable time you could be using to develop your argument. I value substantive, nuanced, well-researched arguments and meaningful clash over theatrics/poorly-linked jokes. However, if your joke or rhetoric is well-linked, customized, and interesting, it will get bonus points. POs have to be exceptional to be ranked well in the round, and I will down you if there are significant issues or inefficiencies.

Also, please don't worry too much about congressional procedures or minute details about motions and orders.

PF: Consider me a lay judge. Absolutely no theory, K, etc. Be respectful and talk at a manageable pace.

For all events: racism/sexism/homophobia/any form of discrimination is an instant down.

Good luck!

Please use content warnings for content related to SA or self-harm.

Hi! I'm Neel (they/them). I debated at Plano East (TX), starting out in circuit PF and debating circuit LD during my senior year. I now attend Michigan (I don't debate for the school) and would say that I'm somewhat removed from debate.

Yes, put me on the chain - gimmeurcards@gmail.com

Be mindful of how rusty I may be - go slower, explain topic jargon, and all that jazz - it'll be tremendously helpful for how confident I am in my decision and your speaks.

Tech > truth, but a combination is ideal. Don't be rude, because I can also decide that not being mean > tech.

I primarily find/found myself in debates that center around policy or kritikal positions both as a debater and a judge. I'm not very confident in my ability to adjudicate very fast and blippy theory/T, phil, or tricks debates. I'd say I'm a 1 for policy, a 1/2 for the kritik (aff or neg), a 3 for theory/T, and a 4/strike for phil or tricks.

For policy -

Impact turns are fine, but I refuse to listen to death good.

Evidence quality is your best friend in front of me.

I'm probably more open to letting CP theory debates unfold than other judges.

Read more than 1 argument on case please.

For the kritik -

I have a soft spot for cool K-affs, but I'm neutral on framework and all of the iterations you can go for.

Your overviews should have a purpose - apply stuff you say to the LBL and contextualize the things you are saying.

I've been in more debates about identity and the "stock" kritiks than pomo stuff - do with that what you will.

Cool case args are my jam (even presumption is cool).

For T/theory -

CIs, no RVIs, DTA for theory. DTD for T.

Huge fan of disclosure but I feel uncomfortable evaluating other violations sourced outside of round.

I'm very mid for frivolous shells.

Be organized and clear please.

For tricks and phil -

Not a great idea - I probably would barely be able to follow along a Philosophy 101 course.

If you want to read these, SLOW DOWN and number stuff.

Evil demons don't force me to vote aff and I only evaluate debates after the 2AR.

I honestly am just uninterested in 95% of this literature base - sorry.

For PF -

Good for all the progressive stuff and PF speed. I will hold you to a higher standard than most progressive PF judges.

Sticky defense is silly. Extend your arguments.

Turns case arguments are the truth. Probability weighing is fake.

Underutilized arguments and strategies are fun - if you can win the presumption debate or the impact turn, go for it.

1. Warrant arguments (explain them well)

2. Weigh

3. Don't spread

when they say you need to judge

hi! i debated for plano west. i use they/them pronouns. add me to the email chain: rhl53@georgetown.edu

tl;dr

• my priority #1 is a safe debate space. read trigger/content warnings with proper opt-outs when applicable, respect people’s pronouns, and generally don't act exclusionary/___ist or you will be given an L and 20s

• watching people debate off speech docs makes me sad.

• extend the entire argument (uniqueness through impact) and collapse please. otherwise, your speaks will be a bit concerning

• warrants > evidence; i won't call for cards unless you tell me to, or if a lack of warrant comparison requires me to

the rest

• email chain ≥ google doc >>> zoom/nsda campus chat. pf evidence ethics...

• "new warrants are new arguments and will be treated as such" —aj yi

• unanswered defense is sticky in first summary; the only frontlining i require in second rebuttal is turns/offense

• i like progressive arguments, as long as they are run in a way that's accessible to everyone in the round. if you read tricks or friv when your opponents didn't agree to a tricks/friv round, you are cringe and my threshold for what counts as a good response will be very very low

• i don't mind speed, but if i have to flow off a speech doc, you're going too fast. (if i have to clear you more than 2-3 times, i'm deducting speaks) that being said, send your speech docs anyway

• random specific icks: dumping/doc botting and then either looking confused mid-speech when reading through some of the responses on your doc or using completely irrelevant responses, calling for a gajillion cards and then not making them relevant in any speech, probability weighing, impact weighing the same impact scenario read on both sides, being called judge (just call me renee)

• i don't have a presumption preference. if the round goes off the rails, tell me why i presume for you or else i may or may not flip a coin

• click here to boost your speaks; click here and here for instant serotonin

feel free to ask questions! i’m fine with postrounding

if you ever need someone to talk to or have anything else you want to ask, my facebook messenger and instagram (@reneelix) dms are always open

glhf!

4 years of pf @ oakton || karinliu2011@gmail.com for email chains

lmk if you have questions about my paradigm! ◡̈

general

- resolve clash/compare warrants (!!!!!), collapse, extend, & weigh

- alright with speed, send a doc if going fast (but i still might not catch everything)

- second reb should frontline, if not i'll be very hesitant to buy new frontlines in 2nd sum

presumption

- unless given warrants otherwise, i'll presume the team that lost flip

- if it's side locked i'll presume the squo

prog

- i understand theory a lot more than k's, no friv theory or tricks

^ i have v basic understanding of prog so i might vote wrong, make sure it is rly warranted

speaks

- L20 if you run problematic arguments or run prog/spread on newer debaters

^ aka don't ask anything starting w/ "but wait"

email for email chains: satvik.mahendra@gmail.com

i presume first unless you tell me otherwise

i will not intervene on arguments not having a warrant unless you call it out. however, just saying "there is no warrant between ___ and ___" will be sufficient for me to not vote on an argument without a warrant. but please warrant your args to make my life easier

make weighing comparative pls

i will not vote for risk of solvency arguments on policy change topics. it is not sufficient to just say that "the status quo is failing and we have the only risk of solvency". this is lazy debate. make actual warranted arguments that are compelling for me to vote for.

I will vote off the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

I will evaluate anything you say as long as it isn't exclusionary or problematic in any way and is properly warranted.

Arguments with warrants and evidence > arguments with warrants but no evidence > arguments with no warrant but evidence > arguments with no warrant or evidence

No new arguments are allowed from second summary and onwards except for weighing. However, all weighing must be done during second summary and first final focus at the latest. Second final focus is too late. Also, it is best to start weighing as early as possible.

Second rebuttal should frontline everything from first rebuttal, including defense, on all arguments you plan on going for.

Extensions

At the very minimum, you should summarize your argument in a few sentences and make sure you extend your impact. You do not need to extend author names.

If you have any more questions about extensions, pleeeeease ask me before round. Don't just not extend because you do not know how to. I'll be more than happy to help!

Be strategic, nice, and persuasive and you will get good speaker points.

If you have any questions, please please please ask me before the round starts so that everyone involved has a great experience!

namdhari@umich.edu

Update for TOC 2024:

I haven't debated in a minute but here's my background: Did PF for 1.5 years, switched to LD my senior year and qualified to the TOC. Since college, I haven't actively competed / judged PF occasionally, my overall preferences / views on debate haven't changed significantly but I'd place a significantly higher emphasis on deep research and evidence quality. Additionally, my tolerance for tricks / friv theory / clash evasive strategies is generally a lot lower than it used to be -- that being said I'm probably still more receptive to this than most PF judges and won't hack against it, just might not be as good at judging these rounds and will over-reward high-level strategic round vision in these debates.

With that in mind the below paradigm is largely up to date, and happy to answer any questions in round or prior via email.

Things that might need to have more emphasis given how long it's been since I debated (especially for PF):

1] Clarity -- please signpost clearly and slow down a little on taglines, I don't flow off the doc and won't go back unless you've marked cards.

2] Overviews / Round Vision -- Tell me what you're going to do before you do it, even if this is just 3 seconds of "High risk of a DA outweighs a mitigated case" at the top of the 2NR, it helps me know what's happening strategically, don't feel the need to overdo this compared to other rounds but if you don't do this already, try to do it (I promise other judges will also thank you with speaks boosts!)

3] Packaging / Simplicity -- In and out of debate I've realized that regardless of how complex arguments are going in, the hallmark of competence is being able to explain it simply. I used to be more on the side of thinking I'm stupid in these debates when the 2nr/2ar is unclear and going back through cards, rereading taglines and overviews to try and get an understanding of what was said. Today, I'll err more on the side of punishing you for long jargon-filled overviews, extension blocks that aren't tailored to the round and not being able to explain/contextualize your arguments in a simple way

4] I don't know the topic lol

5] I don't know if evidence ethics / file sharing standards in PF have gotten better over the years but I have absolutely zero tolerance -- send out docs (don't waste time/steal prep asking for cards) and don't miscut/paraphrase.

Paradigm:

I don't think you should worry about reading this too closely, I'll evaluate any argument however you tell me to in round and I will try to be as tab as possible butI do have biases which while I can try to keep them out of debate, some will implicitly be present and I feel like it would be better for me to make you aware of them rather than pretend they don't exist.

TL/DR: These are just my preferences as to what I believe is good for debate I won't default one way or another unless there is absolutely no pushback from either side.

Regardless, a ranking of how familiar I am with things:

Policy/K/T - 1

T-FW/K Affs - 1

Theory - 2

Phil - 2

Dense Phil/ Pomo read as an NC - 3/4

Tricks - 4/5

K vs K debates -- 4/5 (I like them but I'm a coinflip heavily weighted towards the perm)

K Affs vs FW

- Been on both sides and these are my favorite debates to judge however I probably do lean slightly neg.

- CI's are good to resolve some offense and provide uqs for an impact turn but it's not necessary.

- 2N's need to do a better job winning the terminal impact to FW, don't overinvest into reading long blocks that explain why the aff is unfair/decks clash because let's be honest, they aren't gonna contest that most of the time, focus on implicating why that is important both in the context of debate and in the context of the affirmative.

- Framework 2nr's I've thought were excellent often use the same verbiage as the aff instead of using long o/v blocks.

- TVA/SSD to resolve some offense is good, even if it doesn't

- 7 minute 2nr's entirely on the case page often get confusing for me when they lack good judge instruction -- try and be clear as to what you are doing on teh case page before you get into the lbl

K

- good for larp v k

- bad for k v k (biased towards the perm + often get confused a lot); if I do end up unfortunately judging one of these, judge instruction is paramount. I will evaluate these debates generally knowing that theories of power are largely compatible. So, my ballot will be a reflection of differences between the aff and the alternative and the impact to those differences. If the difference between the two indicates the alt is worse than the aff, I vote aff. If the difference between the two indicates the alt is better than the aff, I vote neg.

- lbl > long o/v's

- Framework CI = you don't need an alt unless the aff says you do and winning links is sufficient if you've won framework

- Alts that result in the aff are fine absent a 1ar warrant why they aren't (being shady in cx is kinda annoying tho)

- Only understand cap, Moten/Harney, Warren (never read this in round), and a little bit of Baudrillard -- explanation is good.

- All the interactions that people consider "k tricks" should be implicated in the 1nc or else 2ar answers are justified (saying lines in the card make the claim most often doesn't really count)

LARP

- Like this a lot

- UQS prolly controls link direction

- all cp theory can be dtd granted a warrant

- hate reading cards and I will stay away from it as much as possible but end up having to read ev in most rounds.

- defense is underrated and can def be terminal if implicated as such (i.e: bill alr passed prolly is terminal)

- solves case explanation can be new in the 2nr as long as it was in 1nc evidence

- perm shields the link/cp links to nb -- explain these args to me! I'm not v smart/takes me time esp since I don't know the topic lit most likely

Phil

- Haven't read anything besides util/Kant and a little prag -- think it's hella interesting doe if that counts for anything

- Weighing is important, spend more time explaining your syllogism and why that excludes theirs.

- TJF's prolly o/w and are the move if I'm in the back

- weird complex ev mandates not-weird not-complex explanation

Theory

- Like this

- Weigh between standards

- low threshold to vote on rvis -- still need to justify them and w/e

- reasonability should be explained and is v strategic at times -- I will not vote on an RVI if you are going for reasonability obviously

Tricks

- will vote on these as long they are implicated fully in the speech they are read

- I can't flow for my life so like try and slow down a Lil bit

Evidence Ethics

- did pf for 2 years, cut cards weren't a thing, people paraphrased, the average card was shorter than T definitions, and evidence was sent via url's + ctrl F -- I really don't care at all about ev ethics until it's mentioned but i'm p sure my standards for ev ethics are very stringent so if you do call it out/stake the round on it in PF you will probably win 90% of the time

- if staking the round, that should happen the moment the violation is called out. -- don't read a shell and debate it out until the 2ar and then decide you wanna stake the round instead

(i.e: Miscut 1AC ev means you should stake the round immediately after you see it BUT at the very latest after 1nc cross)

Misc:

- I'm cool with post rounding -- not cool w/aggressive or toxic post rounding

- Clear judge instruction is really helpful

- Hate it when people steal prep

- hate unclear signposting

- Record your speeches in case audio cuts out

- time yourself and stop at the timer. (pls)

Lmao pls read smth fun and non substantive

Fr ill buy anything, but it has to be warranted and weighed well. 2nd rebuttal has to frontline turns but term defense can be responded to in summ. Defense is sticky but new implications need to be made in summary for it to be considered in final. Weighing is vital. Extend card by card esp in summary and extend all warrants and impacts on turns.

u gotta explain shit well

Dont go too fast, im tech but im not that great with spreading :)

I dont have presumption preference pls give me reasons for presuming one side or the other in round

funnier/more entertaining the round = more speaks

on theory:

all parts of the shell need to be extended

i LOVE debate

hey guys! did 3 yrs of pf in hs in the dallas circuit, so i'm sorta familiar with how things go

email chain: svummadising@gmail.com

i'm decent with speed but please speak clearly and try not to spread

read theory at your own risk. i'm really not the best with theory/k's so i can't promise anything

makes sure to extend and weigh in summary and final focus

generally i'll evaluate anything as long as its warranted well and extended throughout the round

i give pretty good speaks so just don't be rude/interrupt in CX

feel free to ask questions!

I competed in speech and debate throughout high school.

Keep in mind that your goal in a speech should be persuasiveness. An insightful and cohesive argument alongside engaging delivery is key. Speed is fine as long as I can understand you.

For Congress:

• Be aware of arguments that have already been extensively developed to avoid rehash.
• I expect to hear refutation after the first cycle.
• Don't bring up new arguments towards the end unless it is truly groundbreaking and completely shifts the direction of the debate.
• Don't be afraid to give an early constructive for fear of "losing relevance", I will remember a good speech.
• Weighing and impacting are important.
• Being able to adapt to the round is essential. I don't want to listen to a one-sided debate.

glhf

I competed in speech and debate throughout high school.

Keep in mind that your goal in a speech should be persuasiveness. An insightful and cohesive argument alongside engaging delivery is key. Speed is fine as long as I can understand you.

For Congress:

• Be aware of arguments that have already been extensively developed to avoid rehash.
• I expect to hear refutation after the first cycle.
• Don't bring up new arguments towards the end unless it is truly groundbreaking and completely shifts the direction of the debate.
• Don't be afraid to give an early constructive for fear of "losing relevance", I will remember a good speech.
• Weighing and impacting are important.
• Being able to adapt to the round is essential. I don't want to listen to a one-sided debate.

glhf

debated for 4 years for jasper + plano west

email case + rebuttal docs before speech to bradyzeng2005@gmail.com

for my paradigm, read Satvik Mahendra's; his view on debate = mine

include me in email chains: annie.zhu.898@gmail.com

Congress:

-Speak fluently and with confidence

-Quantity of speeches is important but I care more about the quality of your speeches

-Include refutation if you're after the first three/four speeches

-Don't give me boring AGDs please (no statistics, be creative. jokes are always great if you deliver them well.)

-It's okay if your delivery lacks a bit as long as your content makes sense

-I've debated all of these pieces of legislation before I know the topic matter well

PF:

-Speed is fine but I need to understand what you're saying

-I'm big picture so don't target every little detail, rather the broader case and why your side wins

-Don't try any theories, just stick with the topic and provide strong arguments

-As long as you're not rude towards your competitors/teammate or say something that is offensive, you will get at least 27 speaks