Tabroom.com

BRIDGE Series NYU Global Debate Invitational

2020 — NSDA Campus, CA

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Brian Almonte Hire 8 rounds None

Helen Barold Potomac Debate Academy

Natalle Cawston Hire 8 rounds

Morgan Copeland Hire

Last changed on Sun February 12, 2023 at 9:12 AM EDT

About me:

Email: mcopeland2017@gmail.com

Background: Currently, a coach for Liberty University, where I also debated for 4 years, NDT and CEDA octofinalist, and 2021 CEDA Top Speaker. Started by doing traditional policy args, moved to Kritical things, and ended as a performance debater with most of my arguments starting with black women and moving outward such as Cap, AB, Set Col, and so on). started debate in college as a novice and worked my way to Varsity so I do have a pretty good understanding of each division. Also, I'm a black woman if that wasn't obvious or you didn't know lol

I’m here for the petty and I stay for the petty I will vote on the petty but there is a difference between petty and mean I won't vote on mean it makes me very uncomfortable

Judging wise (general things)

How I view debate: Debate is first and foremost a game, but it’s full of real people and real consequences so we should keep that in mind as we play even though it’s a game that definitely has real-life implications for a lot of us.

Facial Expressions: I often make facial expressions during the debate and yes they are about the debate so I would pay attention to it my face will often let you know when I vibing and when I’m confused

Speaker points: --- totally subjective I try and start at 28.7 and then go up and down based on a person’s performance in a debate ---- in the debate, it becomes a trend to ask for higher speaks which is fine but if your gonna do that you best not suck or I will automatically give you a 28.3, also I feel like you need a justification for asking for those speaks outside of a speaker award --- I try to be nice and fair here

Speed: Don’t risk clarity over speed I’m not straining my ear to make sense of mus

Dont go far when the debate is over I tend to know my decision when the debate ends

If you are gonna email questions later pls let me know so I can keep my flows I often throw them away I wanna be to help but its hard for me to answer your questions after the fact if I don't have my flows

K's:

Debated a lot of K's, read a lot of K’s as a debater I don’t know every K in existence but with a thorough explanation and well execution, I will probably be fine.

I have a larger threshold for the K because I expect you to explain the linked story and the alternative with warrants so don't assume that just because I know the theory means you don't have to put in the work for the ballot. Links should be contextualized to the aff - please don't restate your tags and author but pull lines from 1ac/2ac. I would also warn against just running a K because you think I'm only a K debater (it’s obvious and annoys me just do what you do best)

I like performative links, not personal attacks. With performative links, just make sure to give a warranted analysis as to why I should vote on it and what the impact is.

K aff's:

Love them is one of my favorite parts of the debate I enjoy the creativity of these!! I do prefer K aff's to be in the direction of the topic or make some attempt to include a discussion of the resolution, but if you are not, then at least give me a warranted explanation as to why you have chosen that route. Those that are on the topic of the resolution, have a clear impact and solvency story. Many times, debaters will get so caught up in the negative arguments that they lose sight of what is important...their aff! So, make sure to keep a storyline going throughout the entirety of the debate.

When you get into FWK/T debates, extend and explain your counter-interpretation. What is your model and why is it good? That plus impact turns = an easy ballot from me.

I think a lot of K teams assume reading your aff is good in debate is gonna do something very big on K aff’s having a reason on why their aff in the debate is good.

FWK/T:

It's a strategy that is read against K aff's, it's a strategy tbh I enjoy and am more sympathetic to than most would think. My personal outlook - debate is a game but it has real impacts that can help or harm certain individuals. While it is a competitive strategy, I do not think it is an excuse to not engage the affirmative because most of the time, your lack of engagement is what the aff will use to link turn the performance of reading fwk.

PSA - fairness is not an impact... at best, it’s an internal link. Unless the aff has no justification for their aff, then you got a good chance of getting my ballot by reading fairness. I find it most compelling when you prove in round abuse.

I think a TVA is a must. No, it does not need to solve the entirety of the aff because that is neg ground, but it should be able to solve the main impacts they go for. Lastly, defend your model of debate and explain why it would be better for the debate community writ large. If you are only focusing on one round, then explain why that is better.

Das/ CPs:

Lmao these are things that exist in debate too…

Das I would say make sure you have a clear and warranted link story and awesome impact calc.

And CP’s I’m open to all CPs kinda think of CPs in the context of having a net benefit and how does the CP solve the aff? It's also nice if your CP is competitive...

Theory:

I think theory is procedural make sure you explain very clearly and slowly what the violation is and why that matters...if you are going to go for theory, I expect the 2n or 2a to spend a good amount of time on it which means not just 30 sec or 1 min.

Policy Affs v K:

Engage the K!Too many times policy teams just write over the K with their fwk thinking that is the only work they have to do but it's just like debating a DA or CP. Do the link work and the more specific answers you have to the alt, the better position you are in. Don't just say Perm DB or Perm aff then alt, but really explain what that means and looks like in the world of the aff. I think you do need fwk to get to weigh your aff but that is all the fwk will get you which means don't forget to extend your aff and the impact story. A really good way to engage the K is to prove how the plan not only outweighs but resolves the specific impacts.

How to get better speaker points with me

Be nice, be funny, be personable

Organized docs and speeches

Mention Scandal/Olivia Pope whom I love in your speech I will bump your speaks like .4

Ohhh and for the black folks ask for speaker points and ye shall receive lol I might not be able to always give you the ballot, but I can give you a 30

A 2NR/2AR with judge instruction is literally the freakin best thing ever

Deon Davidson Hire 8 rounds

Ibrahim Diallo Hire 8 rounds None

Wesley Dyer Hire 8 rounds None

Queen Eche Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 31, 2022 at 2:15 PM EDT

Alief Kerr '20 | Dartmouth '24

queen.ngozi.m.eche.24@dartmouth.edu

yo haven't debated/judged in a minute, go slow(er/ish) and articulate why you want the ballot <3 thanks

orientation as a judge --

i'm probably a better judge to sit in k rounds. with that being said, any type of k (afropessimism, afrofuturism, black feminism/womynism, baudrillard/black baudrillard, bataille, capitalism, foucault, queer theory, fem ir) i'm probably familiar with but don't assume that i know as much as you/this means you can do a terrible job explaining the argument.

I can judge for any type of format of k debate but i did plan and da+cp debates for my freshman and sophomore year of highschool, so i can judge those rounds.

argument evaluation --

do you bruh. I truly think everything is up for debate. I'm the kind of judge that if an argument is made that the other team either drops or you explain the argument well enough with empirics to back it up, I would vote on it. With that being said, I also need some sort of evaluating mechanism to how I should evaluate an argument. In other words, if you have won an argument tell me why this matters in terms of the ballot.

Obviously this gets tricky in very close debates (or for example: debates where one team is clearly winning framework but the other teams tells me that either [1] framework doesn't matter or [2] the flow doesn't matter) but one obviously just needs to win impact calculus (why framework or framework doesn't matter/the flow doesn't matter outweighs -- I don't think you can just win framework is good. I think you need to win framework is good + better than the flow doesn't matter)

In debates where this doesn't happen -- it becomes a problem because then I have to take it all at face value and will probably err to who has more ink/empirics on an argument. So obviously, to win my ballot just PLEASE give me some sort of explaination on why you winning x argument is important and how that either shapes the ballot or just wins the ballot.

If that isn't enough I agree with Ignacio Evan's, Taylor Brough's, and Claudia Ribera's paradigm.

dec 14, 2019 ---

p.s clash solves the race war and I love katy taylor ap, coppell dr, coppell ak, coppell rr, mcdonogh wz, north star ot, brooklyn tech aw (just solenne LMFAO) and oak hall kz.

Maverick Edwards BL Debate

Last changed on Mon May 8, 2023 at 11:56 AM EDT

Blue Valley Southwest: 2015-2018

Liberty University: 2018-2020

Email for the chain: maverickedwards1@gmail.com

Top Level:

1. Ignore my facial expressions.

2. Much better for policy than the K.

3. This paradigm reflects my random thoughts about debate. Generally, you should keep the debate simple. Complex strategies, big words, and flexing your topic knowledge will probably hurt you because, chances are, I am not well researched on the topic or your advocacy.

4. Tech > Truth, but I do not have the sharpest flow. Do not blaze through concessions/arguments that you think are game-winning. Do frame the debate at the beginning of the 2NR/2AR: writing my ballot early will help me flow the important stuff.

K on the Neg

1. The AFF gets to weigh the 1AC.

2. I do not understand high theory.

3. Links should be to the plan.

4. I often find myself voting NEG because AFF teams are bad at answering the K.

5. The perm double-bind is 100% true for structural Ks (e.g., capitalism with a movements alternative). I have heard no convincing argument otherwise.

K on the AFF

1. Defend a material change from the status quo.

2. 'Debates about debate' probably lack ballot solvency when the forum is two teams (one of which has to negate) and one judge. Outrounds may be different because there are observers; however, I tend to think most observers watch to improve their flowing, scout for their school, or support their friends. My overwhelming bias is that AFFs must 'solve' their impacts. Rejecting fiat does not free you from solvency. I am sympathetic to the uniqueness argument that debate is deeply flawed and unfair in a structural-sense; making that observation alone is not enough to win the round. I am also not convinced that debate rounds are an effective forum for creating genuine change.

3. Counter-interps are your friend. You are in a great spot if I believe your interpretation is predictable and good for clash.

4. Impact turns to procedural fairness, predictability, and clash are not persuasive.

K v K

1. Nope.

2. Empirical examples are good. I will place a lot of weight on evidence that compares your theory of power/explanation of the world with the opponents' theory of power/explanation of the world.

Framework

1. Procedural fairness is my favorite impact.

2. TVAs do not have to solve the whole AFF, but TVAs that solve none or few of the AFF's impacts are unpersuasive.

1. Many AFF teams are bad at defending untopical plans.

2. Reasonability should frame the AFF's interp. Something like "Even if the NEG's topic is better, ours is [predictable, sufficiently limited, debatable etc.]. Voting NEG [justifies a race-to-the-bottom for bad interps, discourages topic research, etc.]."

3. Limits and contextual ground standards are great .

4. TVAs are underutilized.

5. Slow down on caselists. Assume I do not know what AFFs look like on the topic.

1. CPs should be textually and functionally competitive. I lean AFF on Perm do the CP.

2. CP amendments are okay against new AFFs and add-ons. Not a big fan otherwise.

3. 'Perm do both' can be explained in the 1AR, but not the 2AR. NEG teams should ask how the perm functions in 2AC cross-ex.

1. A++.

2. Turns-case args should be couched in the internal links and links of the DA when possible.

3. Good 1NRs line up their speech with the 2AC (impact o/v is the exception).

4. 1NR should card dump if you have the goods.

Theory

1. Go a bit slower.

2. Conditionality is good, but strong impact comparison + technical proficiency can prove otherwise. Condo bad has become relatively popular; I do not love this trend. 2AR on substance > 2AR on theory. This should not deter you from going for Condo if that's the best 2AR or the NEG has really messed up.

3. Perf-Con theory < conceding assumptions made by one contradictory position to take out the other.

4. Everything should be a reason to reject the team. Why artificially limit the impact of your argument?

Things I've noticed about myself as a judge

1. I highly value scenario/impact explanation. This is especially true for rebuttals.

2. Reading is difficult. If you think the debate should be won/lost on card quality or a key piece of evidence, make that known.

3. Impact turn debates are my favorite rounds to judge.

4. I am prone to confusion.

5. Long deliberation, quick rfd kinda judge.

Hot Takes

1. Good for spark/dedev/co2 good.

2. I will flow/evaluate both policy and critical arguments. "Policy debate bad" or "The K does not belong in debate" are unpersuasive arguments.

3. I will evaluate arguments about an individual's or team's bad acts outside of the debate as a reason that individual or team should lose. However, I have a high threshold for two issues. First, the "link" evidence should leave no doubt that the act(s) happened. Assertion alone will not establish a "link." Evidence beyond 95% certainty will establish a "link." Second, there must be a reason to reject the team. Why should I punish a team for an act or acts happening outside of the round? Safety, detoxifying the activity, and deterrence are possible, but not exclusive, avenues.

Public Forum

TOC UPDATE:

1. I took a step back from judging PF this year but continued to judge policy. I do not foresee any issues with keeping up; however, clarity and signposting > mumbled garbage.

2. My knowledge of PF norms is limited. I do not know how 'acceptable' or common theory and critical arguments are in this activity. Thus, I will default to my policy biases. In short: I will evaluate both, but I lean towards substantive debate, policymaking, and consequentialism.

General Thoughts:

1. Arguments in the final focus must exist in the summary.

2. I care about line-by-line. Meta framing is not a substitute for clash.

3. Signposting will get you very far very quickly.

4. Some teams do not read evidence in rebuttal - that seems bad, but nobody tells me why.

5. One team has expressed that FF and Summary speeches do not need to extend arguments or do line-by-line. I vehemently disagree.

6. Teams that email evidence/speech docs get a .5 speaker point boost. Set up the email chain before the debate.

7. PF evidence is usually awful. Use that to your advantage.

8. Only read paraphrasing theory if your opponent has misrepresented or overstated the author's claims. If you provide that evidence, I will stop the round and treat the situation as an ethics violation. The opposing party will be allowed to respond one time and the moving party will not be allowed a rebuttal (i.e., give me all of your evidence upfront). It does not matter who paraphrased and cut the evidence (you are responsible for what you choose to read).

9. Trigger warning theory is important, but overly used in PF. I once judged a debate in which Team A gave a trigger warning 5 minutes before the debate and asked if anyone would like Team A to change the contention. After no reply, the debate began. Team B gets up and reads the following interpretation: Teams must give a trigger warning and provide an anonymous means to communicate concerns related to the case. Pushing the goal post by such a small margin was unpersuasive because Team A had already given a warning (which may be enough in light of the important topics the case might cover) and was willing to change the entire strategy to make the space safer for folks with past trauma.

House Keeping

1. Be polite and don't be offensive. You will lose for discriminatory language or policy.

2. I think death/suffering good arguments are unpersuasive. Arguments about inevitable death/suffering are unimportant.

3. Mark cards during the speech.

Drew Fenner Hire 8 rounds

Justin Fernandez Hire 8 rounds

Daniel Gibson Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 27, 2021 at 5:15 AM EDT

Debated for Liberty University in Policy Debate for a year and a half

Email - danieljgibson05@gmail.com - I don't need docs unless you're spreading/going fast. If you aren't sure if you'll be too fast, send me the docs.

1. Speed - I'm down for fast speaking - however fast you go I'll probably be fine for - but if you start spreading full speed and the other team doesn't you'll probably get voted down. Talking fast is fine, but this is not policy debate - focus more on persuasion and quality args.

2. Tech > Truth - If one team consistently says something throughout the debate and the other doesn't respond, I'm gonna vote like it's true. There's a brightline there where the more ridiculous the argument, the more skeptical I am of it and the more work you'll have to do. Examples of this are arguments like spark (nuclear war good), where if both sides are debating it well, I'm more likely to default to nuke war bad. De-dev has a lower threshold and I'm pretty willing to vote on it, as well as other turns (especially prolif good, I'vs gone for that several times). If you are good at going for it, read the argument. I will vote on it. If you are not good at it, it's a bad idea to read it in front of me.

3. Warrants - Your goal at the end of the debate should be for me to do as little intervention as possible and be able to point to the specific reason why I thought something was true that was actually in the debate rather than do work for one side or another. Make your claim (if X policy continues that will be bad because it'll hurt the economy) then give me some warrants (X scholar talks about how Y policy that's similar did the same thing, Z factors are similar between the two policies and surrounding context, and here is some additional logic and experts that agree) and I'll be a happy judge. Logical arguments are pretty good, sources are best, but good logic can beat sources and vice versa. I won't vote on dropped claims - claims absent warrants are not arguments, just opinions.

4. Weigh - Compare arguments at a top-level outside of the frame of who is winning what argument, then tell me how I should evaluate things if you win a couple of key arguments, as well as what happens if you don't win them. You can lose most of the debate and win on impact weighing.

5. Judge instruction - tell me how things interact. Weighing/Impact calc is a form of that, but tell me what the effects of you winning an argument are. Sure, you're winning China will steal any technology the US makes, but why do I care? What argument of theirs does it implicate, why, and if that's true what does that mean for the debate? This is one of the more advanced levels of debate, but mastering it will make you go far because you leverage your arguments a lot better. You'll be mad if I tell you at the end of the debate you were winning part of the debate that should have implicated another part but I didn't give it to you. Do the work for me.

6. Have fun! - At the end of the day I love debate. If you love it and show it, I'll be more interested in your arguments and be a better judge for you. Additionally, the more you enjoy debate, the more you'll learn and engage. Also, don't be a dick.

7. Ask Questions! - I love to talk about my opinions, you probably love to learn, it's a perfect match! Ask me what I thought about an argument, what I think you could/should do to get better. If you don't know what to ask that's fine! Tell me that, or say something like "can you just tell me your thoughts about X?" The more specific your questions, the better I know how to answer them and the more you'll get from the debate. If you need to ask several questions before you can finally articulate the one you want, go for it!

Notes:

- I'm decent for K's you just have to warrant them. Throwing around buzz words neither I nor the other team understands won't get you anything.

- I'll default neg on presumption if there's no offense unless there are sufficient args otherwise.

- If an argument the other team is running is abusive, go for theory. I'm more likely to reject the arg rather than the team, but give me good reasons and I'll listen if I think you're right.

- In-Depth debate is better than spread out debate. The team that collapses arguments down to a core faster is almost always the team that wins.

- Because I'm a policy debater I don't know all the procedurals of debate, so if something is done in the debate that should affect my decision (striking args off my flow because an arg was new in the summary etc) you'll have to do a little work for me.

- Do what you're best at. Paradigms matter less the better you are (though definitely don't ever ignore them).

Alyssa Glomb Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 12, 2022 at 7:37 AM EDT

Debated at JMU for three years (novice, JV, some varsity tournaments). I’ve judged college policy debate and all styles of high school debate. I'm currently a graduate student studying International Affairs.

Etiquette – I will time the round, but please time yourself if you can. I've noticed a trend of competitors signaling their opponents when they run over time - as a judge, I will stop flowing and/or let a debater if they are over time. Be respectful and kind to other people in the round/room and focus on your own debating!

Ideas about debate:

1. I’ll watch and flow whatever debate happens. I consider myself fairly open-minded in terms of debate, and don’t care what I judge. I'm not actively coaching, so I may not be fully familiar with all of the acronyms for a new topic area (especially in high school LD/PF), explain key terms!

2. Good evidence analysis/argument comparison allows for good debate to happen. Create an interesting, in-depth debate by using the arguments and evidence already in the debate before reading more cards!

3. Run the arguments that you are comfortable with. I won’t walk into a round with my mind set to vote against anything. If you explain how you relate to/interact with the topic, or how you want me to view the round, we should all be happy!

Specific Arguments:

1. Theory/FW – Run what you are comfortable with, but make sure that all of your arguments are well-warranted and impacted in the round. Proven abuse wins over blippy analytics. The bar is a little higher to win an argument like ASPEC with a well written plan text, but create any neg strat you like.

2. Kritiks – I ran Ks, but that doesn’t mean I’m familiar with every single philosopher’s base of work. Flesh out the details if they’re important.

3. DA/CP – Great strat to go for, make sure your story is complete with full links, internal links, and impacts.

If you still have any questions, feel free to ask! Have fun!

Alexandra Green BL Debate 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 30, 2020 at 6:55 PM EDT

Yes, please, to the email chain: greenalexandra7@gmail.com
Former Varsity Debater at Liberty University - 2N

~ DO YOU - seriously. If you have to adjust your style to debate in front of me, that implicates a very real and very large problem within the debate community. I was taught by a pretty large squad with a variety of debate backgrounds and I will genuinely attempt to vote off the flow.

~ Tech over truth but framing influences tech. You can win line by line and absolutely take the L on a poorly handled framing argument that a good 2N/2A cross-applies in their final speech. K teams, the best tech is truth - there's nothing harder to beat than a K team with a plethora of examples.

~ Organization and explanation are key. Warrants, warrants, warrants. Keep the flows neat and it's easier for me to vote. Don't go for too many links.

~ Evidence matters -particularly between two policy teams. But a strong, unanswered, warranted analysis can, like I said, flip the ballot. At the end of the debate, if the embedded clash is strong, I'll err on the side of whoever reads the best (most recent and most detailed) piece of evidence for that argument.

~ Speed-Reading is Fine - final speeches should be a combination of both big picture at the top/bottom and line by line

~ Extensions - Shallow extensions like "Extend my case from the last speech" are not extensions. If you want me to evaluate it, explain it. If it goes conceded, do a light explanation of why it takes out/comes before the NEG's arguments. All arguments need to be claim + warrant + impact. That includes extensions.

~ Ballot Trends - After judging for a bit, I noticed that in close clash rounds I err affirmative *regardless of whether the affirmative is a critical-style affirmative or a policy-style affirmative.* Fair warning—don't make it close; neg, handle your framing.

Policy:

- Things I love: a good counterplan, a strong case debate, a clear DA, small and technical 1ACs, impact turns.

- On the aff, I always read small, technical affirmatives so I'm perfectly fine with your questionably-topical 1AC. Just be ready to defend it.

- If you read more than 3 conditional advocacies, it's probably easier to persuade me you're doing something abusive than in other rounds. I'm pretty neutral in terms of how I view theory - if you do something "abusive" but can defend it on the line by line than you do you (especially with PICS).

- 2AR framing should explain to me why my ballot starts with the AFF's impacts then go from there.

Versus K Teams

- If you're going for the perm, go for the perm. (You should also almost always go for the perm)

- "Util outweighs" is not an argument. Give me warrants and contextualization. You can't just win your aff you also have to beat the K. Best place to start is the Alternative debate.

- I ran and will vote on Framework but I am not emotionally attached to framework as an argument. If you don't explain to me why framework is a pre-req to the knowledge production of the round you will lose. If you don't engage the affirmative, you will lose. Framework is best won when coupled with an intense case debate - do your research.

K:

On the AFF:

- go for the impact turns versus framework. "We meet" might be a fair, even true, argument but 9/10 times the impact turn is harder to beat and more persuasive.

- fairness makes the most sense to me as an internal link to education. That being said, you should explain how every facet of the debate space ties back to how and what we learn - this is the strength of the K.

- Great K teams beat policy teams on the framing and drop that framing down into the tech in the rebuttals. Framing is how I interpret the flow - you should do that line by line reinterpretation for me through the lens of the K.

- Against a K, go for exclusion arguments against the alternative as a justification for the permutation. Perm you do you, we do us.

On the neg:

- Most K teams I have debated/judged aren't the best at convincing me not to weigh the aff. I don't even think you have to win "don't weigh the aff" so much as "this is how you weigh the aff." That's the framing debate and should be prioritized.

- Ontology arguments are most persuasive to me when coupled with an abundance of historical examples. Truth is the best tech.

- The more particular the links, the better. The specifics of how the aff makes x link worse should be fleshed-out thoroughly in the block.

- Treat the perm like a counterplan - explain what solvency deficits it has, what the impacts to those solvency deficits are, and try to garner external offense to the permutation.

- I'm an English major who spends most of my time reading, writing, and researching critical theory. That being said, I find myself genuinely irritated when debaters attempt to mash together authors who would fundamentally disagree on how the world and violence operates. If you know the backgrounds of theorists and theories well enough, you can absolutely hash that out on the perm debate as a reason why the AFF doesn't capture the alternative.

CX: it's binding and I'll flow it/pay aggressive attention to it. CX is my favorite speech - take advantage of it and save time.

Speaks:

1. I will absolutely raise your speaks if you make me laugh. Sidenote: I love bad puns.

2. Lower your speaks with: card clipping, stealing prep, being racist, sexist, ableist, or overtly offensive in rhetoric or actions, making CX a shouting match.

Javier Hernandez Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 4, 2021 at 1:26 PM PDT

2016-2018 Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League

2018- present CSU Fullerton

email chain- javierh319@gmail.com

Frame the ballot by the 2AR/2NR and don't leave me shooting darts please.

Overviews really help me/you out unless they're longer than the debate proper-be concise.

Prep- Prep ends when doc is sent out or the equivalent of that. Let me know if there are any technical difficulties.

Spreading- speed is fine-go at it if thats ur thing. this shouldn't be exchanged for clarity/emphasis, and ultimately, persuasion. My face tends to be pretty expressive so use that to ur advantage.

Cross Ex- Humor is much appreciated so long as it doesn't offend ur opponent. Attack the argument not the debater.

I generally err on the side of tech over truth. However, too many buzzwords are kinda annoying and don't mean anything if you dont impact/flesh them out. I won't evaluate concessions for you unless you do it first.

Policy Affs- Spent most of hs reading these- read them at will. Internal link work and framing is crucial.

Performance/K Affs- Have a clear explanation of what the advocacy does and why it should precede a traditional endorsement of the resolution (vs framework). Presumption arguments are some of my favorite arguments. Being untopical for the sake of being untopical is sooooo not the move. Even if i think that ur aff is the most interesting/entertaining thing in the world, I can resolve that with speaker points. Offense. Offense. Offense.

Framework- Go for it. Slow down just a tad. Procedural fairness and education are impacts, I'm usually more persuaded by education but fairness is fine too.While I'm usually more persuaded by fairness as an internal link to something else, enough impact comparison can resolve that if ur not down with the former.

Theory/Procedurals- Go for it. I'm not one to love hearing theory debates but will vote on it if you do the work. These can get really petty. Usually not in a good way. Condo is probably good PICs probably aren't. Don't let that dissuade you from saying otherwise because I also love hearing pics and multiple advocacies. I'm a 2N if that is relevant for you.

DAs- Make sure to flesh out the internal links. Winning uniqueness wins direction of link debate. I prefer hearing isolated impact scenario(s) rather than a generic nuclear war/extinction claim although u can totally claim that as ur terminal one. The more specific the link the less spinning the aff can do, the less intervention I have to do, the higher ur chances of winning are. I find it hard to believe that there can ever be 100% risk probability but if the CP solves 100% of the aff you're in a much better spot.

CPs-Resolve questions like how does this solve the case and is this theoretically legitimate if it becomes about that. If you wanna be noncompetitive, you do you but be ready to justify that.

Ks- Tbh I would much rather judge a robust debate about the intricacies/consequences of a traditionally political action vs a less-than fleshed out k debate. Links to the status quo and not the aff are awkward. Generally speaking, im probably down for ur thing. Regardless of me being familiar with ur authors or not-do the work. Framing is super important. Does the alt solve the aff? let me know. You don't need to go for the alt to win

Random/Misc

-a claim with no warrant is a pen with no ink

-know where u are losing but make it fashion

-dont be a jerk

Jalisa Jackson Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon October 3, 2022 at 2:23 PM CDT

2022-23 update: you can easily out tech me if you're going a mile a minute speaking. Adjust or you'll lose trying to out tech the other team. The gamesmanship is cool but persuasion and actual communication with the judge you want to vote for you is in fact necessary. Being technically right isn't gonna sway a ballot for me.

2019-2020 update: I want debate to go back to being persuasive... I think that top level speed reading is not persuasive. One of the points of the "game" of debate is to be persuasive... to persuade the judge to vote for you. I am not persuaded by a swarm of gnats sound. I'm not saying you can't talk fast or even speed read - but if there's no inflection in your voice - if you drone on and on and on - if you haven't tried to persuade me but just talked at me - you will not get good speaks from me. You may win the debate because you are strategically ahead and better - but your speaks will suffer. I'm not saying conversational pace - I talk fast in general - I argue fast - I don't sound like a gnat.

I am a Black woman who is also disabled. I debated 4 years for KState mostly running different forms of Black feminism. I enjoy listening to the ways people interpret debates and deploy their arguments strategically. If you're not bored I won't be either.

*******If you are not Black (white and non black poc) do not read anti-blackness/Afrofuturism/pessimism/optimism arguments in front of me (aff/neg) if the other team calls you out at ALL you will lose the debate.... same for other PoC arguments that the authors say are for PoC. If it is not your position you don't get to use other peoples bodies to get a ballot. ***note to PoC your existence is not negated because you have a white partner - I won't vote on "the white person spoke/is here"

DA/CP: I will vote for them. I have a high threshold for internal links. You have to be able to explain how the aff gets to the DA impact. I'm unwilling to give you the benefit of doubt, prove it.

Kritiks: I’ll vote for it. In order for you to get the ballot, the K, like any other argument has to be well explained for me to vote for it. I also believe that in any good K debate their needs to be an obvious link to the case and the alternative of the K must be well explained. The biggest thing I was complimented on from judges was the "big picture" debate. Tell me the story of your K you will not get away with big holes in explanation.

Theory: I’ll vote for it. HOWEVER, I don’t like theory debates that are just blocks or are just spew downs. I like the line by line debate on theory and for the debaters to slow down. I WILL vote on dropped theory arguments- so you better answer them (even if the perm is a test you still need to answer severance). The biggest critique I got from judges was I miss the little details. I am an auditory learner I will be listening but if you speed through theory there is a good chance I won't catch it. Be Clear!

Topicality: I believe that topicality is about competing interpretations. However, I can be persuaded that topicality is not a voting issue and that normative reasons to vote do outweigh. But in order to win these issues there has to be considerable time spent on these arguments not just blips. I do not necessarily believe all affirmatives have to have a plan text, however, I do believe that you should be able to defend the lack thereof. Again, it is not what you do or do not say, it is what you justify. Affirmatives, if you don’t have a plan or don’t defend the consequences you should have reasons why you shouldn’t have to defend those issues.

1) Slow down. My ears are not calibrated to the rapid delivery of policy debaters.

2) Read less cards. I will not read cards at the end of the round unless "what it says" is questioned (as in your calling them a liar). I prefer to watch and evaluate based off of what you have clearly articulated in the debate. Debate is about more than empty words, gestures, and actions. It is not only what you say/do. It is also what you justify. That matters more to me than a bunch of random cards you read to fill time.

3) Don’t rely on being tricky or attempting to “out-tech” the other team. In doing so, you will likely out-tech me and your tricks will go unnoticed. I take notes, on every speech but I don’t flow in the conventional manner of lining up argument-for-argument in columns. There is obviously a minimum of technical skills one needs to compete in debate. If a team does not address an entire position or an important nuance emphasized by their opponents then it is unlikely that they will win.

If you make a Steven Universe reference I will bump .2 speaks

Yes I want to be on the email chain jjackson558@gmail.com

Sung In Jeon Hire 8 rounds

Sung Jun Jeon Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 13, 2023 at 10:05 AM EDT

I debated PF for Centerville High School in Ohio for four years and coached the middle school team for two years. I am a junior at Vanderbilt University.

I competed at a few national circuit tournaments, but most of my debating was done on the local circuit. Because of this, I am not too familiar with theory and Ks. I am open to hearing these arguments, but I won't be the best at evaluating these types of arguments.

Add me to the email chain at sung.jun.jeon@vanderbilt.edu. If you spread, send a speech doc.

In terms of the round, here are a few things that I want to see:

1) You don't have to read direct quotes. I am fine with paraphrasing. However, if I find that you are misconstruing your evidence to make your claim, then I won't vote for that specific argument. Your speaks probably will go down as well if your opponents call you out for misconstruing evidence.

2) If you are speaking second, make sure to frontline any offense. I think it is strategic to frontline everything but at the minimum frontline turns.

3) I won't flow cross-fire, but if something major happens, make sure to address it in the next speech.

4) When extending cards and offense in the latter half of the round, make sure that you explain the warranting behind it.

5) If evidence is called, make sure to produce it in a timely manner. Also, I will call for evidence if you tell me to call for evidence.

6) Don't just dump responses. Explain what your evidence indicates and how this piece of evidence is significant in responding to your opponent's case.

7) I like to see you start weighing in rebuttal. I think it is strategic to set up the weighing earlier in the round and then carry that through summary and final focus.

How I vote:

If you want me to vote on a certain argument, it should be in both summary and final focus. Your argument should be explained in a clear manner and your impacts should be extended. Weighing your argument and impacts against your opponent's argument and impacts will make your path to the ballot easier. I will try not to intervene, but please weigh arguments comparatively to make my job easier as a judge. If not, I will have to decide which arguments are more important.

If there is no offense generated from each side (highly unlikely), then I will default to the first speaking team. If you say things that are sexist, racist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, or are extremely rude in any way, I will drop you and give you low speaks. The debate should be civil and debaters should be respectful.

Please do not postround me. I do encourage you to ask questions about the round and why I voted the way I did. I am always looking for feedback to improve my judging.

If you have any additional questions, let me know.

Sidney Johnson Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 11, 2021 at 5:07 AM EDT

Put me on the Email Chain--- Johnson.sidney01@gmail.com I am a current Policy Debater at Liberty University.

Top level Stuff

-Tech over truth

-Anything else is debatable

Policy debates

CP’s

Love them
The action of the CP and how you solve each IL of the aff must be clearly explained in the 2NC and on if you want me to vote on it
On many process CP’s, Perm-Do CP is rather convincing and is probably a good strategy for you to win the debate
I err to process/agent/consult cp’s being unfair for the aff, unless you can win the theory debate behind those things.

DA’s

DA’s versus case debates are probably my favorite debates to watch/judge.
Clearly articulate the link and what the impact is
Always do impact calc in the 2NR/2AR if you want me to vote the DA o/w solvency of the aff
Big fan of wack DA’s so run them, but explain them

Theory

Besides conditionality, theory is a reason to reject the argument and not the team. Anything else is an unwinnable position for me. Three conditional options is probably good for negative flexibility, anymore more is probably pushing it a little. Granted, conditionality theory is all debatable.

K's

Not familiar with most K bases beyond the stereotypical ones of Cap, Security, militarism, exc, so explain the parts of the K if u want me to vote for you.
Contextualize your links to that specific debate and explain in detail why that they are true
Spend less time reading cards and more analysis on why your argument is true
Long overviews are complicated/hard to follow, instead you should focus more on the line by line.
Explain why the Alt solves
Have Warrants for you argument and don’t just make claims

In Round Stuff

Debate should be fun - don't be jerks or rhetorically violent.
I will vote you down if you do something super offensive
Speaker Points will reflect if I believe you were overly aggressive, rude, or just a jerk in the round
Again, HAVE FUN

In order for me to vote for you Mpxs in a round make sure you extend the link, IL and Mpx in the final focus. Please collapse down to one contention that you go for in the final focus( I promise this will get you better speaks).I believe the second to last final focus is inherently more difficult. So I will give higher speaks when executed well. Also Please Please Please tell me how to write my ballot backed up by warrants. Also I love Impact turns and if you run them well, I will give you great speaks.

Willie Johnson Hire 8 rounds

I feel the need to fix this huge communication issue in the debate community it will start with my judging philosophy. If you are a debater who say any of the following "Obama is president solves for racism" or "we are moving towards less racism cause of Obama or LBS" and the opposing team reading a racism arg/advantage or colorblindness I will instantly vote you down with 25 points for the debater who said it.

Jumping: Novice please don't but if you must which you all will you have 20 seconds after you call for prep to be stop till I consider it stealing prep and instead of restarting prep I will just measure it by the ticker timer in my head (which you do not want). I suggest that you carry a debate jump drive, viewing computer or the cloud system. For Open debaters I get even more angry with the lack of competence you guys have with being responsible when it comes to jumping files and card. I have a soft warmness for debaters who are mostly paper and may involve me smiling like a boy with a crush don't be alarmed it is just me remembering my old days.

Speaking: I believe that clarity comes before all other ideals of what we often fantasize a good speaker to be, a debater has to be clear so that I spend more time analyzing and processing what is said then trying to comprehend what the hell is being said. This helps in the rebuttals when there is more cross applying of arguments instead of me sitting there trying to ponder what argument reference is being made. Speed is something I can adjust to not my general forte yet if you are clear I can primarily make easier adjustments (look I sound like a damn metronome). I tend to give hints towards the wrongs and rights in the round so I won’t be put off if you stare at me every now and then. Debates should be a game of wit and word that upholds morals of dignity and respect do not be rude and or abrasive please respect me, the other team, your partner and of course yourself

The Flow: My hand writing is atrocious just incredibly horrible for others at least I generally flow tags, authors and major warrants in the world of traditional debate. Outside of that with all the other formats poetry, performance, rap, theatricals and so forth I just try to grasp the majority of the speech incorporating the main idea

The K: yeah I so love the K being from a UDL background and having running the K for a majority of my debate career, yet don't let that be the reason you run the K I believe that a great K debate consist of a in-depth link explanation as well as control of the clash. There should be Impact calculus that does more then tell me what the impact is but a justification for how it functionally shapes the round which draws me to have a complete understanding of the Alt versus the plan and there must be some idea of a solvency mechanism so that the k is just simply not a linear disad forcing me to rethink or reform in the status quo (K= reshape the Squo)

The T debate: First I find it extremely hard to remember in my entire debate career where I cast a ballot for topicality alone yet it is possible to get a T ballot you must have a clear abuse story I will not evaluate T if there is not a clear abuse story. Voters are my best friend and will become a prior if well explained and impacted, yet I do believe education and fairness have extreme value just want to know why.

The D/A: Well I actually find myself voting more on the Disad then the K I just think that the disad debate offers more tools for the neg then the K yet it is the debater who optimize these tools that gain my ballot, link debates should contain at least a specific link as well as a an established Brink generic links are not good enough to win a D/A ballot and any good aff team will destroy a a generic link unless there is some support through a link wall. Impact debates must be more than just nuke war kills all you have to place comparative value to the status quo now and after plan passage. Yet a disad is an easier win with the advantages of solvency deficits and the option of competitive counter plans.

The Counter Plan: Competition is key if there is no proof that the end result is not uniquely different from the aff plan it is less likely to capture my ballot. So C/P solvency and competition is where my voter lies on the C/P flow this involves establishing and controlling the clash on the net benefit. PIC's usually rely on proving that the theoretical value of competition is worth my jurisdiction.

Theory: cross apply T only thing with a theory debate that is different is you must be able to show in where the violation actually happens yet I find theory to be easy outs to traditional clash.

Framework: this is where my jurisdiction truly falls and it is the teams’ job to not only introduce the functioning framework but to uphold and defend that their framework is worth singing my ballot towards. I have no set idea of a framework coming into the round your job is to sell me to one and by any means my job is not to look at what framework sounds good but which is presented in a manner that avoids judges intervention (really just the team that prevents me from doing the bulk of the work if any).

In general: I love a good old debate round with tons of clash and where there is an understanding and display of your own intellect I find it hard to judge a round where there is just a display of how well a team can read and make reference to evidence, usually I hope that ends or is done less coming out of the 1AR. I'm a man who finds pleasure in the arts and execution of organic intellect and can better give my decision and opinion based mainly on how one relates back to competitive debate, if debate for you is a card game then it forces me to have to make decision based off my comprehension of the evidence and trust me that is never a good thing, yet a round where the discussion is what guides my ballot I can vote on who upholds the best discursive actions.

Sarah Chaehyun Kim Hire 8 rounds

Yoseph Latif The Golden State Academy None

Isaac Liu Hire

Last changed on Mon January 16, 2023 at 4:59 PM EDT

Top-level

Yes, on email chain: isaacliu.ludebate [at] gmail.com. Also, please briefly off-time roadmap. I have not judged on the policy topic this year (both policy and Lincoln-Douglas), so I am a blank slate on that front.

Debated 2 years of policy for Liberty University and did LD and PF in high school. I am fine with spreading if clarity is not sacrificed but will default to tournament norms (and there is a chance I will miss arguments if your case is unorganized). Tell me how to vote; I will vote for anything if articulated well, provided it does not cause in-round violence (i.e. arguing for racism, homophobia, sexism, etc.).

I expect you to time yourself and your opponent—I try keep time as well but sometimes forget to start the timer. If you go overtime and I don't catch it and your opponents don't catch it, good for you. If someone points it out, I will dock speaks.

Kritiks

I am down with them. I lack familiarity with high-theory post-modernism arguments. I have some familiarity with criticism of anti-blackness and settler colonialism and am quite familiar with kritiks of capitalism and security. Regarding PF and LD, I will default to tournament norms regarding non-traditional affirmatives. For policy, I am 100% down with them, but also find framework persuasive (fairness can be an impact).

Theory

More favorable for the affirmative regarding negative counterplans; more favorable for the negative regarding affirmative plans. I tend to find arguments to reject arguments rather than the team more persuasive.

Event-specific things (Skip if policy debate)

Please, please, please don't take too long asking for evidence. If you share evidence in a speech doc like policy does, I will give 0.5 higher speaks (unless the tournament expects everyone to share evidence).

Public forum – full disclosure: my voting record has been favorable to whoever gives the last speech. That doesn't mean always pick second speaker; that means collapse the debate in the final focus and be aware of what your opponents might go for in their final focus. As I believe the second-to-last final focus is inherently more difficult, I will give higher speaks when it is executed well.

TLDR;

Votes off the flow and how you tell me to vote. Kritiks on the neg or aff* are cool. Don't run abusive affs or neg strats. Spread your heart out*.

*will default to tournament norms for LD and PF

Brandon Lu Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 7, 2022 at 3:35 PM EDT

Short:

Debated 4 years PF in HS. 3 years of policy in college. Coached PF for 4 years.

Ridge 2014-2018

NYU 2018-2021 BS in Chemistry

Currently MD/PhD student at Michigan

Contact info: Facebook (my name) or email (brandonluxiii@gmail.com). Please add me to the email chain if it exists.

Tech over truth. Policy and K both good. I can flow around 250 wpm without a doc. Favorite kind of debate is clash of civs.

If you don't extend I will vote neg on presumption unless it's LD where I'll vote aff on presumption. It makes me sad to have to say that I've voted on presumption in about 10% of rounds I've judged, although this number seems to be going down.

My name isn't judge, you can say my name if you want my attention.

If it takes you longer than 5 minutes to find a card, it doesn't exist. Very excessive card calling that makes me want to fall asleep: -0.2 speaks per card.

Please time yourselves.

Ask me if you have any questions about my RFD. Sometimes, I'm not the most thorough on the ballot or during my RFD because I'm lazy and forgetful. Postrounding is tolerated, but don't be annoying.

Please contact me if you feel unsafe during round.

Long:

PF Paradigm

I can handle speed but please keep things under 350 words per minute. Slow down on tags and author names and try not to paraphrase evidence if you're actually going to spread. If you go faster, you need to give me a speech doc or I will probably miss anything blippy which is not good. I will shout "clear" if I don't understand what you are saying. If you don't slow down, I won't be able to flow your arguments and you will likely lose.

Going heavy for the line by line is fine, but you must signpost or I will literally have an empty flow and won't know what to do. A good example of not signposting is the 2018 NSDA PF final. With that being said, the final focus should spend at least 30 seconds on the narrative/big picture. 2 minutes of line by line is a bit hard for me to judge and find things to vote off of if done poorly. The reverse is also true- the line by line is very important and should appear in every single speech. Losing the line by line probably makes it harder for me to vote for you. When going for the line by line, you must explain the implications for winning each part of the line by line. This comes from impacting your responses/evidence/analytics. I've seen some teams that aren't extending full arguments in summary and just frontlining responses. Extensions in all speeches need to extend a full argument or I will feel really bad voting on it.

Summary should not be the first time I see responses to case arguments and summary should respond to rebuttal arguments.

I used to say I wanted to see a theory debate about whether 2nd rebuttal should frontline, but no one is willing to do it. If someone does it well, I will give both teams 30 speaks. Meanwhile, I currently default to 2nd rebuttal should frontline everything (yes, defense too. Don't be lazy).

Since summaries are longer now, I think defense should be extended in summary. Any defense you want me to vote off should be in final focus even if they never touch it. I'll significantly dock points if I have to vote on arguments where both sides dropped defense. Turns you want me to vote on must be in summary. NOTHING IS STICKY.

In order for me to vote on arguments, I need to understand them so you need to explain them to me instead of blipping something and complaining that I screwed you by not voting off it. If I don't understand an argument until the middle of my rfd, it's probably on you. If something is important enough for me to vote off, you should spend more than 10 seconds on it in summary and final focus (exceptions are obvious game over moments).

How to win my ballot:

Win a link and impact that can outweigh your opponents' impacts. Weighing is important to keep me from thinking that everything is a wash and vote off presumption. I used to think weighing was really important, but most debates I've judged have not been weighing debates. If you can recognize this and drop weighing, I'll prob reward you with extra speaks. It's very rare that I actually vote off weighing because the most important part of the round is usually the link level.

I will vote off any argument that is properly warranted and impacted. I am truth before tech in terms of evidence and arguments that cause offense to people, but I will evaluate tech first everywhere else. Other arguments I will be truth over tech about will be stated at the top of my paradigm every topic (those are arguments I hate with a passion and will likely never vote off of).

I will only vote off defense if you give me a reason to and I will presume a side if you give me a reason to (normally I presume neg). I will also adapt my paradigm if arguments are made in the round about it (I can and will be lay if you want).

I evaluate framework first, then impacts on the framework, then links to the impacts, then other impacts, then defense. Strength of link is a very important weighing mechanism for me. Teams should use this to differentiate their arguments from their opponents'. If there are no impacts left I will default to the status quo. I highly enjoy voting this way, so if you don't want to lose because of this, you need to not drop terminal defense or your case. I will reward high speaks for a strategy that takes advantage of that if it works.

I will be forced to intervene if the debaters don't give me a way to evaluate the round as stated above. In egregious circumstances, I will flip a coin. I reserve the right to vote off eye contact.

Things I like:

Debating the line by line well.

Good warranting on nonstock arguments. I enjoy hearing unique arguments.

Clash. Opposing arguments need to be responded to.

Good extensions (please don't drop warrants or impacts during extensions. Voting off a nonextended warrant or impact is intervention).

Smart strategies that save time and allow you to win easily will make me award high speaks (laziness is rewarded if you can pull it off, like a 5-second summary if you are clearly winning). Debaters who already won by summary can do nothing for the rest of the round.

A good K that is explained well in the span of a PF round will make me very happy (high speaks 29+). If you read a K with a good link, impact, and alt, I will vote off of it.

Things I dislike: You will be able to tell if I'm annoyed by my expressions and gestures. These probably won't lose you the round but will make me dock speaks.

Case to final focus extensions- I will refuse to evaluate them whatsoever and I will dock speaks.

Excessively long roadmaps- Your order should just be the flows. At most the arguments. Weighing is not a flow

Frivolous theory- I will evaluate it but it's annoying and not nice. The more frivolous your theory is, the less speaks I will give and the lower threshold I give for responses.

Being obnoxious and mean in crossfire.

Double drop theory (Tab won't let me drop both debaters).

Obvious and excessive trolling. Trolling too hard will get you dropped with very low speaks and an angry ballot. Tacit trolling, though, will make a round fun.

Saying game over when it's not or on the wrong part of the flow. You need to be correct when you say it or at least be on the correct part of the flow. Being correct when you say game over will be awarded with higher speaks.

Things I hate:

New arguments in final focus (especially 2nd). If you aren't winning overwhelmingly I will drop you immediately with 26 speaks.

Making up or severely miscutting evidence. I have a habit of calling sketchy cards after round or looking up a sketchy fact.

How I award speaks:

30- One of the best debaters in the tournament, if you don't break you probably got screwed over.

29-29.9- You are a good debater. You go for the correct strategies and make me want to pick you up. I think you will almost definitely break.

28-28.9- You are above average. You do something to make me want to vote for you but you could do better.

27-27.9- You are below average. I think you can still break but probably won't go too far.

26-26.9- You did something to annoy me such as ignore my paradigm.

Below 26- You did something offensive or broke a rule (this includes racism, ableism, and sexism)

30 speaks theory: if you're reading this instead of a K to get 30 speaks in front of me, it won't work. I would much rather see a K of debate if you're trying to be an activist in round.

Miscellaneous things:

Please read dates and author qualifications. I will evaluate date theory. Quals are useful to know.

I will evaluate official evidence challenges. People really should do this more.

Theory- Frivolous theory is boring and annoying but I'll evaluate it. I default to reasonability. This is to prevent extremely frivolous theory. On T, I default to competing interpretations. When making topicality arguments, debaters need standards or net benefits for their interpretation. T and theory should be in shell format because it makes arguing and evaluating it much easier for everyone. Theory and T also need implications. I default to drop the arg for theory and drop the team for T.

If you disclose to your opponents and me before the round, I'll boost your speaks by 0.5. If you're going to send speech docs to me and your opponents, I'll also boost your speaks by another 0.5.

You can request my flow after the round. By doing so, you are releasing me of any liability regarding what's written on it.

If you convince me to change my paradigm after judging you, I will give you 30 speaks.

I won't be annoyed if you postround me, but I will probably complain about it to other people if you say something funny.

If you can make a reference to song I like, I'll boost your speaks. If you make a reference to a song I don't like, I'll dock speaks.

Write down things you did to boost speaks and remind me right when the round ends. If I forget, you can remind me the next time I judge you and I'll give you the extra speaks I owe.

Check out some of my debate experience on https://www.facebook.com/leekedludes/?fref=ts

TL:DR- do whatever you want. I'm tabula rasa enough that if you make the argument for it, I'll evaluate anything, including not at all. You can override my entire paradigm with enough justification. Ask me about what's not on here.

LD Paradigm

Please put me on the email chain. Best with Larp, then K. Bad with tricks/phil.

I'm not familiar with most philosophy. Phil rounds scare me and will make me vote in a way that will make debaters unhappy.

K: I like Ks. I need to know what the alt actually does and if that is explained well, I will easily vote off the K.

K affs: I like these, they make debate interesting.

Tricks: I'll still vote off tricks but I'm pretty bad at evaluating these debates.

Performance: As long as I know what the aff does, I'll be fine. If I don't know what the aff does or says by the end of the 1AC, I'll be a little annoyed.

Theory: I have no problems with frivolous theory. Please slow down for analytics. I can't type as fast as you speak.

I assign speaks the same way as listed on my PF paradigm.

Policy Paradigm

I'm good with any kind of argumentation. I've read policy and k affs and have read a mix of stuff on Neg. Please slow down on tags, interps, and plan texts.

Tech over truth but I like reading evidence so if the evidence is really bad, I might dock speaks. Rehighlightings are fun.

I really like good case debates. A lot of 1ACs do not have very good link stories and can easily be taken out by smart analytics. Cases with tricky advantages that don't have these problems will work well in front of me. If you win with 8 mins of case in the 1NC, I'll give 30 speaks.

DAs: I'm willing to vote on any DA scenario that has uniqueness, link, and impact. Unique case specific DAs will go very well in front of me. I do believe in zero risk and I'm more receptive to defense than most judges (applies to case defense too).

CPs: I'm pretty much ok with any kind of CP. I will evaluate and may vote on CP theory, but I usually lean neg- existence of literature is probably important. CPs must be competitive. I default to judge kicking if it makes my decision easier.

Ks: You must explain your K in a way that I will understand. Don't just keep reading cards in the block- explain the K and how it interacts with the Aff and what the alt does and how it solves. If I understand the way it works, I'm more than willing to vote off it. If you're reading 1 off K, it's probably a good idea to have a decent amount of responses on case that are both critical and policy. I'm the least familiar with high theory so I need more explanations than usual.

K affs: Not really a preference for plan text or no plan text. Good 2ACs need to explain to me why I should vote aff, what my ballot does, and respond to the line by line on the case page (you're obviously more prepared than them for the case debate so don't let it go to waste). Against framework, reading counterinterps that are specific could solve for a lot of their impacts. Presumption arguments are probably a decent response in the 1NC especially if the aff is vague or confusing.

Framework: Reading fw against a K aff works as long as you win the flow. Most of the time, I lean aff on Fw debates, but that's because neg teams think that they can get away with explaining things less than aff teams (tell me specifically why your model is better, examples are probably good). The impacts on framework and the line by line are the most important and I'll vote for whoever wins the tech. I've found that fairness is less important than most debaters think. Limits is probably not an impact. 1NC shells can get out of a lot of impact turn offense by reading a more specific shell instead of T-USFG. The easiest way the negative can win is accessing impacts that turn the case which probably also solve for the impact turns. I've found that I really enjoy clash debates (I've read K affs against framework and gone for framework against K affs).

T: For some reason, I'm a masochist and I like T debates. Teams read reasonability without telling me what it means and I don't know what to do with it.

Condo: Probably a good thing but how it's debated is most important. If the block is light on condo (or theory in general), it's probably a good idea to extend it in the 1AR to see if the 2NR drops it.

Wei Ma Potomac Debate Academy

Fitzroy Mallett Hire 8 rounds None

Adejoke Mason Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue October 22, 2019 at 12:10 PM EDT

Hey y'all, I'm Adejoke. I did LD debate for four years in High school at two different schools (Bettendorf & North Atlanta) and currently do College Policy at NYU.

email - adejokemason@gmail.com

Short version (I know some of yall are reading this seconds before round. good luck b)

Speed: go as fast as you want but be clear. i'll say clear twice before i stop

Run what you want and what you're best at, that'll probably be the best way to get my ballot. Know your literature base and make sure you can explain it, don't assume I already know what you're talking about or that i'll fill in gaps for you even if I do.

Don't be racist because i'll drop you

Long Version: This is mostly my paradigm for LD but lots of it extends to policy as well

Policy/CPs/DAs etc.: Go for it, make sure the link stories actually make sense, fully explain, but otherwise you're golden

K's: On high theory K's, I'm totally fine with them but I will say I'm not as familiar with some of the literature so definitely be prepared to explain. That being said, I do enjoy them and am willing to listen and vote on them, just don't assume I know more than I do. When it comes to more identity politics based K's, I'm also very much fine with those. I am pretty familiar with some of that literature, but once again that doesn't mean i'll do your work for you. When these are well articulated though, I adore them. Don't pull out your Race K's just because I'm here though, run what you like

Philosophy: Long philosophy frameworks are also something I'm less familiar with depending on the author, but there are quite a few I also know pretty well. So the same goes for all the others, explain this clearly especially if there is a long link chain and be able to answer questions and you should be fine.

Theory/Topicality: I wasn't the biggest fan of Theory in high school, which means that I tend not to side with theory that I view as frivolous. What I mean by that is, I may be easier than most to convince of a no abuse or no impact story in a round. This, however, doesn't mean I dont think there is valid abuse nor does it mean that I won't vote on theory. It's not like I have never won a theory round and thought it legitimate, it just means if your go to strategy is running a theory shell regardless of genuine abuse in round, you may have an uphill battle. Same goes for topicality. But if you defend your shell well and can show me the abuse then I'm more than willing to vote for it. To add to this, since being in college and dealing with T I find both less frivolous and better articulated, I’m even more willing to vote for it when well done & genuine

Performance/Non T affs: I think these are a really great way to introduce creativity and fun into debate and I adore them. I think they also can be very success in impacting the debate space. However, I do need to see a justification as to why the performance and non t nature of the aff is important/has an impact. If no one challenges it then of course there is no need to continue to explain, but if someone presents another way to structure debate I want to see a justification as to why yours beats theirs. I think there are countless legitimate justifications for this so this should be easy to accomplish: i just want to see a good debate about why we should structure debate in either way

a few more notes:

I love when debaters do what they love. Don't read something you don't know much about or hate because you think it'll make me happy or because I did something similar in high school - do what fits you. I'm pretty much willing to vote on anything as long as its well defended. Don't assume i err towards the way you view debate but show me why I should especially if its challenged. Know your literature base and show me that.

Please frame and weigh. Like, please. Give me a clear reason why your world is superior, why your impacts are bigger, why I should view this round the way you want me to etc. so that i can have a coherent rfd instead of a clash-less debate im supposed to decipher. I think the most important thing to me in the last speeches is being given a very clear ballot story

I love when arguments are specifically tailored to whatever they're attacking, so the more specific and less generic you can be, the better. I'm definitely a bigger fan of more quality arguments than a generic dump

I really enjoy creativity particularly in solutions. I like for rounds to be fun and comfortable and not aggressively formal.

Being blatantly racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic etc. won't go well in front of me, so be aware of that.

Jermel Mcclure Hire 8 rounds None

Brandon Miller Hire 8 rounds None

David Myrie Hire 8 rounds None

Ashley Nguyen Hire 8 rounds

Olivia Northcutt-Wyly Hire

Last changed on Sun February 20, 2022 at 4:11 AM CDT

Yes chain: onorthcuttwyly@gmail.com

College: University of Southern California

Pronouns: they/them

ALL: Probably don't care what you read. In college I read a USFG plan text affirmative and the DA + K on the negative. I tend to default to an offense defense paradigm and section off my flow in big picture ideas (read as truth > tech)

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

Policy/CX Debate

If your skimming here is what you are looking for :

Longer version:

I ultimately evaluate truth over tech. With that being said if you are substantially ahead in the tech debate I have a significantly lower threshold for your truth claims.

Presumption on these debates is much easier to win and is a smart arg. If the aff wants presumption to flip you need to tell me that - otherwise presumption is always a valid 2NR option separate advocacy or not.

KvK / Method v Method debates - the K needs to be competitive. I don't care how but I'm not wanting to vote on "no perms in a method v method debate".

Framework - Go for it but debate the impact turns please with that being said I will default to a competitive activity so there has to be some sort of role for the aff and negative in your model of debate. I won't vote on the aff/neg shouldn't get to have arguments / contest the method.

Theory - Go for it - diversify yours standards for speaker points here. I won more rounds that I should have on ASPEC (which is a great arg...) so your theory arg is probably fine w/ me.

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

Public Forum Debate

Editing this based on what I saw at last weeks tournament - internal link chains MUST be in the final focus. If the final focus is JUST impacts there is ZERO chance you will get my ballot.

Fast is fine and can be strategic given the short amount of time allocated to speeches.

Off time roadmaps should only consist of the words 'pro case' 'con case' and 'framing'. I start the time if the roadmap > 10 seconds.

ONLINE DEBATE: I expect both pro and con teams to have their evidence readily available and share with teams and judge before round. This helps minimize the extend internet speed/connectivity has as well as cuts down/eliminates awkward "I didn't hear you" can you re-state moments.

lydia okolo Hire 8 rounds None

Winston Okpalanma Hire 8 rounds None

Jordan Ramsey Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun April 16, 2023 at 5:11 AM EDT

PF Paradigm for TOC: I once got to judge NCFL PF finals, so I guess I am a top tier PF judge (jk). I will vote for the team that best accesses an impact under the framing I am told to vote for. If your “impact” is economic decline and nothing more, why should I care? Be sure to tell me what will result from voting for your side (stopping structural violence, preventing war, saving how many lives, etc.) I will default to consequentialist framing unless given something else. I think that K debate in PF should be viewed as legitimate and I will happily judge it. You need to extend an argument in the summary in order to extend it in the final focus. Sending all of your cards in a document instead of not sending them or sending links to long articles will increase your speaks. I am highly annoyed by teams who send links or spend a long time sending out evidence. Speak as fast as you want as long as you are clear!

Note: A lot of teams at the TOC so far have been taking time after the start time of the round to pre-flow or prep. Please don't do this when I am judging, prep ends at start time.

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

Note: For events other than policy, scroll to the bottom

Email: Please put me on the email chain-- jramrocks17@gmail.com

Pronouns: He/Him

About me: I compete in policy debate at Liberty University and debated at the NDT in 2021 and 2022. Before that, I debated in policy for four years in Texas at Prosper High School on the TFA, UIL, and TOC Circuits. I also competed in extemp for three years and broke at NSDA Nats my Junior year. In college I spent a year doing solely K debate and a year doing policy things. I've been on both the K and policy sides of the library, and want to see you do what you do best.

TLDR: You do you. Tab judges don’t exist as we all have our biases, but I’ll try my best to be “Tab”. I have ran and seen all types of debate, and am fine in any type of round. Please don't change your strategy based off of my paradigm or what you've heard I prefer. I am tech over truth.

What is Debate? Debate is an activity where we all perform the advocacy of our choosing. In ways it is a game, but it is also much more real for certain people. The "rules" can be good, but they are also flexible and this whole question is up for debate

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

Non-Argumentative Preferences:

Speed: Go as fast as you want, just slow down on tags and make sure I can tell when you're reading a tag vs evidence text. Whatever speed you are at be clear as long as you are able :)

Prep: Flashing/emailing probably isn't prep but if you are talking to your partner, typing excessively, writing on your flows, or taking over a minute or two I will count prep

Timing: Please feel free to time yourselves. I can time as well in case you need it for speeches/prep, but please ask

CX: Stand, sit, plank, idc. Open CX is fine unless tournament rules say otherwise. Any question including asking if they read a card/off case counts, although asking for a marked copy of the speech does not count. CX is binding, but if a team lies about extending/reading something and you call it out, I will deduct their speaks and count it as not extended/read

Reasons to Strike Me:

--If you are racist, sexist, homophobic, aphobic, transphobic, ableist, etc.

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

Types of Rounds:

K v. K: I love judging these debates. I will hold the AFF to a high standard on the perm, and believe that going all in on the perm can be a good strategy. The AFF should tell me why the ballot matters and use your theory of power to implicate K. The NEG should attempt to engage with the theory of the 1AC and make indictments of the AFF across the K flow. Make very clear distinctions between the AFF and the Alt.

Clash of Civs: I enjoy judging these debates and have lots of experience in this area. I find myself voting for the policy and K sides quite equally. I hold the team reading K arguments to a high standard, and have voted for the policy team because I was frustrated with a poorly explained alt or link.

Policy V Policy: I also enjoy a policy smackdown! Line by line and impact calc with a clear story for my ballot will go a long way. I am definitely tech over truth, but truth helps when it comes to DA link chains and CP solvency.

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

Argumentative Preferences:

K: I prefer specific links, but totally understand if you only have generic evidence and choose to use that to make more specific links in the block. Don’t overkill the time you spend on links, and don’t forget to really explain your impacts and frame them. All types of alts are cool, just explain how it solves your impacts and the Aff if you choose to go that route. "Reject the Aff" alts are fine, just explain how that solves.

I will vote on epistemology framing, but there is some truth to "tie links to the plan" so this needs to be debated out. Only go for framework if it's needed (I keep wasting time on it in my 2NRs)

I love researching, debating, and judging all K lit, but am most familiar with Militarism, Cap, Blackness, Semiotics, Biopolitics/Agamben, and Queer Theory (especially Puar).

K AFFs: Yes, they are legitimate. Be sure to introduce your theory and explain your impacts and method of solvency or advocacy if you have one. Just talking/dwelling in the debate space is cool and I don’t believe that all teams necessarily need a method of solvency.

Framework: I have experience on both sides and will try my best to remove any bias. I used to think framework was bad, but after going for it for a year I see its importance and believe there is some truth to it. I want to be convinced that I am voting for the best model of debate. I think that Neg teams who focus on TVAs/SSD are much better than focusing on your impacts alone. I love it when teams use clash/fairness/any impact to turn the Aff and answer their offense. I will weigh Aff offense and want to hear it contextualized to the Neg's explanation of FW; "USFG bad" is probably not enough. I want to hear how your counter interp solves the Neg's offense, and the Neg should prove that their TVA solves a good portion of the Aff. At the end of the round I will weigh how much each side solves for the other's offense and how each side frames their offense. Also, I like seeing creative interps that aren't T-USFG if that applies to the K Aff you are hitting. I lean towards the belief that fairness is an Internal Link to education or whatever else the Neg is explaining, but if you explain and win why fairness is an impact I am willing to vote on it.

Theory: Generally, I think theory can be good in certain instances, but it can also be unnecessary. Just have a clear interp and violation with voters and don’t go for a ridiculous shell that was obviously meant as a time suck unless it’s dropped or very under-covered. If you go for condo against a team with one conditional advocacy or something ridiculous like that, I will vote for you if you're winning, but you won't be happy with your speaks.

Policy Stuff:

Policy Affs: Far too often I have seen good policy teams just not extend the entire link chain of a scenario/advantage after the 1AC. This happens a lot in K debates, making it easy for the Neg to make a presumption argument. Please extend your entire link chain in each speech, even if it's just in the overview. Otherwise, I'll find it hard to give you your impacts. Saying "Extend the X scenario, that gives us Y impacts" is not enough; each part of the link chain should be included.

Counter Plans: I can enjoy a good CP debate. I have no problem with multiple CP’s but will vote off of condo if you’re losing it (more than 3 condo is maybe a little sus, but that's up for debate). Try to have a solvency advocate (even if it’s just re-cut 1AC evidence), but I am also fine with cheap one line CP’s. Answer perms and solvency deficits and explain your net benefit. I've gone for sus process CPs a lot, and I think I have no aff or neg bias on theory. I personally believe that judge kick is a good thing, as it upholds the aff's burden to prove that it is better than the CP and the status quo. Judge kick will be my default, but I will disallow it if the aff wins that it is bad.

Disadvantages: I think strong policy teams use DA’s to turn case (although this is not required) and engage in in-depth impact analysis and framing. The truth of the DA and quality of your cards matters. Be sure to extend your whole link chain in each speech.

Impact Turns: I used to say I love spark but everyone kept reading it in front of me lol. I (sadly) wasted a summer of high school debate camp cutting a wipeout file (seriously UTNIF, I'm waiting on my refund) so I know the arguments and I guess I will vote on it, but I will also weigh arguments telling me to reject you for triggering the other team's negative experiences with death. Things like spark/other turns with little truth will be weighed like any other argument, but truth can be weighed as a tie breaker/framing for the round. Dedev is facts (I will judge it normally but I think it's fun), but be careful about reading any other CPs/DAs with econ or warming scenarios. If the impact to your politics DA is warming, I'm going to assume that Biden is (sadly) funding tech innovation with X bill instead of dedeving the economy, so this will hurt you.

Topicality: I'm cool with voting off of any interp that you’re winning, as I view T like I view any other argument, and won't reject any interp just because I think it is false. I want a clear interp debate. The winning side will win that their model of debate is best, although proving in round abuse (like the Aff no-linking core DA's) will greatly help the Neg. Have a clear interp, violation, and standards that you extend in every speech.

Competing Interpretations vs. Reasonability: I default to Competing Interpretations because no where else in debate is “we kinda don’t link to this argument” a good answer. Debate is about competing methods and worlds, and I believe that Affs use the reasonability argument to win ballots from judges who don't like T debates. I’ll vote on reasonability if you’re winning tho for sure.

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

Scale Thing I see judges do:

Policy----------X--------------K

Condo good----X--------------------Condo Bad

Tech--X----------------------Truth

Death good is valid--------------------X----No

Ks of fiat---------------X---------Fiat always good

Process CPs good-------X-----------------Salty 2A

Non-resolutional procedurals are bad----X--------------------Veganism/Christianity type procedurals

Perms are legitimate X------------------------The 2NR I gave in my first novice round

The above is set in stone--------------------X----I will flow the debate and vote on tech

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

Speaks:

— I’ll start at or around a 28.5 and go up/down based on your performance throughout the round

— I give speaks based off of your speeches, overall strategy, and questioning in that order

— I’ll do tenths of a point unless directed otherwise by the tournament

— If you’re problematic I’ll give you a 0. If you have to ask if something is problematic, I probably wouldn’t risk it

— I recognize that 1Ns usually get bad speaks and will do my best to avoid doing this

— I will adjust how I give speaks based on the tournament. I’ll probably give you higher speaks for your performance at a local than if the exact same round took place at a bid tournament

— I will maybe give more speaks for good jokes about iconic debaters/K authors

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

Other Events:

LD: LD is cool! I have some minor experience. I’ll probably judge it like a short policy round. Anything from framework debate to K debate to stock debate is cool and I’ve ran all of that in LD. I’ve heard that alts aren’t that important in LD K debates, but I value them so please explain it. I’ll probably vote off of which side better accesses the winning FW in the round. I hear that LD likes RVIs for some reason, so I'll vote on those if I'm told why.

Congress: I did congress a few times in HS and was first alt to Nats my senior year. I want good content but will also value your speaking skills.

Speech: As stated above, I broke at Nats in FX so I think I’d do alright judging speech. I prefer content over things such as performance/tone/hand signals, but will still provide feedback and take this into account

Victoria Riggan Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 6, 2020 at 7:40 AM MDT

All of my high school debate competition experience stems from Lincoln-Douglas at Taylorsville High circa 2011-2013. Since this was right as things were evolving from more traditional to more progressive, I have experience with all kinds of debates and thus I consider myself a "hybrid" kind of a judge.

For starters and generally speaking,

Value/Criterion: We have them in LD for a reason. Try not to forget them. I will revert back to them as a weighing mechanism for solvency if things get messy. If they are the same, then great lets move on and not worry about them too much unless we have specific/new arguments related to them. Otherwise we can all carry on through the round with the assumption that I the judge will weigh the round at least 50% based on who wins here.

Clash: I like clash all throughout the round. From the value/criterion debate to the key arguments from the contentions to impacts. The more back and forth on arguments vs we just have better impacts in our world than theirs, the better. That being said, try to keep it to the key arguments that actually matter in the round. i.e. don't beat small dead horses. Let's focus on the bigger stuff and what that means and how it ties back to the v/c.

Speed: I can handle a decent amount of speed. Speed is two fold for me, I can listen to fairly quick speech and keep up, in my head. My fingers can only move so fast though. So that being said, please take into account how fast I literally can go to flow when listening to you. Contention Taglines/Key Card names should be slowed down on at least a tad so I can catch them for the flow. I can summarize my own key points of it as you go and I listen but at least help me not get lost on what info goes where ya know?

Counter-Plans/K's : I don't like to judge K's because they aren't done very well usually. If you want to run one, please let me know and only do so if you really feel strong in doing so. This includes strength in explaining your K and its fairness and legality in LD to your opponent in case you happen to be the first person they come across this with. Counterplans, not to be confused with simple alternatives suggested within your case, basically are of the same. I only make the distinction so that you know I'm not against any and all mentions of alternatives.

Voters: I LOVE having voters at the end of final speeches for two reasons. One, it clearly shows me that you are aware and able to identify for me the key arguments that the round should be weighted by and based on how well you do this, I will give you that 29 or 30 on speaker points. I believe this is a speaker skill. Second, if the round is messy its like my last saving grace to get some clarity! Ahahahaha

CX: Sit or stand. I don't care. I'm SUPER CHILL. It's not a big deal to me honestly.

Speaking of being super chill, have fun. I'd love it if you can time yourselves! Overall, I'm here for a good debate and a good time. Let's keep it friendly and have a good time and learn a lot!

PLEASE BY ALL MEANS ASK ME ANYTHING IF YOU DON'T FEEL LIKE YOU GOT A CONFIDENT/GOOD ENOUGH ANSWER HERE! I'M SUPER NICE! :) I'D RATHER YOU ASK ME IF YOU DON'T KNOW AND I CAN CLARIFY FOR YOU!

NOW LET'S GO!!!

Natalie Robinson Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 1, 2022 at 9:56 AM EDT

((she/her))

Yes, I want to be on the email chain: natrob38 [at] gmail [dot] com

Debater at Liberty University (2018-22)

NDT Octas (2021 and 2022)

CEDA Semis (2022)

CEDA Octas (2021)

This is irrelevant but I was also top speaker at like every tournament my senior year, which I am proud of, and which means I have high expectations for you.

Coach at Thomasboro Academy (Middle School!) (2022-present)

***Policy***

I was a blackness performance debater, and I came into college as a novice, so I'm soft on novice and JV debate. You all are doing a great job! I'm grateful for the opportunity to help you do better!

Here's the stuff I think you're probably looking for:

- Policy v Policy: I will not flow more than 5 off for the environment and also for my own mental health lol. I'm not super hip on all the intricacies of the core topic args so break it down for me. When it comes to intricate T debates that are not T USFG I need you to explain it to me! I haven't played the game this way in awhile so just be specific and help me help you haha

- K affs: I think you're probably better off impact turning framework than going for the we meet, but do you! I'm all for creative performances--don't lose that as the debate goes on! Chances are there are more arguments in your 1AC than you remember in your 2AC

- Clash debates: Don't assume since I'm a performance/K debater that I won't vote on fw. I will--heavy on the impact level--I'm more sensitive to fairness and clash than I am to education impacts--TVAs are also your friends. If you can win that they can access their education/arguments under the topic, I'll vote on it.

- K on the neg: links need to be specific, I haven't read all of the things so break it down for me real good--I am a K debater which means I have a higher threshold for what makes these arguments effective.

-Kvk debates are v fun and v educational--I think there is unbridled potential in these debates. Framing and judge instruction are your friends. Links need to be explained and specific. This is the part where we get to play the clash game, so let's play it!

- Policy aff vs the K: FRAMING AND JUDGE INSTRUCTION!!! I'm down to weigh your aff but if they tell me not to and you don't tell me why I should, you're in a really bad spot at the end of the debate. Answer the links specifically!

- In essence--do you, have fun, make smart arguments. I don't think you should have to adjust what you do for me, I'll adjust what I do for you.

- BE KIND! Especially as younger ppl in this activity--we need you and you need each other in order to keep this activity going, so don't be a butthole to your opponents or your speaks will show my displeasure

- this is probably the MOST important thing: TELL ME WHAT TO DO!!!

> impact calculus, judge framing, etc--make it easy for me. I'll do what you tell me to do!

- You get bonus speaker points if you make puns that make me laugh!

- I will vote you down for being racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/disrespectful, EVEN IF the other team doesn't call you out for it

- Don't postround me: I promise I will talk to your coaches about it if you do. Feel free to ask questions though! and I'm always available via email if you have further questions after the round.

*** PF // LD ***

I was a varsity policy debater at Liberty University, and I coach PF and LD at the middle school level at Thomasboro Academy now.

I'm not a picky judge: do you, have fun, be a good sport, and we will get along just fine!

I'm a BIG fan of impact calculus--if it's in the debate, that's usually what I vote on. Tell me what to do!

Also I'm a firm believer that crossfire is for questions, and it's my favorite part of the debate. If you ask good questions or if you make me laugh, your speaks will 100% reflect that.

You get bonus points if you make puns that make me laugh!

And I will vote you down for being racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/disrespectful, EVEN IF the other team doesn't call you out for it.

TL;DR: Have fun, be nice, do your thing, and I will have a great time judging you to the best of my ability.

Good luck!!!

*** Forensics ***

I never did this activity, so I'm definitely not super experienced with everything that you do, but I do appreciate it!!!

Do your thing, I'm just along for the ride :)

Bonus points if you make me laugh! ((ESPECIALLY with puns))

Good luck!!!

Jen Sousa Algonquin Regional High School

Edmund Timmons Hire 8 rounds None

Vontrez White Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu April 13, 2023 at 5:32 AM PDT

Debated at Downtown Magnets High School for 4 years

CSUF 22

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

TLDR: Open to any argument. Spreading OK. Don't be sexist/racist/homophobic etc.

Updates for TOC

I don't like tricks
For phil, I need it to be really clear. I don't understand unexplained abstract philosophies, even if it's Kant. Impact comparison still matters
Phil + Tricks = :(
Perms are encouraged against the Kritik, many debaters in LD don't perm them and idk why

General Things

- Quality > Quantity

- 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)

- I have read arguments like death good, I think these are legitimate arguments. Don't shy away from running weird things in front of me. As long as you aren't racist/sexist/homophobic you're fine.

Specifics

Traditional Affs: I like comprehensive, well-thought-out advantages compared to 7 advantages that all end in nuke war or something. Make sure you give me some type of framing in the 1AC so that I know how I should weigh the aff vs the negs off case, and always use your framing against their off case (please).

Kritikal Affs: I won't vote on it just because you read it. The most important thing for me is an explanation of how the affirmative relates to the topic and how the particular survival strategy/method/epistemology/etc is important for debate. If there is no connection to the topic, I will not shy away from pulling the trigger on T. Kritikal affs that connect to your identity are cool too, but don't make it seem like you're using the oppression of x group for a ballot. If I don't know what the aff does, I'm not voting for it. An advocacy statement of some sort is probably good here.

Performance: The most important thing about performances is that they should be used as arguments. If the 1AC has a performance of some sort, the 2AC should use that performance offensively. If the performance gets lost, I'll probably be skeptical of the 2AR bringing it back up. For the negative, you should press them on the performance in some way. Arguments about performances being bad for debate are legit, but make sure they have an actual argument behind them. For example, "this isn't theatre, this is debate" is not a good answer to a performance.

Kritikal Affs vs the K: The aff should always perm the kritik. There's a good chance that your theories aren't 100% mutually exclusive. I don't buy the "this is a method debate so no perms" argument, but if it goes conceded coming out of a 1AR/2AR then I will evaluate it. The aff should also explain why the perm is necessary and why the negative's theory alone fails. For the negative, you should be winning a strong link to the affirmative and a reason why the alternative is mutually exclusive to the advocacy.

Framework vs the K aff: I'm not biased towards the affirmative in these debates (despite my history of running kritikal arguments). I do think framework is valuable, and seeing people debate the way they believe debate should be is always fun. If there is no TVA I'm more sympathetic to voting aff, but if there's no answer to the TVA I'm definitely voting neg. Fairness is an okay standard but I prefer arguments along the lines of truth testing, stasis args, and deliberation. Tailoring your framework to have benefits like grassroots activism and legalism good arguments are also persuasive. Framework is a definitely a viable strategy in front of me against a kritikal affirmative, but make sure there are also arguments that engage the case. For the aff, "They are excluding us" isn't really an answer to framework (please don't make this argument), but proving why their frameowork is sexist/racist/homophobic/etc. is good offense against the framework. I prefer affirmatives to defend their model of debate. Why should we be able to talk about things only tangentially related to the topic? Why is posing a hypothetical policy implementation bad for debate? These are questions I'll probably be thinking of as the 2AC answers the framework flow. Disads to their model are good leverage, but make sure to answer every standard on the flow. Also, counter interps are nice.

Kritiks: For Kritiks please have multiple clear links to the affirmative. A generic link that you have can always be contextualized to the aff, so try to contextualize each link to the affirmative. A specific link should also be contextualized against the affirmative. Please explain what your alternative is and have a framing that doesn't contradict the alternative. I find that the key arguments to a criticism are usuallly framing/framework, link, impact, alternative, permutation. If a team concedes a framing, I'm most likely voting for the other team. For example, if the Aff reads framing about how specific scenario analysis is good for policy making and broad structural criticisms are bad, I would say they are ahead of the K debate (given that the negative concedes their framing). I'm also okay with teams kicking the alternative and going for the links as case turns, but you must tell me to kick it. I won't kick it for you. Also, "fiat is illusory" isn't really a winning argument. Also, please explain the K. Even if I heard your criticism before, a shallow explanation of the K won't help you win the flow.

Disadvantages: For DAs, I prefer specific links. Internal links are appreciated, but not necessary. Recent DAs are probably better than older ones, make sure the uniqueness and answers to uniqueness are recent for these debates. I think the uniqueness can overwhelm the link in some cases, and I am open to impact turning if you persuade me (nuke war good? Sure why not). Disadvantages should have impact calculus and turn the case in some way. The affirmative should explain why the disadvantage uniqueness overwhelms the link, why there's no link, no impact, etc. Make sure to spend time to make arguments on the disadvantage because if it's undercovered then I'll probably vote for it. Impact framing/calculus is really important, especially when the disadvantage has an impact of a higher magnitude (like war, or extinction) compared to the affirmative. Explain why your impact is more significant than the Affirmative's impact.

Counter plans/Advocacy: Make sure the counter plan has a net benefit, and tell me what the net benefit is. Advantage CPs are also cool. Consult CPs are legit. If there is a link to the DA and the CP clearly avoids that link, I'll probably vote neg on the counterplan. For Kritikal affs I enjoy counter advocacy debates, still explain the net benefit though. I'm not particularly fond of counterplan theory, but I will vote for it if I feel it's a winning argument.

Topicality: I think T is a good strategy, especially if the aff is blatantly not topical. If the aff seems topical, I will probably err aff on reasonability. Both sides should explain and compare interpretations and standards. Standards should be impacted out, basically explain why it's important that they aren't topical. The Aff needs a counter interpretation, without one I vote neg on T (unless it's kicked).

Theory: I will vote for it. Just make sure you slow down a lot cause I want to catch what you're saying in the standards. 1AR/2AR with only Condo is viable, but if you're just repeating your standards then I'd say don't. I don't really lean aff or neg when it comes to condo/dispo debates, but I will say that for these debates both teams need to have a clear interpretation that makes sense. The aff should probably say 1 or 2 condo worlds, while the neg should probably argue their specific number of conditional worlds that they read as a counter interpretation. I lean neg on CP theory, I generally think the negative gets anything outside of the affirmative. It's up for debate if a PIC/PIK constitutes being outside of the aff.

Speaker Points: Speaker awards make this activity a little less shitty so I will try to give high speaks.

Moriah Wierschem Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 19, 2018 at 5:09 PM EDT

I am a GSA for Liberty's debate team and debated for four years previously at Liberty. I primarily ran non-traditional affirmatives on the aff and k's on the neg, but I am not opposed to policy arguments when I judge. The most important thing for me is that you do you in debate rounds and have fun. I believe at the end of the day that debate is a game, but I also believe that the "game" is full of very real in-round and out-of-round implications for debaters and that those implications matter.

Don't read a k just because you read this and see that's what I read as a debater, read what you want to read/will enjoy and I will follow along.

Here are my notes on the things you're probably scanning this for :)

K's are fine with me, just be sure that your link story is strong, you weigh it against the aff's impacts (or explaining how you solve them) and the alternative is clearly explained. But don't assume I know what you're talking about just because I read k's often, I am likely not as familiar with your lit base as you are.

When you're aff debating a k, don't lose your aff!! It's probably your strongest offense and needs to be weighed against the k. Be careful not to get behind on the framework debate and please answer the k with more substance than just framework arguments and theory. I will need warrants and examples of how the perm could function, not just the word "perm."

CP's are neat - explain what parts of the aff they solve for and be clear about what it does. I think CP's can be a super smart option for negative teams, even against non-traditional affs. Also be sure to highlight any net-benefits at least by the block so I get a good picture of what you do.

DA's are fine, but not my favorite if there isn't a strong and well-articulated internal link story. Don't just blitz through blocks or card-dump, but explain your impact scenario clearly and how it out-weighs the aff. With a DA, the impact analysis is probably most important to me followed by the strength of the internal link chain.

Framework vs. Non-Traditional Affirmatives: I enjoy the discussion framework creates about why we debate, the purpose of debate, and whether or not its good. But I don't like framework when I get the sense that it is being used to control the conversation or to avoid the discussion the affirmative has proposed. Keep the flow organized for me, keep your impact scenarios in front of everything, and make smart arguments about a tva and/or ssd solving the aff's impacts.

Non-Traditional Affirmatives vs. Framework: Don't lose your aff! Framing is key throughout the 1ar/2ar. Do your best to explain to me via your counter-interpretation what your model of debate looks like in the debate community and weigh that against framework. Framework has a lot of moving parts, but make sure you're garnering strategic offense wherever you can to win.

This is not totally inclusive, but should give you a bit of an idea of how I think through debates. If you have any questions at any point feel free to reach out to me at wierschemdebate@gmail.com

Also, I'd appreciate being added to the email chain ahead of time at the same address that's above!

Lastly, I will dock speaker points for using hateful and oppressive speech in any form, even if the other team doesn't call you out on it, I will deduct speaker points as I see fit (max -30 if its seriously awful). I have no issue voting down a team on performance issues if that becomes part of the debate, but I think its up to the debaters in the round to make those arguments and let me know that's where you're taking the debate.

Mackenzie Wiessner Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri May 12, 2023 at 10:12 AM PDT

Max Wiessner (They/Them)

Put me on the email chain! Mack.love.17@gmail .com

also please set one up ASAP... one of my biggest pet peeves is starting late bc we don't have emails and docs from people :' )

disclosure:

especially true for online tournaments: unless there is a performative value in not disclosing, you should share any carded evidence with everyone in the round (or at least your judge)

I have audio processing issues that are especially bad with virtual debates, pls share your cards so I can know what/who you're reading

********************note: disclosure standards are different for CHSSA tournaments*************************

any hateful/disrespectful language/actions geared towards other competitors (homophobia, racism, misogyny, antiblackness, etc.) or anything that is straight-up bigotry will reflect in your individual speaker scores and may affect my decision. if I find the issue to be excessive, as the judge, I reserve the right to end the round and have tab step in.

my background:

I’ve been debating policy for CSUF for 3 years. (do NOT prioritize speed over clarity, be even clearer with your analytics). I recently took up IEs as well (poi, poetry, and extemp). I currently coach modified parli, PF, and LD. I'm a K debater, but I’ve run all types of arguments and have come to be fairly well-versed in traditional DAs & policy arguments as well as K arguments. But I don't know everything, so please be sure to thoroughly explain your arguments and theories of power.

I believe debate is intended to be a performance that allows us to articulate how we feel and a space to forward methods of survival or existence and alter subjectivities. I also think we tend to get lost in who can read more instead of who’s saying the most “valuable” things. (truth >tech) If I’m in the back, just run whatever you’re most comfortable with! As long as you explain and impact it out, pretty much anything can be a voter for me.

DA’s:

please give some form of impact calculus that helps me to evaluate which argument should be prioritized with my ballot. I’m looking for a comparison between the impacts offered in the round, not just a “we win on timeframe. We win on magnitude.”

CP’s:

I love a good counter plan as long as it is competitive and you can fully solve for the impacts of the AFF with some sort of net benefit. If you don't have a DA with ur CP, you need to go hard on the net benefit.

K’s:

I love K arguments (I usually run arguments about set col, cap, migrants, antiblackness, and/or trans/queerness, so those are the lit bases I know best) Just please EXPLAIN your theory and all of its intricate details as if you assume I know nothing about it (because I might not). Also be clear about what the aff does, how it does it, who does it, etc. Sounds silly, but is often overlooked

Performance K:

Love them. As long as your performance is central to the aff, and you can explain to me why, I love to see it.

K on neg:

See above for general K stuff. As long as you have a good link and a good alt/action that you are proposing, go crazy.

FW v K’s:

I’m pretty split on these debates. Fairness isn’t a voter to me, especially because the K team will probably just tell me that debate isn’t ever fair for [fill in the blank] and I’ll agree. I think in-round impacts matter just as much as the ones that come from a plan text. If you want to win on FW, you need to explain to me what’s missing from the K, what’s bad about their form of debate, or what the next harm is.

I won’t vote just because “it’s unfair”... Next... In all seriousness tho, you need to be able to explain to me what the aff has done that has impacts that would outweigh their solvency. most of the FW stuff above applies here too.

Theory in LD:

idk how I feel about it bc I don't have a lot of experience here. If you do choose to run it then you'll have to explain a lot.

Misc:

you are a person outside of the debate... Please make me aware if you are uncomfortable either in the round or due to external factors so we can find a way to re-create a safe space
you can call me max. getting called judge makes me feel awkward lol
if they drop an argument, you need to tell me why to care. what's the impact? how does that reflect on their model of debate or their solvency or their [insert filler here]?
I start everyone at a 27.5 and bump you up from there. It makes the most sense in my brain to go up with each speech as new args/iterations are presented. Scores usually average in the 28.2-29 range
yellow is the worst highlight color. Pls don't feel like you need to re-highlight everything before the round, you won't be marked down. Just know if I make a weird face, it's the yellow lol

tianhong zhou Potomac Debate Academy 1 rounds None

Login to Tabroom:

BRIDGE Series NYU Global Debate Invitational

2020 — NSDA Campus, CA

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges