Background: Hi my name is Miranda Bitting, and I’m one class away from getting my bachelor’s degree in meteorology and climatology from the University of Delaware. I have primarily judged local debate.

Style/Technique: I don’t have much preference as to what style of debate you use, but I’d like to think keeping it simple is always a good move. I will not nitpick the technique you choose to deliver your argument. Instead, I will be focusing on the strength and quality of your argument and how well you are able to defend it.

Flow: I will be judging arguments based primarily on the quality of supporting evidence, reasoning, and how well you can defend your claim. A strong argument should be able to stand up to scrutiny.

Speed: I’d prefer you to talk at a conversational pace—not too fast. If I’m having trouble keeping up, I will ask you to slow down.

Respect: Please be respectful of your opponents as well as myself at all times. I have no tolerance for disrespectful language, slurs, etc. Debate is very competitive but should also be civil.

Good luck to everyone! I look forward to hearing what you have to say.

Please add me on the email chain: amandaciocca@gmail.com

I feel like this is important to add at the top bc no one reads paradigms anymore: OPINIONS ON 1AC DISCLO AND TRICKS HAVE CHANGED

Most of you are familiar with my judging preferences but just a little background on me. FSU grad with a Bachelor in Intersectional Women's Studies and Media/Comm. I competed in LD for four years (Im sure you can find my records somewhere idk, I've judged enough to be qualified anyway), I also competed as a varsity policy team for UMW my freshman year of college pre-covid. I worked at TDC over the summer and I privately coach some kiddos so I've been active in the activity. I also am the co-founder of the Latine and Hispanic Debate Foundation, follow us on ig @landhdebatefoundation

Im most comfortable with K's, K v T-fwk, LARP, and some phil, slightly more comfy evaling substantive theory debates.

Favorite things I've read/ judged: Borderlands, any Anzaldúa position, Crenshaw, Latine IdPol, Intersectional Fem, Set Col, Black Fem, Queer Pess, and NonT K Affs v T-fwk/Cap.

Alright here are some people I paradigmatically agree with: Deena Mcnamara, Charles Karcher, Delon Fuller, Joey Tarnowski, Jack Ave, Elijah Pitt, Lily Guizat, and Isaac Chao.

Standing conflicts: Clear Lake MK, Clear Lake RM, Heights CT, Heritage Independent WT, Clear Springs EG, Lincoln East BH

Pref guide:

K: 1

LARP: 1

Phil: 2/3 (more comfy w Kant, Hobbes, Rawls, Butler)

Trad: 3

Theory: 2

Tricks: 4

________________________________________________

LD Specs:

Does Amanda vote you down for being mean? This seems to be a question floating around so I'll just say this: any blatant verbal discrimination/harassment of an opponent will get you an L 20. I don't tolerate in-round violence, I will stop the round and will ask you to leave the room. HOWEVER, if you just are slightly big headed and/or arrogant idc. You do you, but just be respectful to other people in the room. Please use proper pronouns!! The round is no place for hate.

Theory: I bumped theory from a 3 to 2 because I've been enjoying it a lot more. Used to really hate 1AC disclo but have recognized its necessity sometimes. Also have started to really enjoy a good theory debate but PLEASE read paradigm issues on your shells! I've voted recently on ROTB Spec, ASpec, Disclo, and CSA. Let that guide your prefs however you'd like.

Traditional-I am perfectly alright with traditional debate. I loved it as a freshman and sophomore. Highly recommend preffing me for a lay judge. I value debaters making strats accessible for all debaters. Make sure that you are weighing and using that short 1AR/2AR to crystalize and extend your arguments. Nothing is ever implied, please use well-warranted args. I have so much respect for strong traditional debaters on the circuit but I will hold you to the same standards as I hold progressive kiddos.

LARP-I'm fine with LARP debate. Policy-making is cool, do whatever you want. Plan texts need a solvency advocate, idc what ur coach says. CP's are cool, make sure there is some sort of net benefit and also if you don't answer the perm I'll be very sad. DA's are fun as long as there is a clear link to the aff, also for the love of god weigh. Your UQ needs to be from like two days ago PLEASE, enough of UQ from five years ago.

K- K's are groovy. I think non-t k affs are cool, just need clear explanation why that is good for debate. Don't like when it creates assumptions about your opponents identity because that just creates hostile rounds (that I have definitely had and they are not fun). Intersectional Fem Lit was my jam, everyone can read fem (it's not a framework that is meant to exclude people from reading it, love a good fem debate :)) Please extend the text of the ROTB, I need some framing when extending. Please refer to my tricks section to see my opinion on K tricks.

Phil-I love good phil debates, I'm comfortable with standard Util v Kant and more abstract framework debates. I think if you go this route you need to win why your paradigm is ethically relevant, and then be able to win offense/defense underneath that framing mech. Love Derrida, Hooks, and anything that has a little philosophical spice.

Tricks- LOVE K TRICKS BRING THEM BACK! Have voted on Indexicals and Solipsism. This is probably my weakest place in regards to judging but that doesn't mean I won't try. If you want to pref me and read tricks then just make sure they are clear and there is an explanation somewhere in the round about how it functions in the round and I'll try my best to judge accordingly.I hate debates that are just sloppy tricks debate, if this applies to you then dont pref me at all like please don't pref me if you just want to meme around.

Performance-I have a pretty decent ability to judge a performance debate and I think they are pretty dope. However, I don't think that debaters need to degrade their opponent during a round to "get the point across" especially because I think that ruins the integrity of the round itself. If you are going to engage in an in-round performance, please extend it in rebuttals or else I fail to understand how it is important to the aff/neg.

I am a parent judge who has been judging in the local circuit since 2019. I have completed NFHS Adjudicating Speech and Debate training. While I primarily judge LD, I have experience judging Speech and PF as well.

My professional background is in Environmental Health and Safety and I hold a Master’s Degree in Public Health from New York Medical College.

No spreading please as I want to be able to understand your argument. Please don’t use fast talking to load in too many arguments, I am looking for clear, well-articulated and concise arguments. I am also not a fan of Progressive Theory arguments as I believe they are not in the spirit of the history or traditional style of the Lincoln-Douglas debate.

I like strongly warranted arguments. I enjoy when you tell me what to vote for as I believe it helps in a debater’s argument development. For me a good debater will use clear logic, well-paced speaking, have a consistent and thoughtful case and be respectful and courteous to their opponent. I do not tolerate rudeness to others.

Good luck and have fun!

Hello, if you are reading I want to wish you the best of luck at the tournament today. My name is Javier Hernandez. I did LD for 3 years. I graduated with a B.A. in history and political science from UCF. Currently, I teach English and am starting a debate program for St. Michael the Archangel Catholic School. If yow will be spreading at the tournament today, please email me at jhernandez@stmacs.org. For the most part, I care less about what you run and more that it's run well and relevant to the topic. K's and theory are fine as long as they don't feel superfluous, but I feel less comfortable evaluating them than I do CP's or DA's. I want a clear voter's in round as I've seen many close rounds where debaters fumble crystallization and it causes them to lose my ballot.

As far as speaks are concerned, don't worry too much. They are somewhat arbitrary and for that reason I take a relaxed approach. You start at 28 and go up or down based on what arguments you present and how they are presented.

If you have any questions PLEASE feel free to ask me any questions about things not included in my paradigm before the round.

I am a lay parent judge, and I prefer more traditional debates. I am pretty familiar with the topic.

I like debaters who are organized and have well-warranted arguments. Please make sure your arguments make logical sense. I also like debaters who take advantage of their prep time; don't stop speaking with a significant amount of time left.

I am not very familiar with more tech debate with kritiks, theory, etc, but I will still evaluate it but make sure you are overexplaining everything if you do read those. I am also not very good at evaluating spreading, and make sure you are clear in your speech.

Please email me the cases at jianhuny@gmail.com

Hello debaters!

I am a 4th year policy debater at Lexington High and the tldr is going to be: be clear, explain your arguments, and run whatever you're best at. I have been a traditional policy debaters for three years and is pretty much fine with everything except for Ks. If I think your spreading is too unclear I'll scream "clear" to signify that you need to slow down. I'm a believer of FW and procedural fairness. I will vote off of passion. (Treat me as a lay judge)

I've run all sorts of arguments in my years of policy debate, ranging from hard right affs and 10 off, to Baudrillard and ableism. However, I am NOT familiar with the majority of Ks (with me most familiar with cap, security, and baudrillard + other high theory) so you will need to explain your arguments to me clearly. As for policy debate, I love a good T debate and enjoy the new politics DA every tournament. Please note though that I do NOT have much topic knowledge so please explain everything. Now onto my notes on each argument.

Policy Affs

Hard right and soft left are both fine, though I've grown to like hard right affs more, but will vote on whatever you end up running. A 2AC add-on is fine though more than one is a little sketch in my opinion. If 2AR arguments are clearly new I will not vote on them, but that applies to any aff. I find small hard-right affs to be the most interesting but don't let that stop you from doing anything else. For soft-left affs, I want to see a good framing debate throughout the debate.

K Affs

I personally do prefer a policy aff, though I will still vote on K affs as I did run them for a short while. I am most familiar with Baudrillard, Afropess, Biopolitics, and then Cap and Security but once again don't let that stop you from running whatever you want.

1. Be respectful to your opponent

2. Make it simple and relatable

3. Arguments based on facts

Newark Science | Rutgers-Newark (debated for both)

Email chain: Ask me before the round. Different vibes, different emails ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If it matters, I've done basically every debate style (LD/CX in high school. CX, BP, PF, (NFA-)LD, Civic, and Public in college). I don't care what you read, I'm getting to a point where I've heard or read it all. I implore you to be free and do what you want. I'm here to follow your vibes so you let me know what's up. Just remember, I'm an adult viewing the game, not participating in it. Only rule: no threats (to me or other debaters)!

General notes:

• Spreading is fine. Open CX is fine. Flex prep is fine.
• Having an impact is good. Doing impact weighing is great. Impact turns are awesome.
• Truth over tech until tech overwhelms truth (probably because you were inefficient).
• Again, do what makes you comfortable. Whether K aff, DA 2NR, 12 off 1NC, 2 contentions and a dream, whatever just don't leave me bored.
• I am offering an ear to listen when debate forgets that it should be creating good (enough) people. Don't be afraid to find me or talk to me after a debate or just whenever in the tournament. I'm willing to do wellness checks BUT I am NOT a licensed therapist so no trauma dumps because I will only be able to tell you a good ice cream shop to go to with your team.

Random things I feel the need to emphasize ...

• Please. Please. Please. Do not try to appeal to me as a person for guilt-tripping purposes. I gave up my soul for a fun-sized Snickers bar years ago. If you say "judge have a soul" or some variation of that, you're speaking to an empty vessel. I'm here to coach my kiddos, judge and leave.
• IF THERE'S AN OFFER TO PLAY A GAME OR HAVE A DIALOGUE OR WHATEVER ELSE IN PLACE OF A ROUND, I'm putting on a 2 minute timer after cross (assuming all of the speech time is taken) for a discussion of the rules of the dialogue or game and how to determine the winner. The opposite side must then determine if they want to have a traditional round or not. If you go one route or the other, you cannot switch! I'll immediately assign a loss for wasting my time because I could have been prepping my kids or watching a game show where people tell the camera that they're "really good at this" just to immediately lose because they don't have knowledge on Black people or international relations.
• I have a fairly good poker face. I say fairly good because I like to laugh so if I get an outrageous message or the round is meant to be funny, I'll crack. Do not use my expressions as a measure for how well you're doing or not on a general basis though.

No preference whatsoever, do as you please. Good luck.

I am a volunteer parent judge.

1. Speak slowly.

2. Keep time.

3. Give offtime roadmaps so I understand where you are going with your speech.

4. Please use simpler terms no jargon.

5. I do flow/take notes so make sure to emphasize.

6. Please state voter issues so I know what I have to vote on in my final speech.

I am a new, traditional judge who likes strong framework and contentions. Tech>truth generally; I will try to flow the entire round. Please explain arguments well and in-depth and weigh contentions in the framework. I appreciate signposting. Please no spreading. Please be respectful of me, one another, and remember to have fun!

Hello competitors,

I am a lay judge and most of my debate background is in LD. Please do not spread and, Kritiks will not be effective in persuading me. I have some key points for debaters to keep in mind.

1. I believe in professionalism and civility. Please be kind to your opponent. This includes not speaking over each other during cross examinations.

2. Communication should emphasize clarity. Don't overcomplicate points or key arguments by filling your time with unnecessary information. Keep your volume up and your speed slow to moderate. If you are unclear due to too fast a pace I cannot award you points you may well deserve. If your opponent needs in their cross to have you reiterate something, chance are you weren't clear enough for me either.

3. Clearly state where you are in your roadmap. You know where you are going, but the rest of us do not. We need to stay with you for you to be successful. This includes clearly state values and contentions.

4. Be sure to challenge your opponents case. Clearly state your attack as such and remember to diminish your opponents attacks on your case. When on the attack: refuting your opponent's case is very persuasive and having a clash on these points creates a good debate. Be politely aggressive by making new arguments against an opponent's case instead of just referring to your case as this extends the flow of the debate. The same is true when you are on the defense. Present reasons (with proof if applicable) why your opponents attack is wrong instead of simply reiterating that your point is "more correct".

5. If your opponent fails to attack one of your arguments, or attacks it poorly, then your evidence holds. Debater with the most contentions, with the best flow, and the most clarity wins.

I vote the side with the most persuasive argument and who counters arguments most effectively while supporting their own side.

Good luck, and may the best debater win!

Krishna Shriram

email: qian.xia.nj@gmail.com

I am a traditional Lincoln-Douglas parent judge, preferring it over the circuit debate. Please do weighing and clear signposts. Please present arguments at reasonable speed. I evaluate all arguments extended through to rebuttals. I do not understand tricks, ks, non-topicals.