email: victoriaajayi204@gmail.com

college parliamentary sophomore debater

Email: niahdebates@gmail.com

Hi humans!

About me:

My name is Zaniah. I did policy debate for four years and recently earned my B.A. in Political Science from The College of New Jersey.

I am new to judging Speech but have observed rounds before and familiarized myself with the landscape through NSDA

Policy Debate

I am open to hearing just about anything as long as you know your argument well enough to explain it as if I was a child/ be thorough. Do not run arguments that you are not comfortable with as it will lower your speaker points and just ruin the debate. Keep the flow clean! Let me know when you are moving from one flow to the next. ( K, DA, Case)

In your rebuttals, give me a clear line on how I should frame my ballot. What does having the ballot mean for you? Do not say "we are winning every flow," instead tell me what offense you specifically have on that flow that I should evaluate.

• I’m completely fine with voting on presumption. Just make a clear statement about what specifically your opponent is missing that requires me to vote that way

• You can make analytical arguments, especially if you feel there is an obvious argument to be made in the debate. I’m fine with you drawing on personal experiences or current policy issues but these should not serve as your primary evidence
• If your opponent drops an argument let me know why it is important that I evaluate the argument they dropped. “They dropped it” is not an extension.

Be sure to engage in framework throughout the round and let me know reasons to prefer yours. I will not do the work for you.

Spreading

You can speak at a moderate speed. I will not pretend that I know what you are saying. If you are not clear I will put down my pen. I will say clear three times then stop flowing.

• “Slow” means you’re going to fast
• “Clear” means you need to annunciate clearer

Speaker Points

• Use your evidence to answer arguments and do a line-by-line, you do not have to read 1000 cards that all say the same thing.
• Have structure, tell me what flow I should be putting your arguments on and what you are answering, this creates a cleaner debate.
• Ask good questions that are conclusive and give you links in CX. I am fine with open cross but please do not dominate your partner's cross examination.
• Be strategic about what you decide to go for in the 2nd rebuttal speech

UPDATED 2/21/20: I do not judge as often as I may once have. At most local events, I find myself on the operations side of a tournament.

That should not terrify you – I am a career public servant, who happens to coach debate because I appreciate everything that it taught me as a student. You should assume that I approach debate rounds this way: what is the best decision I can make given the information presented to me?

It may sound old-fashioned, but I do not wish to be on any email chains. I have sadly witnessed teams answering entire disadvantages not read by their opponents simply because they were included in said distribution. Not to be outdone, I have read ballots where judges voted on evidence that nobody read. I pledge to keep the best flow I can. If I need to see a piece of evidence, and the particular league or tournament's rules allow for that, I will call for it.

If you are short on time reading this, my paradigm can be expressed in six (6) words: do your thing and be nice. If you are really short on time, we can go with four (4): old guy, still flows.

Policy:

1. Speed is fine, but clarity is necessary. I cannot vote on what I do not have typed/written down. I try hard to listen to the text of the evidence presented;
2. Open cross-examination is acceptable, but if it is clear than one member of the team is not able to participate at the same level, speaker points will suffer;
3. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I look first to any potential violation(s) of stock issues and then default to a policymaking perspective.

Lincoln Douglas:

1. I do not mind an LD round that gets on down the flow;
2. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I will default to a whole resolution lens looking first to the value/value criterion debate.

Public Forum/Speech:

1. Nothing earth-shattering here. I am less speed tolerant in public forum and I will simply apply the ballot criteria to whatever speech event is at hand.

Regardless of event, we enter the debate knowing the resolution and some basic rules of the road (e.g., speech times, likely printed on the ballot). By tabula rasa I mean that the debaters establish the framework for evaluating debates. You should do what you do best and do it well. Arguments should have three parts – a claim, a warrant, and some sort of greater implication regardless of your style.

I still believe that good decisions should flow like water. Great rebuttals frame debates and clash wins rounds. My ballots will provide a succinct RFD, possibly pointing out either strengths or opportunities for improvement as we progress through the speeches. 3AR/3NR oral critiques nauseate me: what I say out loud (if disclosure is permitted) will almost certainly match what I am placing on your ballot. Your coach should see comments too. You did not go to the dentist; my RFD is never going to read “oral.”

Finally, be respectful of your partners, opponents, and judges. I have zero tolerance for poor behavior in debate rounds.

Experience things:

Graduated from College Debate. 4 years NDT, 4 years NFA-LD, 4 years HS, coach HS CX too

He/Him

yes email chain, sirsam640@gmail.com

Please read an overview. Please. It will only help you and your speaks.

Speed is fine - please be clear

Tech over Truth always - the debaters make the argument, not what my preconceived notions of what is truthful/real arguments are.

1. I was frequently in policy v K rounds on both sides. At the 2022 NDT 8/8 rounds were K rounds for me, and 2023 2/8 were K rounds. I read a K aff with my partner one year, then an extinction aff the next year. I went for FW/cap the other half of the time. I am a clash judge and vote for K affs as much as I vote for FW versus them.

2. k affs justify why your model of debate is good impact turns to T are fine

3. 2nrs need a TVA (unless the aff just shouldn't exist under your model which is rare but can happen)

4. condo is good but fine voting that its bad

5. judge kick is probably bad, but if neg says its good and aff doesn't reply I'll judge kick

6. I went for impact turn 2NRs/1ARs a significant portion of my rounds

7. win that your reps are good affs

8. I think perms are a little bit underrated - they probably overcome the link and shield any residual risk.

9. Judging more and more I realize how awesome impact calc is in 2NR/2AR - I definitely think about debate in offense/defense paradigm and often vote for whoever's impact is bigger and accesses the other teams

Theory

CPs need a net benefit in order to win. The role of the neg is to disprove the aff, not just provide another alternative that also fixes the aff. "Solving better" isn't a net benefit. I have voted aff on CP solves 100% of the aff but 0% of net benefit.

PICs are good vs K affs. Pretty strong neg lean on this. It rewards good research.

Don't read death good in front of me.

T

I have come around a lot on T. I think that affs get away with too much in terms of being resolution-adjacent.

Competing interps > reasonability (as law school goes on, I am reverting back to reasonability. This is probably 55/45%ish)

Ground is probably the biggest impact in T debates IMO, I think specific links to affs is the largest internal link to good debates.

I think that community norms is very unpersuasive to me. I do not really care what the rest of the community thinks about T, I'm judging the round, not the community lol

PTIAV is silly but gotta have a decent answer to it.

Affs need to just have a large defense of "no ground loss" and "aff flex/innovation outweighs"

Likely the best way to win T in front of me regardless of side is to just impact out whatever you think is your strongest standard, and make it outweigh your opponents. I spend less time thinking about the specific definition of words and more time about what the models of debate look like (though if debaters tell me to evaluate interps in a specific way I will definitely spend time on it).

PF specific

You do you and I will evaluate to the best of my ability! Any questions feel free to ask pre-round!

You don't need to ask for x amount of prep, just take "running prep" unless you specifically want me to stop you when that time ends.

Last speech should start out with "you should vote aff in order to prevent structural violence which comes first in the round" or something like that. Write my ballot for me.

I find it very hard to vote on something that I don't understand, so while impacts matter a lot I need to understand the story of how we reach the impact

Darrian Carroll

5 Year Debater at the University of North Texas

Ceda Double-Octafinalist, 7th speaker (2015)

NDT Qualifier (2016)

University of Las Vegas Nevada Masters (2018)

Assistant Professor, Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo

Introduction: My debate experience much like this philosophy is less than exhaustive and ever evolving. In what follows I am attempting to provide Heuristics for how I view debate. I use the term heuristic because this is not meant to be a binding document, but instead a set of guidelines that may help one that is preparing to debate in front of me or deciding if they want to debate in front of me.

The short of it: Am I good for the K: Probably, I have quite a bit of experience dealing with K debate as a debater so I am more likely to know the nuances of the strategy and be able to provide fundamental feedback on how to better deploy it. Am I good for policy arguments: mediocre, I have more than a working knowledge of the intricacies of counterplan theory, F/W, Topicality (are those the same thing?), Presumption theory and the best methods to deploy disadvantages. I attempt to judge debate mostly on the merits of what and how it is presented in the debate, HOWEVER there are some exceptions to this regarding things “a reasonable person” (I use reasonable in the legal sense) would find absurd. I believe that debate can be many things but exists in a less static form. I do believe debate can be liberatory for some and a game for others.

The long of it: K about Identity- LOVE it. I think that these are some of the most intriguing debates. I am also highly critical of the way that these ideas get deployed. The caveat here would be do it, but do it well.

K about anything else: I’m pretty well versed in a good portion of the contemporary critical literature. With that said I believe for all arguments people need to explain what they mean in terms outside of their literatures conception. IE You should explain what simulacra means just as much as people should explain what ontology means.

CP: I’m fine with it. My caveat here is that I’m not a fan of cheating counterplans. IE your delay, consult cps are viable but know I’m on the AFF’s side for the theory debate.

DA: I’m great for it. Nothing like a good case DA -debate (LINKs in my mind are mostly DA’s). I am a fan of DA’s that are more realistically possible. When that is not possible I’m also okay with it, however I will be clear that I’m on the side of the logical realistic argument about policy making more than the debate is a game so we get a DA framing.

T: I love it. Went for it all the time early in my career. I am unique in that I do not think Ground and limits are impacts but instead internal links to a larger educational framework you hope to engage in. T when read as a procedural argument Is an okay strat in front of me but not my favorite thing to listen to.

This the bonus this the bonus

The information in this section may or may not be helpful, but it may also be extremely helpful. A. If you can end a final rebuttal with ‘doing well dog’ or some other popular rap lyric it may improve your speaker points. B. When thinking about debate people that I most often think of to guide my thoughts are Martin Osborn, Ignacio Evans, and Steve Pointer. All of these people are very different so this may not be helpful, but it is true. C. my preferred email is thefutureunt@gmail.com Ask me if I want to be on the email chain.

If you want my judging record look my name up in tabroom. "thefutureunt@gmail.com"

For IE events: Organization. Dynamic Delivery. Argumentation. Everything Else.

I'm currently a senior at Bronx Science, and I've been debating Policy since Freshman year.

Put me in the email chain: chenj14@bxscience.edu

Theory, DA, CP, and Kritiks are all fine with me.

While most judges will automatically vote you down for sexist, homophobic, or transphobic statements, I will not. My reason is that debate is a space where any and all ideas should be given a fair chance, even (or perhaps especially) ones that almost everyone disagrees with.

Don't ask me about speaker points at any point before or during the round. You will see the ballot later. I will, however, disclose the winner of the round after submitting the ballot. My verbal RFD will be brief, but the one I write on the ballot will be far more in-depth.

Above all else, debate as an activity should be both fun and competitive for everyone involved. So with that in mind, let's have a good round!

Highlights

Email: eric.clarke2019@gmail.com + swwpolicy@gmail.com

The 1AC needs to be in my inbox at the start time.

Good for Ks and policy. I prefer policy, but I'm fine with whatever.

I don't love evaluating theory debates to resolve the round, but I will. More below.

Love framework v K AFFs+ T v policy AFFs. Love = like hearing them, not that I'll automatically vote for it. Most good K AFFs have offense to framework embedded in the 1AC, so chances are if you hide behind framework without engaging case you'll lose terribly.

Good with speed. If you're unclear and I don't catch something, it is what it is.

Don't steal prep. If a timer isn't running, you shouldn't be typing, writing, or going over speech docs. I'm not usually pressed about watching debaters, but some people are so egregious about stealing prep that I can't help but notice.

Please track your time.

Experience:

Debated policy throughout high school and college (Georgetown). The strategy was usually policy, but I have some experience going for the K at both levels. I also have some experience judging PF and LD at the high school and middle school levels.

General:

If there are any unanswered questions, definitely feel free to ask me before the round starts, and I'm always happy to give follow-up comments after rounds if you shoot me an email.

Make sure acronyms are full written out somewhere in the card.

I'll usually be paying attention during cross to help wrap my head around arguments. Cross usually helps me contextualize the arguments being made (especially true for kritiks). Cross is binding. Cross is also where you can get a decent bump to speaks - go in with a strategy.

I won't read your evidence at the end of the round unless I'm instructed to. Debate is a communicative activity, therefore you need to be able to verbally convey the key warrants in a piece of evidence to me. If I have to read the evidence myself to find the warrants, you haven't done your job. I will also read evidence if there's an evidence indict. Please make evidence idnicts. A lot of people try to get away with reading terrible evidence, and you shouldn't allow it.

Kritiks:

I typically enjoy judging k debates. I can be on board with the concept and ideas of most kritiks, but you need to be able to explain it in a way where I understand all of the mechanisms and nuances tying it to the aff. At the end of the round, I want to be able to put the thesis of the kritik into my own words.

I'm not the biggest fan of kritiks that are gimmicky, BUT I will vote on it if you execute and do everything you need to on the flow. If you have to ask if your K is gimmicky, chances are it is.

Framework:

Absolutely love hearing framework speeches. Easily my favorite position in debate to talk about and listen to speeches on.

While I enjoy framework, know that neg teams won't have a leg up on the affirmative. They still need to debate it well. My personal feelings are irrelevant during the round. What ultimately matters is what both teams do on the flow.

Theory

I have miscellaneous thoughts about various issues. If a particular issue isn't listed, it's because I don't have strong feelings about it. None of these are set in stone (except condo). These are just starting points I have when thinking about these theory arguments, but I can always be convinced to change my mind. Just keep these predispositions in mind if you decide to go for the position.

a.) PICs bad - lean neg but can be convinced otherwise depending on the PIC.

b.) Process CPs bad - lean AFF but can be convinced otherwise.

c.) Condo - three conditional positions is where I become open to voting on condo.

d.) Perf con - neg gets multiple worlds + contradictory advocacies are fine as long as it's resolved by the block.

e.) Disclosure - I think it's silly unless the other team is genuinely being really shady with their disclosure practices.

Misc:

When thinking about your big-picture strategy in rounds, think about what would be the easiest thing for me to pull the trigger on. I love it when teams make my life easier by going for the most strategically sound combination of arguments at the end of the round.

Does fed follow-on mean states links to politics? Talk to me about it depending on the DA.

Tend to lean tech over truth

I prefer teams go for substance rather than spraying each flow with theory arguments and hoping one of them gets dropped.

Please be ready to put together and send a card doc that only includes the cards you think are relevant at the end of the round. I'll usually ask after the 2AR if I need one, but more often than not, I'm fine.

Speaker points:

Hopefully, nobody needs this reminder, but don't be rude. If you're blatantly disrespectful to the opponents and/or your partner, I will tank your speaks. I get that ethos is big for some teams, but that doesn't excuse being a terrible person.

Let your partner speak for themselves. Jumping in on occasion is understandable and expected. However, don't jump in to the point that you make me think your partner doesn't know what they're doing or talking about. More of a pet peeve than anything else.

Add me to the email chain: jczerwin33@gmail.com

I debated four years of policy debate at Cathedral Prep. With that said, I am fairly well versed in policy and K debate. Although I’m much more comfortable with policy arguments, go for what you’re comfortable with. If you’re good at a certain argument, go for it. If you’re convincing, don’t drop arguments, and are able to explain your argument, you are likely to get my vote.

I don’t care what the tournament rules are, you will be given at least 8 minutes of prep time.

Some things I will not tolerate in a debate round

- targeting a certain person in the round. I don’t care what prior history you might have or what’s going on in the debate, if you go out of your way to be rude during the round, your ethos will immediately drop, and I am much less likely.

- any racism, sexism, or any abusive and offensive language during the round.

- scream offs. Every debater has experienced it. If you’re using cross ex to speak over the other team and argue with them rather than to prove a point, it will not benefit your team. Please just don’t do it.

- No matter how bad you may appear to be doing in the debate, at least pretend you care. This means flow all speeches(except if you are the 1NR, do not flow the 2NC!!!). Try to ask meaningful questions. Use all speech time. Etc

Some specific argument beliefs I have

- Overall, I am a tech over truth debater(as long as the argument makes sense and has to do with the debate)

Topicality: A well argued T debate is always fun to watch and judge. You need to have offense and defense if you are going for T. You need to have an impact for T. Why does the aff being untopical matter. Even if you win the limits/grounds debate, if you can’t say why that matters then you won’t be able to win on Topicality.

Counterplans: Counterplans are one of the most underlooked arguments in debate. A solid CP can be the perfect piece to solve the puzzle. However, I wouldn’t recommend going for one without a net benefit. A CP can’t set you ahead in a close debate.

Disadvantages: I’m a big fan of disads. However, if you don’t win the link debate, the chances of you winning are very slim. The link is one of the most important arguments in debate. If you are the aff team, if you are able to win the link debate, your chances of winning the debate are much higher.

K’s: I’m all for critical debates as long as you understand you’re literature and are able to articulate and understand your argument. Just as with the disadvantage, you have to win the link debate to stand a good chance of winning the debate.

Critical Affirmatives: Read my top statement, the best debaters are going to win these debates 9/10 times. If you are comfortable with the argument and good at explaining it, go for it. The only thing I personally want is some affirmative statement. It doesn’t have to be a plan text, just some affirmative line. If you are the negative, a good framework debate is the key to victory if you are a policy team. Please utilize switch side debate. It’s one of the most convincing arguments in debate for me as a judge.

Be able to explain the internal link chain of your affirmative and good things will happen. As a neg team, point out if the internal link chain doesn’t make sense.

The majority of the time, whoever does better impact calculus will win the debate.

Theory debates: please be able to draw out an impact and a reason for in round abuse. It is a voter if you’re able to do this.

Final note:

Have fun, be kind, and good things will happen for you. In debate, and in life.

Edited for 2024

Daniels, Patrick Edit 0 2… I have been coaching and judging for twenty five years at the local, regional and circuit level for BCC. Look at the arguments our school runs and you can learn some of my biases and leanings as to how debate should function.

In the past two years my hearing has steadily declined. Since then I have been limiting my judging as I love this activity. It is quite hard for me to hear the higher register. I hate to say adjust your speed but it may help my understanding of the arguments especially nuances that could be slipped into a speech.

I am very frustrated by judges and jufging paradigms that demand or require students to do anything... It is frustrating to see "mention Dr Who and earn x speaker points " as much as it is frustrating to read, in 2024, I am not good for the K or Kritikal affs are illegitimate.

Students as academics should drive this activity. Let them do what they do best!

Please add me to the email chain patrick.daniels@baltimorecitycollege.us

My Thoughts on Debate:

I vote based on my understanding of the round. That being said speed is fine but I enjoy having some differentiation in tone. I am also a speech teacher and do believe that there is value in remembering that this is a speech activity. I like to keep my flow from getting messy yet somehow debate after debate that is where it ends up. At least half of the time it is my fault. So keeping me entertained helps me follow and flow the argument. Performing your speech reminds me that you are talking about something very important. There is a limit to useful speed. If you are gifted with 550 word a minute speech you may not want to steamroll through every speech to prove it to me. A few years ago at NFL's ICW did a great job of providing speed so they didn't drop an argument but also acknowledging that there were judges in the back looking to vote for someone.

Type of debates that I like:

I like good debates, and I reward debaters that have intelligent affirmatives with specific internal link stories and introduce impact stories. I also like debates where the negative creates crafty negative strategies that demonstrate a grasp of the case and how to beat the case specifically having a link story that shows the inherent problems specific to that affirmative. The

Specifics:

Emailing doc-I don’t take prep for preparing to send but I become annoyed at excessive flashing. I am old and miss paper.

Theory- Be clear, I hear all sorts of theory I just don't want it to get jumbled on my flow (see above). T is a Voter I default to giving aff the benefit of the doubt unless there is in round abuse. Hard for me to believe that an AFff is untopical and that you couldn't possibly have prepared for it in a world in which said team has posted their aff on the Wiki six months ago and debated you at each of the last three tournaments. Let's not waste time there is good debate to be had.

T- probably one of my most frustrating parts of debate. the overlimiting of many T arguments bothers my soul. The decision to try to prevent young people from debating what matters to them troubles me. I am old but still believe that the activity should be driven and decided by the young people that are DOING it! Reasonability or leaning towards a topic will probably make sense to me.

K Debate- I used to love K debate and miss it. Be clear, be true, and realize that I am going to apply your arguments to my smell test. (I am old)
I am willing to vote on Perf Con and wish more teams would take a chance.


DA, CP, Case- The evidence is key. Good evidence had better actually be good if you are calling on me to read it at the end of the round. Having a super power tagged card that isn't warranted could cost you the debate.

Alternative/Performance- as a coach in the Urban Debate League I see these debates a lot. I enjoy impacted debates that teach. Education is primary.
This is a speaking activity and every action can be seen as part of that speech act but it is up to you to make that argument.

Stanford 24' is my first tournament on the HS topic

I debated at Missouri State for three years and had moderate success. I am now out of the debate community but judge every so often.

Email: engelbyclayton@gmail.com

TL;DR

I slightly prefer policy arguments more than critical ones. I want to refrain from intervening in the debate as much as possible. Extinction is probably bad. I think debate is good and has had a positive impact on my life. Both teams worked hard and deserve to be respected.

My beliefs

-Aff needs a clear internal link to the impact. Teams often focus too much time on impacts and not enough on the link story, this is where you should start.

-I like impact turns that don't deviate from norms of morality.

-Condo is good.

-Fairness is not an impact within itself but could be an internal link to something.

-Kritiks are interesting. Explain your stuff.

-Weighing impacts, evidence comparison, strategic decisions, and judge instruction can go a long way.

Mamaroneck High School 2020

Boston University 2024

anna26844@gmail.com - feel free to email me with any questions you have pre-round or post-round.

I am okay with almost anything in debate: Ks, DAs, CPs, Theory, K affs, T, Policy affs etc, go for it. Just don't be rude or condescending to your opponents, I will dock your speaker points.

My own experience has been predominantly running policy affirmatives and mixed k + policy neg strategies. That being said, my opinions DON'T MATTER. I will vote for the debaters who best support their arguments and prove why they should win.

Spreading is cool, but not if you're unclear. Do line-by-line and be clear about evidence comparison.

I expect all competitors to be respectful, know the rules of their format, and follow the needed order of the debate. I would categorize myself as more of a traditionalist versus progressive. I appreciate when competitors pay attention to time limits and focus on substantiated argumentation as opposed to semantics and more minor points of disagreement, and dislike when competitors speak over each other or repeatedly emphasize unsubstantiated points made throughout the debate (repeating a single, somewhat-unrelated fact that the opposing team cannot thoroughly respond to while ignoring other more relevant points made is my most specific example of this). Additionally, speaking at a fast pace is perfectly acceptable so long as everything is coherent and clear for everyone involved. I would really prefer competitors to avoid "spreading," or simply trying to read off information as fast as they possibly can.

2 years of experience as a high school speech competitor, four years of experience debating on the American Parliamentary Debate Association circuit.

Ok with speed (flowing with pen and paper so please don't gosuperfast)

Looking for weighing, impacts, points of crytalization, and kindness

TLDR VERSION

I've been around a long time. I've seen a lot of conventional wisdom come and go. I don't always agree with the consensus of the moment. Be fast, be clear, read a K and/or a counterplan.

Remote Debates:

I flow on paper and actually make an effort to watch you and listen to the words you are saying. It's hard to give speaker points to a glowing dot, so turn on your camera when speaking if possible. I will not follow the speech doc as you are talking, so be clear.

Want to be on the email chain? - Yes, but know that I won't look at the docs until the debate is over.

Please send docs to: samhaleyhill@gmail.com

Speed? - Yes

Open CX? - Sure, but if you aren't involved somewhat, your speaker points suffer.

When does prep time stop? - When you cease to alter your speech doc and to talk about the debate with your partner.

Judge Disclosure - Unless the tournament has some terrible counter-educational policy preventing it (looking at you, NCFL).

Can I read (X argument)? Yes, if it's not offensive.

T? - Reasonability (whew - really feels good to be honest there)

Will you vote on disclosure theory? - No. Disclosure is a good community norm which I support, but I do not think ballots can or should enforce this norm. The exception would be if you can prove that someone straight up lied to you.

Tech over truth? - Yes, but I think people often take this way too far.

FULL VERSION

Biography

Years Judging: 16
Years Debated: 4

I debated for four years in high school for Nevada Union (1998-2002) during which time I made two TOC appearances. I did not debate for Berkeley during my time there, but I was an assistant coach for the College Preparatory School from 2002-2006. After that, I was off the circuit for a few years because I moved to Hong Kong for a year and then went to graduate school. 2010-2011 was my first year back. I worked for New Trier for a year after that and at Nevada Union from 2011-2012. After that I went back to CPS for three more years. I then spent four years running the program at St. Francis. I now work with the Washington Urban Debate League. I have judged a lot for a long time.

Tech Over Truth - This is not dogma

I think that the phrase "tech over truth" is just as vacuous as its inverse, "truth over tech." I honestly have no idea what either of these slogans is trying to say, but I do know that people who repeat either of them incessantly tend to make decisions that I don't get.

"Tech" is just as subjective as "truth" because whether someone's embedded clash has answered something, whether an argument has a warrant, whether someone has explained something enough to have extended it, etc. are all judgement calls at some level anyhow.

I think that dropped arguments are conceded. I think that I should refrain from dismissing arguments that I don't agree with. I think that arguments which I think are bad should still win the debate if the debater advancing them has argued better than the opponent. I guess that's tech over truth?

At the same time, I am the kind of judge who thinks that one compelling, well-developed argument can be more important than three specious, underdeveloped ones. I don't think that the concession of a less significant argument necessarily outweighs a more significant argument that is won despite contestation. Is that truth over tech? Is this whole tech vs. truth binary kind of pointless?

My bumper sticker slogan would be something like: "Analysis over blips."

Speaker Points - No, you can't have a 30.

It used to go without saying that I award speaker points solely based on how well I feel the debaters performed in each round. These days, it seems that I need to say that I will continue to do this regardless of what anyone else does and regardless of what debaters tell me to do during the debate.

I think that there's a performative/communicative aspect to this activity. Speak persuasively and your points will improve.

Try to be nice.

Judge Disclosure - I do it.

I'll disclose my decision and talk about the round with you in depth afterwards. I remember getting a lot out of post-round discussions when I was a debater, and I hope I can pass something along. If your analytics are in your speech docs for my later reference, I'll even give you my flows.

Speed - Go ahead, but be clear

I can flow any rate of delivery.

Lately, someone out there has been telling high school debaters to slow down and emphasize tags. Stop it, whoever you are. This advice implies that I don't care about the text of the card. In fact, I care about how you tagged the card far, far less than I care about what the text of the card actually says. When you slow down for the tag, but slosh unintelligibly through the card, you are implying that I can't understand high speed and that the actual card text is a mere formality. If this is so, you may as well just paraphrase the card like a PF debater.

Believe it or not, I actually can understand your card at high speeds if you read it clearly. I'm actually flowing what the card says. Often as not, I won't flow your (often misleading) tag at all.

I'll yell "clear" at you if you're not being clear. I'll do this twice before putting my pen down and pointedly glaring at you.

Line By Line - Please and Thank You

I'll look at evidence, sure, but I will be grumpy if you make me sort out a huge rat's nest of implied and unexplained clash for you. I am a believer in directly responsive line-by-line debate. I think that explaining warrants is good, but comparing warrants is better.

Framework - Can't we all just get along?

I am one of the last folks out there who won't take a side. I vote neg on framework sometimes; I vote aff on framework sometimes. I think framework debates are kind of fundamental to the activity. I'm up for any kind of argument. I love a good K debate, but I'm equally pleased to adjudicate a game of competing policy options. Run what you love. In my heart, I probably don't care if there's a plan text, but I'll vote for theory arguments demanding one if the better debating is done on that side. Please don't read offensive/amoral arguments.

Conditionality - Yeah, sure, whatever

I think one or two conditional CP's and a K is just fine. You can win a debate on conditionality being more permissive than that or being bad altogether. I won't intervene.

T - I am different from the folks at Michigan

I think that winning complete or nearly complete defense on T is sufficient for the aff even in a world of competing interpretations. If the aff meets, they meet. I'm unlikely to give this RFD: "Even though you're winning a we meet, the neg interpretation is better, so any risk that you don't meet etc etc." Ever since someone told me back in 1999 that T should be evaluated like a DA, I have not agreed. It's a procedural issue, not a predictive claim about the consequences of implementing a policy. As such, I evaluate T procedurally. Whether or not the aff meets is a binary question, not a linear risk.

I think sometimes people think that "competing interpretations" means "the smallest interpretation should win." To me, smallest is not necessarily best. Sure, limits are a big deal, but there is such a thing as over-limiting. There are also other concerns that aren't limits per se, like education, ground, and predictability.

I can be persuaded otherwise in a debate, but I think we should evaluate T through the lens of reasonability.

Open Cross Ex - Yeah

Just make sure that you're involved somewhat or I'll hammer your speaks.

Disclosure theory

Stop it. People choose to disclose as a courtesy. It is not and should not be a requirement. I tell all my teams to disclose. I think you should disclose. If you choose not to, so be it.

If you make a disclosure theory argument, I will ignore you until you move on to something else. I will never vote on a disclosure theory argument, even if it is not answered.

I always find it sadly hilarious when big, brand-name programs tell me that disclosure is good for small schools. It most definitely is not. The more pre-round prep becomes possible, the more that coaching resources can be leveraged to influence debates. That's why the most well-resourced programs tend to be the most aggressive about disclosure theory.

New Affs

New affs are fine. I will not consider arguments which object to them, even if the aff team never answers such arguments.

lexpjdebate@gmail.com - add me to the chain (also, have a subject line with the tournament and round, thanks!)

lexington '21 johns hopkins '25

she/her

my name is pia - call me pia (pee-ah), please and thanks :)

about me

2n--X----------------------------------------------2a

policy-----X------------------------------------------k (i understand cap and some identity stuff, high theory is a no)

10 off policy stuff----X-----------------------------------------1 off k

for lil lex

i've never judged pf before but i did policy debate at lexington high school for four years. i'll definitely be looking at the flow (which i will be flowing in the policy way, vertically).

i don't know anything about the topic so keep acronym use to a minimum and make sure to explain all your arguments clearly. for more information, please refer to the ld/pf section below. i look forward to judging you!

debating

disclosure-------X------------------------------------------------nah (not if it's new, but definitely if in the packet division!)

do lbl------X-----------------------------------------------idrc

signposting-----------X-------------------------------------switching b/w flows w/o saying so

clarity>speed---------X--------------------------------------speed>clarity

"extend ___"----------------------------------------------X---“actual warrants - that’s ___”

block split--------X--------------------------------------block repetition

impact calc----------X-----------------------------------------nah

frame my ballot-------X------------------------------------------just talk

new args in the 2ar----------------------------------------X--no.

case debate----X----------------------------------------------drop it

1nr prep---------------------------------------------X--no (you have 13 minutes...)

conditionality good----------X----------------------------conditionality

death bad-X--------------------------------death good (PLEASE do not do this to me)

read the rehighlighting----------X--------------------------------send in speech doc

tech stuff

cameras on-------X---------------------------------------cameras off

i hate tech problems-----------------------------------X-------------im lenient w tech issues

slow down----------X-------------------------------------------same speed as normal debate

google docs--------------------------X-------------------------word (idc, our novies also use google docs)

talk to me---------X----------------------------------------------silently stare at me (i'm over talking to myself)

random things

dee-ay or see-pee------------------------------------X---”dis-ad” or “counterplan”

flow----------x---------------------------------------whatever

be a nice person-X------------------------------------------intimidate the other team

time your speeches-------X----------------------------make me do it

lincoln douglass, pf, etc.

time your speeches---X--------------------------------------------------meh (PLS)

how you present yourself---------------------------------------------------------X------the flow (i am a policy debater :))

speed----X----------------------------------------------------talking

paraphrasing ev--------------------------------------------------X--read the ev (PLS again)

speech docs---X----------------------------------------------nah

speaker points

mostly between 27.5-28.5 unless i feel the need to give you lower or higher speaks

+0.1---make a good joke about ppl ik (angelique pham, zoey lin, mahima ramesh, amanda flashner, will yang, larry lin)

+0.1--show me your flows after the round (send / show me before i make my decision so i can boost your speaks)

+0.1---make a joke about lucifer/the office/parks and rec/other tv shows i like

+0.2---be partnership goals like lexington pj (we're the coolest :), hi angelique <3)

please email me if you have any questions

Crystal

She/Her

Add me to the email chain please: crystall1663@gmail.com

Hi! I'm Crystal. I am a 4th year high school policy debater. I am a 2N so I will be sympathetic to FW and T arguments. Besides that, I'm open to most arguments. Just try your best and be nice! Be sure to explain things during the debate for the sake of me and your opponents. If you're a novice I encourage you not to run super complicated Ks because you will trip yourself up. Overall, I will give everyone high speaks for a good and engaging debate. Some points that I will be considering when making my decisions are:

General:

Tech>Truth

In my opinion cards are not responsive— that's your job. You need to extend and apply your evidence, just reading them makes the debate stale.

Judge instruction - Tell me why you win. I can't read minds so I might interpret things differently and put together arguments in a way that disadvantages you. If you tell me why you win, then I will be able to understand how you want me to see things.

If you’re pressed for time here’s a TLDR: I am pretty much open to all arguments, if you are running an obscure one be sure to understand it yourself and explain it clearly. I like debates with a ton of clash so if you manage that in a debate your speaker points will be pretty high. Have some sort of judge instruction in your last speeches, it helps make sure that I am not misinterpreting your situation in round. Don't be harmful to other people in your round. If it was unintentional be sure to apologize, your speaker points will decrease but I will not vote against you for accidentally saying it. If you continue to be rude on purpose I will vote against you.

Now onto the long stuff. . .

Aff:

Extending Aff solvency - I think the Aff sometimes gets caught up in the Neg's arguments and forgets to extend their own solvency. Without a good reason why your case solves there is no reason for me to vote Aff. Even if you prove that the Neg doesn't have any solvency either, that just means I buy the squo is better than the world of the aff..

Answering T/FW - If your opponent makes these arguments, answer them because it could cost you the debate.

K Affs - Just know how to run a K well. Don't go for a K you have no practice in and don't understand. Generally I am open to K offs as long as the lit is explained well.

1ar - You can read cards in the 1ar. But I strongly recommend you limit it to one or two. It is better to extend cards you already read or respond to your opponents.

Neg:

Extend Case - Don't forget to answer case. Just because you have other arguments don't drop case. I will vote Aff if they have extended case and proven that they solve. If the Aff solves better than the Neg there is no reason for me to vote Neg.

New 1ar arguments - If you tell me not to consider new arguments in the 1ar I will listen to you. But that’s up to you.

Other general stuff is just being nice during CX and speeches. Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, trans phobic and ableist. I'm not a fan of death good. Talk clearly and loudly but don't interrupt others. Be sure to time yourself and don't try to steal prep. Good luck and have fun!

I have been involved with Policy Debate since 1999. I competed in high school from 2000-2002. I also taught at a debate camp for BUDL in 2006.

Since 2002, I have judged at local and national high school debate tournaments. I also judge at various elementary and middle school league tournaments.

I have been described as a liberal judge. I like all of the argument types. I encourage every student to run their arguments in a well-structured and organized fashion. I can handle speed and spreading.

I do provide my email address on every ballot. It is listed below for your convenience. My ballots are usually detailed based on the flow of the round. I flow (take notes) nearly the entire round. I believe that we can all stand to learn from one another. I am also an advocate of research. Analytical arguments are good too. I prefer clash, refutation, and impact calculus during the debate round.

I can be reached via email at Lisadebate02@gmail.com.

High threshold for framework but don’t be afraid to read T in front of me.

Need to be sold on impacts for FW

dont be racist, sexist or homophobic, or it will be reflected on your RFD

and/or speaker points.

I have an extensive history in performative/Krikal debate but also in traditional policy. So no real preference for either side just enjoy judging competitive debates

Prefer clarity over speed just like most humans

Debate well and do not change what you read just because I am judging. These are just my thoughts on debate, but I try to leave all my opinions at the door and vote off the flow. I do not coach often anymore, so assume that I have no topic knowledge.

I debated at Mamaroneck for three years and coached the team during the criminal justice reform and water resources topics. I did grad school at Georgetown and work for the debate team.

People who have influenced how I judge and view debate: Ken Karas, Jake Lee, Rayeed Rahman, Jack Hightower, Cole Weese, Tess Lepelstat, Zach Zinober, David Trigaux, Brandon Kelley, Gabe Lewis

Put me on the email chain: eaorfanos1[at]gmail[dot]com AND mhsdebatedocs[at]googlegroups[dot]com. The email subject should be "Tournament + Year - Round # - Aff Team v. Neg Team" [Example: Mamaroneck 2023 - Round 1 - Mamaroneck RS v. Mamaroneck LS]

Please open source all your evidence after the debate.

Be respectful. Have fun.

general

Tech > Truth. Dropped arguments are true if they have a claim, warrant, and impact, you extend the argument, and you tell me why I should vote on it. It is not enough to say dropping the argument means you automatically win without extending and explaining. That being said, the threshold for explanation is low if the other team drops the argument.

I adjust speaker points based on the tournament, division, and quality of competition. I reward debaters who are strategic and creative.

Clipping will give you the lowest possible speaks and a loss. Please take this seriously as I have caught a couple debaters doing so and promptly reported the situation to tab and gave L 1 to the debater at fault.

Violence and threats of violence will also result in L 1 or lowest possible points. Don't test me on this.

specific

I love a good case debate. Show me that you did your research and prepared well. Evidence comparison and quality is very important. Do not just say their evidence is bad and your evidence is better without comparing warrants.

I am a good judge for extinction outweighs.

Impact turns are great when done well. However, I do not like wipeout (gross) or warming good (I work in environmental law). I will be annoyed if you run these arguments, but will still try to evaluate the round fairly. Obviously no racism good or similar arguments.

Heg good is a vibe.

5+ off vs K affs is also a vibe.

Big politics disadvantage fan.

I love well-researched advantage counterplans. My favorite strategies involve advantage counterplans and impact turns. I am also good for process counterplans, but it is always better if there is truth based on the topic lit that supports why the specific process is competitive with and applicable to the aff. Counterplans need a net benefit and a good explanation of solvency and competition. I like smart perm texts and expect good explanations of how the perm functions. I will not judge kick unless the 2NR tells me to. Honestly, I am uncomfortable with judge kick and would rather not have to do it, but will if the neg justifies it.

I used to like topicality debates, but I realized that they become unnecessarily difficult to evaluate when neither side does proper comparative work on the interpretation or impact level. Abuse must be substantiated, and the negative must have an offensive reason why the aff's model of debate is bad. You should have an alternative to plan text in a vacuum (this argument is kinda dumb). Legal precision, predictable limits, clash, and topic education are persuasive. I think that I am persuaded by reasonability more than most, but I think this is dependent on the violation and the topic. Please provide a case list.

Condo is probably good, but I can be persuaded otherwise if abuse is proved and there is an absurd amount of condo. I will vote for condo it is dropped, the 2nr is only defense on condo, or the aff is winning the argument on the flow.

For other theory, I am probably also neg leaning. Theory debates are not fun to resolve, so please do not make me evaluate a theory debate. A note for disclosure theory: I firmly believe that disclosure is good, and the bar is lowest on this theory argument for me to vote for it, but you must still extend the argument fully and answer your opponent's responses. Even if you opponent violates, you must make a complete argument and answer their arguments.

Great for T-USFG. Procedural fairness and clash are the most persuasive impacts. I love real and true arguments.

More negative teams should go for presumption against K Affs. Affirmative teams reading K Affs should provide a thorough explanation of aff solvency or at least tell me why the ballot is key if your aff does not necessarily need to have a specific solvency mechanism and instead relies on an endorsement of its method or thesis.

I am most familiar with the basic Ks like capitalism and security. I am not the best judge if you read high-theory Ks, and my least favorite debates have involved teams reading these kind of Ks and relying on blocks. Overviews and non-jargon tags are very helpful. Explanation is key. Specific links to the plan are always better. Despite my own argument preferences, I have voted for the K fairly often.

My ballot in clash rounds is usually based on framework or the perm. Negative teams going for the K in front of me should spend more time on framework than they normally would, unless it is an impact turn debate.

I am not the best judge for K v K, but I will try my best if I find myself in one of these debates. My ballot in these types of debates has mostly focused on aff vs alt solvency.

My style of debate revolves around solid arguments and facts backed by credible sources. I can appreciate fewer points that have more quality researched arguments instead of a myriad of flimsy arguments. I hope participants enjoy debating and are not afraid to think outside the proverbial box with their arguments. Debate is a competition and I expect participants to be respectful of teammates/judges/opponents.

tl;dr

lexington ‘21

don't be problematic [i'll lay it out for you: oppression good, death good will be an auto L]

add me to the email chain -- lexnovies@gmail.com and lexpjdebate@gmail.com

paradigm inspiration -- pia jain <3

about me

2n---------------------------------------------X--2a

policy---X----------------------------------------------k [i probably need a lot of explanation]

short--X------------------------------------------------tall

angelique-X--------------------------------------------other names

shake my hand after the round---------------------X--i would prefer not

debating

do lbl (please)------X-----------------------------------------------no

clarity>speed---------X--------------------------------------speed>clarity

open speech-------------------------------------------------------X-no (i'll only flow what the actual speaker says)

open cross-ex---X---------------------------------------------------nope

every speech is MY speech-----------------------------------X-----i have a partner

“extend ___”----------------------------------------------X---“actual warrants - that’s ___”

"what's your plan?"----------------------------------------X----i will stop paying attention to cx

block split--X--------------------------------------------block repetition

impact calc----X-----------------------------------------------nah

frame my ballot-------X------------------------------------------just talk

signposting----X--------------------------------------------switching b/w flows w/o saying so

new args in the 2ar------------------------------X----------NO! [i really like good 2ar extrapolation]

case debate----X----------------------------------------------drop it

conditionality good----------X----------------------------conditionality bad (2-3)

t in the 2nr---------------------------------------X------------not really

k-affs-------------------------------------------------X----------framework

*to note: i have a very high threshold for k-aff solvency. if i think your aff does not have an actual way to spread your movement i will not vote for you

random things

dee-ay or see-pee------------------------------------X---”dis-ad” or “counterplan”

flow-X------------------------------------------------whatever

be a nice person-X------------------------------------------intimidate the other team

keep track of your prep---------------X-------------------------make me do it [i will probably do so anyways]

1nr prep------------------------------------------------------------X-denied

read the crime da--------------------------------------------------X-don't

speaker points

generally 27.3 - 28.6, you will 100 percent get below a 27 if you are problematic

+0.1---make a good joke about pia, mahima, amanda, or caroline

+0.1---be partnership goals like lexington pj (subject to my judgement)

+0.1---tell me to "stick to the status quo" if you go for a neg on presumption ballot

+0.5---i got into college while judging you

-0.1 ---if you ask me if im related to antoine or if im a debater in the round

if i judge you in other events besides policy

other events----------------------------------------------------------------X-sorry i literally know nothing about it**

--i literally mean nothing i do not even know the speech times, prep times, etc.

--paraphrasing evidence is something i probably will not flow so please read your cards as they are highlighted

--i am very tech over truth (unless it is problematic) and okay with speed

--impact calc will definitely help me evaluate the debate

--explain your framing and why i should prefer it to your opponent's otherwise i will default to what i have on my flow

also, feel free to email me or facebook messenger me after the round if you have any questions

Policy Debate

It is the responsibility of the debater to look at the paradigm before the start of each round and ask any clarifying questions. I will evaluate the round under the assumption it has been read regardless if you did it or not. I will not check to see if you read my paradigm, nor will I give warnings of any kind on anything related to my paradigm. If you don't abide by it you will reap what you sow I am tired of debaters ignoring it, and myself in a debate round my patience has officially run out.

1. I hate spreading slow down if you want me to flow your arguments if it is not on my flow, it is not a part of the round. It doesn't matter how well it is explained or extended. At best, depending on the speech, it will be a new argument or analytical argument and will be evaluated from then forth as such. I do want to be part of the email chain, my email is thehitman.310@gmail.com, note that just because I am part of the email chain does not mean I flow everything I read. I only flow what I hear so make sure I can hear your arguments. Beware I will be following along to make sure no one is cutting cards and I will call out teams for cutting cards so be sure to do things correctly. I will drop cards before the team and continued cutting will result in me stopping the round and contacting tab. Additionally, I will not yell clear, and I will not give time signals except to inform you your time is up. I find doing this splits my attention in a way that is unfair to the debater and often distracts debaters when called out. You will have my undivided attention.

2. I hate theory and have only voted on it once (current as of 4/12/22). In particular, I do not like disclosure theory and think it's a bogus argument, as I come from a time when there was no debate wiki; as a result, I am highly biased against this argument and don't advise running it in my round. Also, regardless of the argument, I prefer they be related to the topic. I am just as interested in the topic as I expect debaters to be. On that note, I am willing to listen to just about anything as long as they are well articulated and explained(See 3). I have heard some pretty wild arguments so anything new will be fun to hear. Know in order for me to vote on an argument, there needs to be an impact on it, and I need to know how we arrive at the impact. But I want to know more than A + B = C, I need to know the story of how we arrive at your impact and why they matter. I will not simply vote on a dropped argument unless there is no other way to vote and I need to make a decision, I consider this Judge intervention, and I hate doing this. You, as a debater, should be telling me how to vote I will have to deduct speaker points if I have to do any work for you. Keep this in mind during your rebuttals.

3. At the beginning of each round, I am a blank slate; think of me like a 6 or 7-year-old. Explain arguments to me as such. I only evaluate things said in a round; my own personal knowledge and opinion will not affect me. For example, if someone in a round says the sky is purple, reads evidence the sky is purple, and it goes uncontested, then the sky is purple. I believe this is important because I consider anything else judge's intervention which I am highly opposed to and, again, will result in a speaker point deduction. That being said, I default to a standard policy-making framework at the beginning of each round unless I am told otherwise. This also applies in the context of evidence, your interpretation of the evidence is law unless challenged. Once challenged, I will read the evidence and make a decision based on my understanding of the evidence and how it was challenged, this may result in my decision on an argument flipping, the evidence being disregarded, and/or the ballot being flipped.

4. Be aware I do keep track of Speech times, and Prep, and go solely by my timer. My timer counts down and will only stop when you say stop prep. Once you say "Stop prep" I expect you to be ready to send the file. I do not want to hear I need to copy arguments to a file to send as a part of an email chain. I will run prep for that. It should not take long to send a prepared file through the email chain, and I will wait until all participants receive the file before allowing the following speech to start but do not think you can abuse this I will restart prep if it takes an abnormal amount of time. Also extremely important to note I will not stop my timer for any reason once speech has started for any reason outside of extreme circumstances, and technical difficulties do not count. If you choose to stop your timer to resolve your issue before resuming, know that my time has not stopped and your speech time is being consumed. Also, aside from using your phone as a timer, I expect all debaters to not be on their phones during the round (this includes in between speeches and during prep). I think it is disrespectful to debate as an activity and to your opponent(s), and will deduct speaker points for it. Keeping that in mind, I will not evaluate any argument read off a phone, especially if you have a laptop in the round.

5. In JV and VCX, Cross-X is closed, period. NCX, I will only allow it if you ask. If you don't, it is closed. If you decide to have an open CX anyway, I will deduct speaker points.

6. Last but not least, be respectful to me and to each other, and I would appreciate a good show of sportsmanship at the beginning and end of each round. Any disrespect will result in a speaker point deduction on a per-incident basis. Continued disrespect will result in notifying tournament staff and lower-than-average speaker points. Although I do not expect it will go that far.

E-Debate:

A. Cameras must be on at all times. I will not flow teams with cameras off. Do not be surprised if you lose because I did not flow it you have been warned. I will not be lenient with this as I have been in the past.

B. Prep time will be run until speeches are received in the email chain. DO NOT assume you control the time as mentioned above. I am keeping time and will go by my timer. I WILL start the speech timer if you end prep AND THEN send the speech. I have zero tolerance for this, as teams consistently abuse this to steal prep. You should know how to send an email; it should not take long. If you are having genuine technical issues, let me know as the tournament has Tech Time, I can run that timer instead, otherwise, I will run speech time. DO NOT make light of this I am tired of being ignored as if I am not a part of a debate round.

C. Make sure I'm ready this should be common sense, but for some reason, I have to mention it. If you start a speech before I am ready, I will miss some arguments on my flow, and I will be highly annoyed. Your speaker points will reflect this, and you may lose the round as a result if it was a key argument that I did not flow.

D. Also, spreading on camera is a terrible idea, and I highly advise against it from a technical perspective and my general disdain for spreading. E-Debates are tricky enough with varying devices, internet speeds, and audio equipment affecting the quality of the stream, spreading in my experience is exceptionally disadvantageous, do so at your own risk.

E. REMINDER, I Control speech and prep timers, and speeches DO NOT stop because you are reading the wrong speech or can't find where you are at on a document; once the timer has started, it stays running until speech time is over. I do not know why I have to mention this, but recent judging experiences have told me it must be mentioned.

Lincoln-Douglas

I am very new to judging Lincoln-Douglas Debates. As such, I am relying on the debater to frame the debate for me, particularly in the rebuttal. Arguments should always be responsive to what your opponent is saying if you wish to win them. Explain how your arguments interact, and your line of argumentation means that line of argumentation weighs in your favor. In general, I think all arguments should be filtered through the lens of your values and criterion. That work must be done by the debater, not the judge. Additionally if what you say matches what is on my flow the chances of you winning are high.

I want to be on an email change, I ike to follow along as evidence is being read. My email is thehitman.310@gmail.com

Particularly in rebuttals make sure you are filtering aregumens through Value, Criterion and FW.

Do not read blocks, read analytics that actually respond. It is obvious if you are just reading out pre-typed material and your speaks will go down.

Be polite to one another.

Do not steal prep.

claim - warrant - impact; a clear story is necessary to win the debate since a story has arguments. It might be a lofty burden but explanations are critical in order to win my ballot.

Tabula rasa.

ksoropoulos@gmail.com

I am a salmon

BIO and General

Hi,

I debated policy at Mamaroneck for 3 years (2016-2019). I would prefer the debate to go the way you want it to, meaning feel free to reading critical and policy arguments.

I subscribe to tabula rasa but FYI I ran almost exclusively policy. Know your authors and what you are reading. This is true for critical as well as policy arguments: I will make no arguments for your opponent's if you do end up expounding an argument that is not in your cards as I feel it is your opponent's responsibility to call you out, but I will also not give you a free pass if the arguments do not link and are made-up.

please do not just read blocks, it hurts your speaks and your chances of winning. debate the line by line, respond to arguments, use warrants. I love a good line by line argument. Speak on your feet, not just regurgitating the same BS from your cards.

Specifics

- I assign the last two speeches in the round to be the most important. If an argument is not in the last two speeches I will not vote on it. Tell me why you have won and provide warrants and weighing, write my ballot for me.

- I think the single most important thing in debates, regardless of style, is the link chain. Too often teams forget about telling me how you get to your impacts in favor of large spectacles of violence. I like the ending to dr strangelove as much as the next man but tell me how you get there.

- CP: Will vote on any competitive counterplan, some are better than others, try to have a net benefit if you want the ballot.

- DA: As I said, link chain is important.

- T: I really like technical T debates. I think debaters should slow down by a few degrees when they are debating the standards (especially virtual debates). Probably lean to towards reasonability but I can be dissuaded.

- K: Do not like Kritiks because most debaters are blithering idiots when it comes to understanding the cards. They do not know what the cards are really arguing. This is largely due to the theoretical nature of most kritiks. I believe good K's have examples, not conjecture. I will vote on the K but that requires you to know what you are talking about, please do not read blocks after blocks, I much prefer debating than listening to you read out loud.

-FW:Well argued framework is a work of art

- ROTB/ROTJ: if you are arguing for education gained in the round as a reason to vote for the K you better have a pretty compelling warrant, I need to understand why you uniquely require the ballot, why is a W on tabroom essential to your method? Why do you need the ballot if the room has already been educated? These questions and others are ones you should seek answers for. Saying ROTB is to spread communism is not enough for me. Substantiate your argument.

- K affs: see above, pretty much the same opinions, prove why the topic/resolution is bad. Have some link. Explain why you need the ballot and why reading the 1ac isnt enough.

Debate is a game, with potential real world impacts. The impacts of eduaction and preserving/improving the consuction of the game are more important than any 1 round.

IN SUM

I value the real world value and impact of debate. Switch side is good. Debate has real potential to form policymakers, Nixon and Karl Rove are prime examples ;) I will ultimately vote on many issues, including the K (which i despise with the passion of a thousand suns) if you can prove a real impact and connect it to this you will do well.

Personal Info

I debated at Lincoln HS, in Lincoln, NE. I mostly debated policy, specialized in the kritikal side of things, and ran everything from topical affirmatives, to anti-topical affirmatives. On the negative, I ran everything from Nietzsche to Give the Land back to spending DA's and consult CP's. After graduating HS I joined the Army. Now I am stationed in JBLM, Washington with 1st Group.

I swear like an sailor, expect it, and let me know if it is offensive to you, I will attempt to refrain as much as possible.

General stuff:

· I should be fine with whatever kritik you run. I might not have the best knowledge of it so make sure to explain it well, but my background knowledge should be passable.

· BE CLEAR. I haven't judged in about a year.

· I don't wanna watch two ships passing in the night (I'm looking at you, Novice Policy). Debates with more clash usually end with more speaker points for both sides.

Policy:

First, some basic thoughts:

· I think that topicality is an important issue that at least warrants discussion in some instances; however it may be difficult to win against an actively non-topical team because all levels of the argument need to be won for T to be won.

· I’ll have a hard time voting for traditional condo bad theory against one conditional advocacy, but multiple contradictory worlds are probably not okay. This is assuming the advocacy is not for some sort of chaotic alternative.

· Counterplans are generally fine, but I am partial to abuse arguments against Plan inclusive Counterplans, or PICs, because they generally seem to be a thinly veiled way for the neg to frame the aff out of the round. If there is sufficient literature base for and against the PIC, I will probably give it more leeway than say the ‘the’ PIC.

More specifically:

· Kritiks must flow correctly and clearly.

· I love a good case argument, and if you fail to attack the case, and only run a kritik, counterplan, or disad, it is going to be hard for me to vote neg. I believe that, minimum, there should be at least one developed case argument brought into the 2NR. This does come with exceptions, of course. Kritiks that attack the foundations of debate, or form into a case negative with exterior offense, I will listen to, but I promise you, it is easier to just make a case argument.

· Counter-K’s are fine but please make it clear about whether or not it is a part of the affirmative case and you are treating it as a negative specific advantage, or whether it is free floating.

· You can’t bullshit a bullshtitter. Don’t even try.

Lincoln-Douglas

I debated predominantly policy in high school, but i do have a positive record overall in LD. I have read some of the traditional ethical philosophers, or at the very least know the gist of what they say (mostly Rawls, Kant, and Hobbes), along with a lot of the newer, more postmodern stuff. The one thing I don't have a lot of knowledge of is the weird framework positions. I should be able to follow what you argue, and I'll try my utmost to evaluate the way the debaters tell me too. I like to look to the value-criterion debate for impact analysis a lot.

If you give me some bullshit definition from Merriam-Webster or fucking Dictionary.com it is very easy to convince me that definition is, in fact, complete bullshit. There are plenty of good sources to get legal and philosophical definitions from. I'd much rather hear a definition from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or the Black's Law Dictionary.

As a policy debater, I am used to the long rebuttals and constructive speeches to develop arguments, such as K's. This means I have a high standard for how well you develop your arguments. I would rather hear two well developed arguments than twenty arguments that are brought up and then never extended.

On voting:

I’ve found that I tend to like impact calculus when it comes to deciding a debate. What I mean by that is when you explain exactly how you win at the end of the round and why your impacts are important, I am more liable to vote for that argument than your opponent. Basically, I tend to lean towards well-structured dispassionate rebuttal speeches as opposed to passionate disorganized rebuttals because I find it easier to justify my ballots. I want flow.

That should be all the technical stuff that people need to know. Just have fun in round and try to be nice to each other. I think that the debaters should always be the ones to define the rounds, so just have fun and do what you want to do and I'll try to go along with it. I'd definitely appreciate something new, because I think that creative arguments are what makes this activity fun, and what makes it stand out. As such, I'll probably be giving you more speaks if your arguments come across as innovative and polished. Grounding your arguments in reality (even if it's a very non-standard view of reality) effectively is a reliable way to seem more polished.

It's cool frfr. I'll judge your round. Don't be a racist or w/e and make your arguments well.

-See Devon Schley's Paradigm, we're basically the same person but I like Afropess less-

pronouns: she/her

email: jasminez@princeton.edu

I'm a college senior at princeton studying computer science and doing (american and british) parliamentary debate. I did traditional LD all four years of high school, but occasionally found myself against a circuit debater

most of these thoughts are for LD, but you can generalize it to the other formats

General Thoughts

speed: you can go fast, just don't spread to the point where you're gasping, and please enunciate.

if your opponent's argument is not well warranted, you don't need to say a lot to convince me. don't waste time on insubstantial arguments -- just don't drop them.

cx -- won't flow it unless you reference something that happened in one of your speeches.

evidence -- won't call for it unless you tell me to.

please sign post ! ! ! and extend your arguments with more than just a citation ! ! !

weighing/direct clash is very very good!! please please do this - makes my life a lot easier, and makes the round a lot less messy and a lot more substantive.

LD: framework!! please don't forget about framework, esp if you don't default to util. it is so very important and tells me how to view the round and evaluate your contentions. I think fw is what makes (traditional) ld so special, so linking your impacts back to your fw is all the more helpful.

progressive stuff: i'm not going to tell you not to run it, but bear in mind i was a traditional ld debater, so i don't prefer it. if you run it, you're going to have to explain things thoroughly.

please do not make racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc. arguments !!!! please use your judgement and content warn arguments as necessary

try to be nice to your opponent :)

+0.1 speaker points if you make a funny joke

Emory '23 | Strath Haven '19 | 2A/1N

tech > truth

debated two years in college/qualled to TOC in policy my senior year/know nothing about the water topic

please put me on the email chain: lynnea(dot)zhang@gmail(dot)com

Top Level

i go by the flow which presupposes any ideological preferences i have; if you win the flow, i will vote for you.

if i look grouchy, you're doing something wrong.

do ev comparison.

Counterplans

i will be very very sad if i have to flow your 24 point at: perm do the counterplan block

won't judge kick unless i am told to

Kritiks

if you're running one, your burden is still to disprove the aff. please debate the case. i am probably not familiar with your theory, but have few ideological preferences when it comes to what your scholarship is as long as it is well explained.

i really really do not care that fiat isn't real, i'm going to weigh the aff

K Affs

do your thing. i really enjoy well-developed case debate, k aff or otherwise. the best k affs capably explain their method to resolve a problem. impact turns vs k affs are great.

K Affs vs T

i think debate is a game and the only impact that my ballot can really resolve is procedural fairness. however, if you can prove why that that's a bad or violent model, you've leveled the playing field.

counter define words in the resolution.

procedural fairness >>> truth-testing/refinement > topic education > deliberation > any other impact

Theory

condo is probably pretty good and the only violation i'd be willing to vote on

i have a high threshold for voting issues here. my team routinely ran very abusive counterplans, so there's no alarm that really goes off in my head

Topicality

i like t debates. please explain the violation clearly and compare counter-interps.

untopical affs should go for reasonability and literature checks limits/potential abuse. i find the arg that ground shapes limits on certain resolutions very persuasive in determining an impact to something like ground loss or limits explosion.

LD

i don't think there is much delineation between my philosophy for LD and Policy. i will give more weight to theory because i recognize that it is apart of LD norms, except for rvis. rvis are silly.

Greetings!

Hi! I am Stefanie Zin.

Please add me to the e-mail chain: zinst4364@gmail.com

If you don't read ANYTHING else, please read the following:

1.PLEASE SIGNPOST

2.PLEASE PROVIDE A ROADMAP

Okay, now that I've said that:

While I debated in high school for four years, and in college for two, it was a while ago. I have VERY LIMITED familiarity with most Kritiks and definitely not as fast a flow as I used to be. That said, you needn't act like you are giving an "after dinner speech". Related to speed, I also appreciate intelligibility. My motto is, "If I can't understand what you said, I can't flow it and if I can't flow it, I can't vote on it." To borrow a statement from my Ex-Husband, David Zin, "Debate is still a communication activity, even if we rip along at several hundred words a minute."

I am a bit of a traditionalist: I tend to have a stock issues approach to the AFF, I like clear and succinct tags on evidence. You can read the evidence as fast as you want (assuming you are intelligible). I appreciate it when the 2NR/2AR not only provide me with justification as to why they win, but contrasts their position to the other team and explain how they outweigh.

Tag team CX is okay, within reason. I award speaker points based on the quality/content of the speeches as well as CX performance. I want all of the debaters to be able to think on their feet and not rely solely on their partner to "carry them through the round". Please demonstrate your independent understanding and mastery of the material (this will be rewarded).

Finally, I have a deep and profound respect for civility in a debate round. Your goal should be to prevail based on the content and quality of your argumentation, not on your ability to subject your opponent to abject misery and totally debase them. (This type of behavior will NOT be rewarded and you will NOT be happy with your Speaker Points as a result).

Please consider the following elements with an "X" denoting my position with respect to the spectrum of characteristics.

No Tag Team CX---------------------------X---Tag Team CX okay (within reason

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

Policy--X---------------------------------------Kritiks (As stated above, I have very limited experience with Kritiks.)

Theory--------------------------------------X------Substance

I'll read no cards----------------------X-----------I'll read all the cards

Lots of so-so cards ---------------------X-------- A few good, longer cards

Debate is about ideas--------------------X-------------------Debate is about people

Debate is good/valuable -X--------------------------------It's not

Conditionality bad-------------------------X--------------------Conditionality good

No process CPs ------------------------------X---------------Lit determines legitimacy

Politics DA not a thing --------------------------------X-------------(Good) Politics DA is a thing

Running Kritiks assuming I am infinitely UNFAMILIAR with them-----------------------X- Explain the K and the Alt and Framework

Framework with respect to Kritiks - PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW YOUR FRAMEWORK IS PREFERABLE and how I should weigh it!!!

Clarity--X-------------------------------------------Unintelligibility (Trust me on this!)

I'm a robot-----------------------------------------X-Slow down on tags/cites/analytics/theory

Aff Ground--------------------X-------------------------Limits

Long overviews-----------------------------------X----Articulate positions, line by line

2NRs that collapse ---X------------------------------- 2NRs that go for everything

2ARs that assume I will vote AFF regardless------------------------------X-2ARs that tell my WHY to vote AFF.

I look forward to an enjoyable experience judging you and your team!

Hanwen Zuo

Email: redacted (sorry about redacting it is to prevent bots from scraping it).

Please include me in any email chains.

I debated for three years at Okemos High School.

During my time as a debater, I focused mostly on policy debate rather than the theory side of things. Although I have some passing familiarity with certain K's such as the Cap K, overall I am not a K debater. If you do run a K, make sure to explain it in detail. Please explain every part of the K from the link to the impact to the alt and please include framework. If there is no framework, I will default to evaluating the K alongside the plan. I will vote on a K if it is clearly explained and winning on the flow.

T and procedural arguments are fine. Other theory/procedural stuff such as aspec is fine if it is carefully explained. Standard policy fare such as CP's and DA's are alright. Please roadmap before speeches and signpost between different arguments.

Additional various errata, I am okay with tag teaming during cx as long as one person does not dominate the entire cx. Please be respectful towards your opponents. If you debate maverick, I will allow you to use cx time as prep, and I will likely give you higher speaks for attempting to debate alone. Also, I am not super comfortable giving people a numerical rating for speaking, so I will likely give most debaters a 28 out of the gate and add points accordingly (or subtract if necessary).