Background: I debated LD for 3 years and PFD for 1 year at Acton-Boxborough HS in MA (graduated in 2015). I debated on the local and national circuits, and attended NSD for 2 years. I graduated in June 2019 from the University of Chicago. It's been 5 years since I've debated so I'm probably not the best person to evaluate super technical rounds. That being said, I'm fine with any argument you want to run, so don't worry too much about that.

STUFF I LIKE:
- WEIGHING! Though I’ll avoid being interventionist as much as possible, I need clear implications to extensions. Just having more ink on the flow won’t cut it if you’re not doing the work to convince me why your arguments are important and how they interact with the rest of the round.
- In general, try to weave a clear narrative as to how the round breaks down. You’ve all probably heard this enough times before, but the ballot really should write itself.
- Clever arguments and strategy, in general thinking on your feet
- Framework clash, unique arguments, topical critical arguments
- Signs that you’re enjoying the round! (though please don’t feel pressured to be funny or entertaining if that’s not your style as a debater! Just do you and be comfortable in the space)

Other Issues/Random Notes

Speed: Speed is fine with me as long as it's ok with your opponent - I'm not ok with speed being used as an intimidation tactic. In in-person rounds, I'll say "clear"/"slow" if I can't understand without docking speaks. For virtual rounds, please send me what you're reading either before or right after each speech.

Theory: As I said above, if theory is your main strat, I’m not your judge. I can evaluate theory, though, and am open to it in a case of actual in-round abuse. I default to drop the argument.

Offensive/Mean Arguments: I will not vote on these. Also, please don’t be mean to or bully your opponent, especially if you are clearly winning the round. I strongly believe that debate should be a more inclusive environment, and round should be fun and a great learning experience for everyone.

Policy Arguments: I’m fine with topical plans, CPs, DAs, etc as long as your impacts actually make sense with the topics. I’m really skeptical of and hesitant to vote on tenuous extinction links.

Speaker points: I 'll probably be adjusting my speaker points range throughout the tournament. For now, I’ll probably keep in the range of 27.5 – 29.5, with 30s for people who absolutely amaze me and 15 for any serious issues (offensive arguments, rape jokes, being mean, etc)

Please feel free to ask me any other questions you have! I’m not intimidating, I promise.

I've only judged one tournament before so please speak slowly and don't spread. That being said, I was a philosophy major so I appreciate logical arguments.

Hi, my name is Katherine (she/her), I debated LD at Acton-Boxborough for 4 years and am now a freshman at Boston College. Happy debating, and please feel free to let me if you have any questions before the round!

Big Lex 2021

This is my first time judging since states 2020. I am generally knowledgeable about the topic but am not familiar with topic lit, so I would err on the side of over-explaining, especially if you are reading less intuitive / stock arguments.

General

Pose a clear ballot story! This means weighing, clarifying voters, tying your contentions back into your framework, collapsing to the most important arguments, etc. Tech>truth and I will listen to any arguments as long as they are logical and warranted.

No new evidence in 2AR/2NR. Please make clear extensions - if I can't see where a 2AR/2NR argument is coming from, I won't flow it. I may take some cross notes for the purpose of evaluating speaks, but important concessions in cross must be clearly extended into the speech.

Tech

I think that JV is a good opportunity to explore CPs, DAs, K, theory, etc. but of course, good traditional debate > bad tech debate (unwarranted arguments, very weak links, not understanding the logic behind the jargon/overelying on jargon, etc.) any day. If you choose to read tech arguments, please make them accessible to your opponent and emphasize the argument warrants!

Speaks/etiquette/misc.

I do not care if you sit or stand or if you use flex prep (asking your opponent questions during prep or looking over cards). I am fine with speed as long as it is clear (please listen for "clear," "loud," "slow" as necessary), but I imagine that clarity can be difficult in an online environment. File share/email chains are fine and you can add me, but I'll only open docs if I missed something/want to see ev so be clear.

Please read trigger warnings as appropriate. Sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. will result in automatic L0.

If you debate interestingly and strategically and/or make me laugh, I will be happy and boost your speaks. I know debate can feel stressful, so as a judge I hope to encourage you to have fun, be nice to each other, and learn a lot from this experience!:)

Hi, I'm Jeong-Wan, I debated in LD for Lexington High School. I qualified to the TOC in my senior year if that matters to you

email: jeongwanc@gmail.com

Quick prefs

1-2: Theory, T, phil

3-4: Identity/conventional Ks, policy

5-6: esoteric high theory, tricks

Overview

I'm comfortable with any argument you make, so long as it has a claim, warrant, and impact. Obviously do not read/do anything racist/sexist/homophobic etc. If you do/say anything exclusionary, its gonna be the lowest speaks possible and an auto-L. I will immediately stop the round. However, if it is an argument such as a spike, where it is up for debate whether it is exclusionary, the debate will continue.

Debate is tech>truth. I will evaluate all arguments that are on the flow. That being said, less true arguments and those of low quality have a lower threshold for a response. But if you don't respond to no neg analytics, I can't intervene on your behalf.

Helpful quote from Derek Ying:

"This method will inherently favor judge instruction and explanation: you will be more likely to win if you isolate said issue and explain why you're winning it before I find a different issue and decide you're losing. It also favors collapsing to a few issues and even fewer layers: extending all seven of your off-case positions or all three of your advantage scenarios in the final rebuttal is not going to be much of a winner."

If you are hitting someone who is a newcomer to the activity, give them an opportunity to engage. If your opponent has certain accommodations that should be met, I expect you to meet those things. If you make the debate completely inaccessible, don't expect your speaks to be nice no matter how well you debated in round. If you do accommodate well then your speaks will be good.

Defaults

Don't make me set these. Worst case scenario, here are mine: Competing interps, drop the argument, fairness and education are voters, no rvis, theory/T > K/reps > post fiat.

If there is really no weighing and there are two competing arguments at the highest layer, I will flip a coin.

Preferences

I enjoy judging arguments that aren't as conventional. Try to be creative with original arguments and interesting implications.

Don't blitz as fast as you can. I'm not the best flower. Efficiency > speed anyways

Making funny remarks or good jokes in round will increase your speaks.

Good ethos will also increase your speaks. Utilize CX well. It also has a chance for me to psychologically side with you if the debate is close on one issue.

Speaks

I'll try to average 28.5.

I encourage/incentivize strategy, efficiency, persuasion, and rebuttals that don't rely on blocks the whole speech.

I don't disclose speaks

For Novices:

Please do WEIGHING. If there are competing truth claims, it is your responsibility to resolve them by saying why your arguments have more credence. This is how 70% of novice debates are won.

Make sure to Collapse. Don't go for every argument on the flow. Extend your best offense and weigh why that matters more than your opponent's offense. Concentrating on fewer arguments but explaining them more in-depth will be advantageous.

Do not do/read anything exclusionary - i.e: if your opponent is uncomfortable with spreading and you spread. Also please do not read anything that you don't understand; it will hurt your ethos.

First off, I'm a lay judge - so lucky you! For the debates, I'll be looking for clearly presented logic and well organized arguments along with strong supporting examples referenced by teams. The clarity of your presentations will be important for me, as will the delivery of a position/rebuttal that aims to avoid a heavy use of colloquialisms (e.g. frequent use of the word 'like'). Courtesy is important and I'll be looking for teams to stick to precedented references and/or facts (instead of unsupported opinions) to support both their position and their rebuttals. Maintain cool heads, clear arguments, and composure throughout the debate. Finally, I'll be looking to make sure that teams maintain and reinforce their opening positions and major arguments from their opening cases through to their summaries. For me, the clarity of presentation for the summaries will be just as important as the opening cases. In my opinion, a succinct summary position supported with the most compelling evidence is equally important as the opening.

Updated as of March 6th, 2025 for TFA

Hello, howdy, and how do you do, I'm Jomi Epoyun

I graduated from Northeast High School in Oakland Park, FL in 2017 and Florida Atlantic University with my undergrad in Comp Sci and Poli Sci and currently finishing my master's in Data Science in Public Policy and working in data analysis with specifics in data visualizations for political campaigns and research while coaching mainly congressional debate and extemporaneous speaking since 2018

Why I know what I am doing:

Since 2019 I have coached someone in the final round of every major circuit tournament Congressional Debate has to offer including last year's NSDA National tournament and TFA tournament in Congressional Debate

I have also been trusted to judge major elim rounds in extemp and congress including the 2023 NSDA Final round in International Extemp

In other words, if you know who I am, I know what I am doing, just ask around

What I look for in rounds:

This has changed over the years but a lot of my core principles still remain the same for the most part

I try to be as balanced of a content/speaking judge that I can so while at the same time I will be looking for if you are giving the most well-warranted, characterized, and impacted speech, I will also look for your ability to speak well through diverse emotional variation, authentic speaking, good pausing, tone and pitch fluctuations and inflections

Basically, I am a warrant guy just as much of a "way you say the warrant" guy

Speaking position does matter to be as well as I grade the speak, because late rounds delivered in the constructive phase of the round are just as bad as constructive speeches given in the late

Basically "DO YOUR JOB" relative to what is expected at your speaking position and what has happened in the round and therefore what you need to clash with in the round

I am the BAR guy as well so this means I am a sucker for fire rhetoric. Creative rhetoric. Rhetoric that connects that even makes some pop culture, show, movie, song references. Just something that ain't the standard congress rhetoric, especially because if I am at the tournament I have probably come a long way and I don't want to come a long way for something I could hear at my local tournaments

At the end of the day just show me the most amount of YOU and don't do the regular stuff every congressional debater and extemper

Hi, im a current senior at Lexington High School. Have fun, be nice, read what you want.

21erives2@lexingtonma.org

EMail: chianlih196@gmail.com

What I look for:

I've never competed in this format in school, but after judging for more than a dozen weekends I believe I've familiarized myself with the format and definitely have a gist of what I'm looking for:

I find that debate is inherently performative, and a good debater is self-aware. While content should always be the main focus of an argument, even the best points can easily be refuted if they are delivered poorly. The job of a debater is to not only know how you are right, but ensure that your audience knows you're right. This cannot be done with research alone -- delivery is just as important.

On disclosures, I find the disclosure useful for me only so I can check your sources. I believe that I should never need to read your disclosure to understand your argument because since this is a verbal debate, I am judging based on the argument you express verbally. Therefore, with the exception of technical issues, if I cannot decipher what you are saying, I equate it to you saying nothing at all.

I want to avoid doing a deep dive on every little criterion since I still want to see you perform with as little interference from me as possible. I already think I'm saying too much and I want to influence your style as little as possible. One of the best things about debate is seeing different styles and approaches combat each each other. (There are however bad styles which I think/hope are obvious.) So, lean into what you're good at and just do your best!

Oh yeah, and let me know if you want oral feedback at the end of the round. Otherwise I usually just leave it in the ballot.

Kind of Relevant Debate Experience?

Judged for a bunch of LD Tournaments (As of 2/14/21), JV and Varsity

Previous debate experience in Model UN/Congress:

- 4 Conference Awards

- eMUNC 2020 Director of Crisis Simulation Services

- CJMUNC 2019 Advanced Committee Director

- HPMUNC Mentor

What Points Mean (copied from memo):

• 29.5-30: I wish I could frame your speeches – hard to imagine a better speaker

• 29.1-29.4: you were consistently excellent

• 28.8-29.0: you were effective and strategic, and made only minor mistakes

• 28.3-28.7: you hit all the right notes, but could improve (e.g. depth or efficiency)

• 27.8-28.2: you mainly did the right thing, but left something to be desired

• 27.3-27.7: you missed major things and were hard to follow

• 27.0-27.2: you advanced little in the debate

• 26.0-26.9: you are not ready for this division/tournament

Below 26: you were offensive, ignorant, rude, or tried to cheat (MUST come to tab)

Debated policy in high school and parli at Columbia University

judging for over 4 years

email: cyrusjks10@gmail.com

pronouns: he/him

2/17/24 EDIT:

Quick Prefs:

1) Ks/KAFFS/Performance

2) LARP

3) Phil

4) T/Theory

5) Tricks (unless tied to social advocacy)

IHSA 2022 Update:

Debate Philosophy: Generally, I default to voting for the team that has done the better debating, in terms of proving the merit of the arguments they make against some comparative (opponent's arguments, status quo, etc.). Offense is always appreciated, and I normally vote for the team that has the best warranted / impacted out offense.

UK Digital TOC Speech & Debate #2 Edit:

What debaters should do more of: give roadmaps, sign post, slow down on taglines, do impact calculus/weigh, do line-by-line analyses, compare evidence, collapse on key args in final rebuttal speeches, and say why you are winning/get the ballot (write my ballot for me)

What debaters should avoid doing: spreading through overviews and theory shells (if need to spread please send out a doc), saying they have proved something to be true, bringing up that something was dropped/conceded without explaining why it matters or is a critically important to evaluating/framing the round, jumping all over the flow (please sign post so I can accurately flow/ keep track of your arguments), and sending out speech docs that can't be downloaded or copied from. ALSO please no postrounding and no sending me emails before a round is scheduled to occur nor after a round has occurred, as judges are not allowed to have contact with debaters except during a round.

Miscellaneous

Kritiks I like to hear (in order): Afropess/antiblackness, afrofuturism, set col, cap,

** Please do not choose me if you are progressive debater , I do not understand the nuances to effectively judge**

I am an experienced parent judge (6th year judging). Please don’t spread. I’ll say “clear” for you to slow down if I don’t understand. I will score you based on sound reasonable arguments, connected with good evidence and the flow of thought. All things remaining equal, I prefer to judge on evidence based structured arguments and responses to your opponents contention (rather than frameworks and technical procedures).

Hi! My name is Christina (she/her)

I did LD for four years at Lexington High School. Please be respectful and don't do or say anything problematic.

* I have a tendency to knit my eyebrows/appear upset when I am concentrating and/or thinking. My facial expressions will usually not be a reflection of how I think you are doing in the round.

Have fun! You can email me at christina.a.li424@gmail.com with questions or concerns!

Background:

I am a lay judge and I've judged several JVLD tournaments last year. I value people who can communicate clearly, be persuasive, support arguments with data or facts, ask good questions, and provide strong answers that defend your point of view.

Preferences:

I have a low tolerance for fast speed. I can handle normal speed. If you start to speak too quickly, I probably won’t be able to flow your arguments very well. Personally, I believe that LD debate is about the clash of ideas, and it should not be about how quickly you can spray your points out.

As I mentioned earlier, I like people who can speak clearly. In addition, do not mumble, or speak too softly. If I can’t hear your point no matter how good it is, I won’t be able to flow it.

Be respectful at all times to your opponent, judges, or anyone else in the debate. No inappropriate behavior will be tolerated. I will deduct points if you behave poorly, are hostile, attack your opponent, call them names, etc.

Paradigm:

I like to see a clear clash of important ideas. I will attempt to flow the debate, and judge the winner based on the quality of the points you’ve made in your speeches, as well as how well you led CX or answered your opponent’s CX.

I will judge the winner based on who has persuaded me the best, so be persuasive!

Hello, I am Ashish.

Please do not spread.

I have been judging for the past 3 years in speech and LD.

In order to win:

- make sure you weigh at the end of your speeches

- don't dump arguments: quality over quantity

- SIGNPOST!!!

- do not be rude

- give voters!

- be articulate

- if you extend an argument, make sure you explain it or weigh it

WDM Valley '20, Williams College '24

As a debater, I did mostly LD and debated framework, tricks, and theory, but I will vote on any argument so long as it is not blatantly rude or offensive. I also have experience with traditional debate.

For online debates: Do not go your top speed! 80-85% is fine

Add me to the email chain -- bella.nadel@gmail.com

Framework>>>>>Theory>>Tricks>K's=LARP>>>High theory

***The only debates I do not enjoy judging are bad tricks debates. Also full-on LARP debates but to a lesser extent. So yes, I do enjoy watching/evaluating K debates, even though I am probably less qualified to evaluate them. I am the least comfortable with high theory positions***

General stuff:

1) I believe debate is a game with real-world implications for its participants, so have fun with whatever you're reading but be conscious of other people present

2) "The way to win is weighing, so weigh way more"

3) Disclosure theory = not a fan. It will make me sad :( Exceptions for very obvious violations like lying about the aff

4) I will say clear or slow if I can't understand you, but at I'll eventually just stop flowing if you don't make adjustments

5) Don't be rude. (Note: There is a fine line between being aggressive and rude. If you have to question which, you're probably being rude)

6) Defaults: no RVI, competing interps, drop the debater on T, drop the arg on theory, presume aff, permissibility negates, truth testing, theory > K. I will ONLY use these if there are no in-round arguments read one way or another.

Speaks:

1) Things that will boost speaks: a) not reading off a doc, b) NC/AC strats, c) good, substantive framework debates, d) otherwise clever, well-executed strategic decisions, e) quality puns, f) if there is a significant, noticeable skill difference between you and your opponent and you win the round in a way that they are able to understand and learn from--that shows strategic flexibility

2) Things that will decrease speaks: a) obviously pre-written 2n’s, b) being abusive in rounds where there is a significant, noticeable skill difference between you and your opponent

3) Things that will not affect speaks: in-round arguments telling me to give you high speaks

Just ask me any other questions before the round/over messenger!

Hi,

I am a lay Parent Judge. I have judged couple of local and National LD tournaments. I prefer debaters not to spread. Please speak clear. I won't be able to judge or follow on any technical aspects like theory, kritiks, tricks, etc. Please use your lay cases.

Please be respectful.

thank you!

Veena Patil

Hey hey I'm Shannon! I competed in Pittsburgh for 3 years in high school in a traditional circuit and have been coaching at Fordham Prep since 2020. I understand most progressive stuff, but if you plan on running high level T's or insane RVI's with wacky interps thought my coffee order is an iced oat vanilla latte and I will need it to dissect what you are saying thank you.

Big believer that debate is a game, I just don't want to have to be the one to determine the rules of the game. Think how the rules of Uno change based on who you're playing with, I don't want to have to decide the rules of the round, every round.

please put me on the email chain, esp if you're spreading: scrodgers22@gmail.com

I competed as an LD debater when I was in high school over 30 years ago. I now coach LD debate, but my preference remains for traditional LD cases that debate the resolution and allow your opponent to do so as well.

I strongly dislike spreading, because it is hard for me to understand. If I don't hear your contentions or evidence, then they can't help you win the debate. Plus "winning" a point because your opponent didn't catch it is a pretty hollow victory.

Both of these preferences link back to my perspective on the activity of debate--it should be an educational experience and provide you with skills that you can apply throughout your life. I haven't seen any evidence yet that spreading is of use anywhere in the real world.

camera update: 9/3/2021- I live in an apartment complex with spotty internet. So I will be defaulting to keeping my camera off during the speeches. If the speeches sound clear after the first two constructive lsu I’ll try turning my camera on. Also no need to ask me if I’m ready, just default that I’m ready, and if I’m not I’ll unmute myself and let you know.

TLDR: Not super in touch with recent trends in debate, and very heavily prefer policy. Speed is no problem for me, just start slower and slowly work up to about 80% Max speed. Please note if you’re reading Non T or Phil, please do a good job explaining it to me. Oftentimes in these rounds I’m not getting enough info about why I should be voting one way or the other. I do not disclose unless the decision was extremely easy. Otherwise I prefer to give detailed info on my ballot and am open for questions using the email chain that you sent me your case in.

1: LARP/ Substance

2: Kritik

3-4: Theory

5-Strike: Performance, High Phil

Add me to the email chain: abbusp@gmail.com (REMEMBER send me cards before your speech that you'll be reading. If you're spreading analytics send me that as well. If analytics will not be spread I don't need them in the doc)

1. Speed: Here's my take. I've been debating for a while so I can keep up with speed. HOWEVER, with everything being online clarity has become a HUGE issue. Please go much much slower than you normally would. You don't have to go at a lay pace, but just remember I only say clear twice, before I put my pen down. What I miss will be held against you.

2. Theory: Remember fairness and education come first. Debate is an activity about fairness, and theory is meant to address that. IT IS NOT meant to let you opt out of substantive arguments. For this reason, I don't really enjoy theory and RVI debates. Keep everything on the resolution. Theory just serves the purpose that the debater running the shell, lets me know the violation and why it should warrant dropping the other debater. The debater going against the shell, just defend yourself and move on, don't drop everything and go for winning off the RVI because it won't hold any weight for me.

3. Stylistic: I'm very lenient with speaker points and usually give extremely high speaks. Please give me concise voters in your final speeches. They will have the most magnitude for me because it allows me to determine what the main issues you are going for are. Please impact everything, don't just read random cards and move on. Also don't just card dump, I want to see you construct meaningful arguments.

4. VERY IMPORTANT: Please Read. Before your speeches I want the cards you will be reading. Too many competitors send the cards after their speech, at which point there is not enough time to evaluate the cards because the next speech has started. I want to be able to follow along as you read your cards. Please note that this means sign posting will be VERY important. If you're going 600 WPM, and not sign posting anything you've already lost me. SLOW DOWN On tags and authors. Let me hear those clearly before you ratchet up your speed. Any analytics or non cards not in the case doc need to be at a reasonable speed. You can spread what's on the doc.

I am a parent of an LD debater. The majority of rounds I have judged have been traditional rounds on the local circuit.

Please speak slowly and explain your arguments very well. I will do my best to flow and keep up with the round.

Hi, I'm Derek.

he/him

Put me on the email chain: djying2003@gmail.com

"If debate was about truth the debate would end after the 1ac and 1nc" - Matthew Berhe

This is a bit disorganized, but I've ordered these sections based on importance (in my opinion).

Last major update was on Jan 14 2022 for evidence ethics rules clarifications and some more reasons to increase speaker points.

HOW I EVALUATE DEBATES:

I evaluate debates by isolating the most important issue(s) in the round, then doing more nitty-gritty flow comparisons to determine who is winning that issue. This method will inherently favor judge instruction and explanation: you will be more likely to win if you isolate said issue and explain why you're winning it before I find a different issue and decide you're losing. It also favors collapsing to a few issues and even fewer layers: extending all seven of your off-case positions or all three of your advantage scenarios in the final rebuttal is not going to be much of a winner.

Debate, at its core, is a game. However, the nature and meaning of that game is extremely malleable. This means two things:

1. Tech>Truth unless safety, evidence ethics, or other rule-breaking is an issue.

2. My ideological preferences otherwise will have no bearing on the round and you can and should do whatever it takes to win, whether that entails bracketing out consequences, impact turning the apocalypse, critiquing rhetoric, or reading a nine-point dump on why taking prep time destroys education.

WHAT I WON'T VOTE ON:

There are a few things I won't vote on or evaluate:

1. Arguments that are made outside of your speech time (e.g. during prep time or your opponent's speech time) or lack warrants. I think Rafael Pierry's definition of a warrant is correct and have pasted it here:

"My general guideline for a warrant is: could I explain this argument to the other team in a reasonable post-round and feel confident that it was said by their opponents? This explanation doesn’t mean I need to have a deep intellectual grasp of the position, simply that I could re-state it and the losing side would understand why they lost."

2. Ad hominems or any attack on an individual debater's integrity/character.

3. Anything about clothes (unless you're wearing something super messed up like a well-known hate symbol)

4. Things that are patently unsafe (for clarification: I will vote on things like spark, animal wipeout, or even just Ligotti-style "death good", but not something like "white supremacism good" or any other sort of explicit bigotry - you'll get an L0 if you read the latter and I will inform the tournament organizers, possibly coaches as well).

5. Stuff about speaks (e.g. "give both debaters a 30 for reciprocity")

6. Arguments that are "inserted". That means you have to read re-highlights. I'll grant an exception if you have only re-highlighted punctuation.

7. New arguments in the final rebuttal (unless they're responding to something read in the speech immediately preceding, obviously) or arguments that proactively justify such (e.g. "I get new 2ar arguments for timeskew"). I'll put another two Rafael Pierry quotes here to clarify:

"Dropped arguments are absolutely true, but an argument only consists of the words you said. Additional words, warrants, or evidence are certainly new and merit new responses."

"In a similar vein, cross-applications are never new. You can persuade me that the opposing team made new arguments while cross-applying something and I’ll likely grant you new contextualization, but I am extremely unlikely to disallow cross-application in a final rebuttal."

LOGISTICAL RULES:

If you blatantly contradict your case in cx (e.g. claiming you skipped an off that you actually read) your speaks will begin at a 26, though I will "accept" the answer (e.g. I will remove the off from my flow). If you lie about having read something you didn't that is equal to clipping and will be evaluated as such (see clipping section).

Give content warnings for sensitive subjects and death good - if you think it could be sensitive just err on the side of caution - if someone does get triggered because you didn't give a warning you will be dropped and speaks will be tanked.

Please time yourselves, and feel free to call out your opponent if they are taking more time than they should or stealing prep. I've been trying (and will continue to try) to time the rounds I judge but I often find myself forgetting to.

Prep time stops when the speech doc is sent, or when the thumb drive is removed. You don't need to take prep time for tech issues or bathroom breaks, just try to get things resolved in a timely manner.

You won't be penalized for not answering a question asked outside of CX.

TOPIC KNOWLEDGE:

In general, I will not be particularly knowledgeable on the topic. You should explain particular nuances to me or else I will not get them. However, I will note down some things that I am aware of for each topic. This does not mean that you can avoid explanation altogether: If your opponent reads and wins something that completely contravenes my understanding of the topic (e.g. if they read "to strike means to hit" and it's dropped), then I am more than happy to vote on it.

Jan-Feb 2021: I know generally what the Outer Space Treaty says about national appropriation of space and the general consensus among legal scholars about what that means for private entities (spoilers: they can't appropriate space either! unless it's mining for some reason - and apparently building bases perhaps? International law is very strange).

Nov-Dec 2021: I know enough about the NLRA to know that just expanding its scope is clearly not topical.

Sept-Oct 2021: I am familiar with what the term "evergreening" means and the length of time it takes for a patent to expire under TRIPS.

LESS IMPORTANT THINGS THAT STILL SHOULD BE NOTED:

I'm not good at minesweeping so I'd prefer if you put tricks (if you read tricks) in the doc. At the very least, slow down if you are coming up with a prioris off the top of your head.

If you tell me not to flow you, I won't flow, but I also won't evaluate.

What you do with evidence is more important than the evidence itself. I don't intend to read a lot of the evidence after the round unless I find it suspicious (see ev ethics). Unintuitive claims require more evidence and/or more explanation.

I don't disclose speaks.

You can use CX as prep time. I won't dock points for it.

You can call me "judge" "Derek" "Mr. Ying" or anything.

If you open-source all of your cards (including the ones on case!!!!! and the 1AR!!!!!) and tell me before the round I'll give you +0.3 speaker points.

"Eval after...": I will flow the whole debate, but I can be persuaded to not look at certain sections of the flow. In other words, if "Evaluate the debate after the 1AR" is won, I won't stop flowing and immediately start writing the RFD after that speech, just that after the round is over I will be disinclined to look at anything past the 1AR. I should also note that if the "eval after" argument is made inside the speech the argument is telling me to evaluate after then I will accept responses in the speech immediately after (e.g. the 2NR can respond to "eval after the 1AR" if it was made in the 1AR and I'll evaluate it).

ONLINE DEBATE:

Having your camera on is preferable but not needed.

Keep local recordings of speeches on hand. If I don't hear something due to connection issues and no recording is available, I will have no choice but to assume nothing was said.

If my camera is off, you should assume I am not ready or even present at my computer absent an explicit verbal cue.

I currently live in the UK. If I am judging online you should be aware that I am between 5 (for east coasters) and 8 (for west coasters) hours ahead of you. If I make statements that seem incongruous with the time (e.g. "wow it's dark" even though it's noon where you are) or seem far more tired than would be expected this is why.

In addition, my residence is next to a very busy street which gets especially loud at night (on my end, it will likely be sometime closer to the afternoon for you). Feel free to ask me to repeat things as many times as you wish if you did not hear them.

EVIDENCE ETHICS:

I think that, for the most part, evidence ethics and quality should be debated in round - if a card is cut out of context or is highlighted to misrepresent authorial intent this seems more of an in-round issue than something you should stake the round on. I am open to theory shells that defend a norm outside of the actual evidence ethics rules (e.g. "no brackets ever" or "cite must have DOA"), but I will evaluate it like any other argument.

Originally, I had a section explaining the evidence ethics rules I personally adhered to, but after some consideration, I have chosen to defer to the NSDA rules, as they are the highest authority, whether I agree with their judgments or not. I'll reproduce the rules here, though they will be shortened based on how I interpret the text of the manual.

Evidence is anything that is directly attributable to a specific source. For example, quotes and cards are evidence because it can be attributed to a single author or organization, but something like "the population of Earth is seven billion" is not evidence because it is not attributable to any specific source, it is just some fact floating out there.

There are four evidence ethics "hard rules" that constitute a loss if they are violated. If a debater is found to have violated these rules, they will get an L0:

1. Words that are added to the card's body must be bracketed in, and cannot distort the author's intent.

2. Evidence must have cites, and they must be correct. If someone (correctly) points out that the cite is not there the debater has twenty minutes to find it and show it.

3. The argument in a card cannot have been written with the intent to disprove it. (e.g. if someone says "Some say that white chocolate is superior to dark. Here is why they are wrong." and the only part you read is "white chocolate is superior to dark" then that is a violation.) I personally interpret this to mean that the argument is introduced in the original article specifically and only so that it can be torn down with practically no merits left standing, not a light critique of the argument or a partial agreement with nuances or corrections.

4. Text cannot be removed from the middle of a card. Substituting removed text with an ellipsis (three dots) is apparently especially heinous for the NSDA. I believe using "they continue" is an acceptable substitute for making a whole new card, because it clearly demarcates when each section begins and ends, like a card tag would, even if not actually a card tag.

Violations of points 1 and 2 are reasons to be disqualified from the tournament.

These four points are the only ones that can a debater stop the round on. Wrong evidence ethics allegations will be punished with a loss. The rules don't define any speaker point penalties, so I will just give an L26. The "winner" of an evidence ethics dispute will be given a W29.3 (rules don't specify anything for the winner, so I'll just give a somewhat above-average speaker score).

There are other evidence rules, but the rules say that I don't need to take action if they are violated, so I won't, with one exception: If it's not published or otherwise available online, it's not evidence and I will not evaluate it. If you want to card your email exchange with a scholar, put it on a blog first.

CLIPPING:

I read along with cards. if I catch a debater clipping I'll let the debate finish (unless someone stakes the round, then I'll stop), then drop the offender with the lowest speaks possible. If you skip 3 or more words, it's clipping.

If you stake the round on clipping you should have a recording in case I didn't catch it, but if I did catch it then whether or not you have a recording won't influence my decision.

DEFAULTS:

I don't like having to use defaults for anything other than presumption or judge kick. Judge instruction will be rewarded with a less confusing and more "correct" ballot.

1. Presumption flows negative unless someone gives a warrant for why it shouldn't.

2. I don't start off with judge kick, but I will allow it if someone says that they should have it, even absent a warrant (unless it's contested, obviously).

3. When it comes to anything else, I will try to operate under the shared assumptions of both debaters. For example, if the 2nr collapses to theory and the 2ar collapses to an RVI but neither DTD no RVIs were ever justified or refuted (don't do this btw), I'll assume that theory is DTD with RVIs. This also applies to substance: If the aff's sole contentions are "plan prevents a nuclear war" and every neg argument consists of "plan causes nuke war" I would assume nuclear war is really bad and the only thing I should care about even if neither side gives reasons why.

SPEAKS:

I'm not going to put one of those speaks chart things because I know I won't be consistent with it. Just know that I will reward good, well thought out strategies and creativity with higher speaks and punish irritating/bad strategies with lower ones. Unfortunately, "good" and "bad" strategies are ultimately ideological, so I have clarified what I think here. However, just because I think something is bad doesn't mean I won't vote on it nor will it bias me against it (ideally).

Creativity: I like it when people demonstrate that they have kept up with the lit on a subject instead of simply relying on what are now basically ancient blocks. Kritiks and phil FWs with recent evidence, are proof of this, as are up-to-date impact turns or defense. Novel Ks and FWs, those that are outside of the established Kant/Hobbes/Baudrillard/pessimism "canon" are also very good, and such venturing into unexplored territory combined with recent evidence will make me a very happy camper.

I think also that arguments tailored to the arguments being read are also quite nice, like an aff-specific counterplan or K link. Some topicality or theory shells may also be somewhat aff specific, but obviously no shell will be completely germane to the aff, otherwise it wouldn't establish any real rules or limits. Combo shells are an exception, but in my personal opinion their interp texts are overcomplicated and could be simplified considerably into a generalized shell - they're only specific in name.

Specificity is also a good thing for on-case stuff. For policy stuff, answers that are specific to the advantage being read or some deficit to the specific plan text is always better than just reading generic impact defense constantly. For responding to a K or K aff, I should note that the lit used in Ks is by its nature controversial and thus, barring the field or idea being completely new (which is very unlikely), there will be a healthy amount of works arguing against it. I will enjoy responses that indicate you have actually gone across the library and read about why the specific author or thesis is wrong rather than a generic "politics is good" defense.

Speaking of Ks, I also like it when multiple different fields of critical scholarship are merged into a coherent argument. Exploring intersections between, for example, cybernetics and race, demonstrate a good grasp of the fields, though obviously it must be argued well or I will not be convinced you truly understood it.

Phil debate is weird to me not because of the tomfoolery it is associated with (which I will mention in the "bad strategies" section) but because it, in my experience, has had a lot of the specific argumentation I praised earlier - for example, answers to Kant tend to be only applicable to Kant - yet most of it is analytical. I think that there is potential for phil debates to center more around evidence and I will reward people who have more (good) cards: I think that much of the understanding of phil debate as a "blip-storm" would not exist had the style cited more scholars.

I enjoy weird counterinterps to T shells as long as they are backed up by definitions or some way of understanding words in the resolution. While this is mostly meant for K affs, there are many policy affs that push the boundaries of what the topic includes, and when those affs have viable counterinterps with definitions, they often are more impressive than the K affs. On that note, Nebel T is boring and I will look more favorably upon any T definition that can achieve a similar effect (that is, exclude nearly all advocacy texts save for one or perhaps two) without using the phrase "bare plural".

Theory (not topicality) is in a strange position for me. I think that right now theory debate is a bit too bound to fairness. While certainly theory debaters love to harp on about the value of the game and equity and such and such, perhaps some more creative (or perhaps more absurd, for theory's critics) interps can be revealed by building shells around standards like education (and its subtypes e.g. phil ed, critical ed, real world, etc.) or norm-setting, or some part of the game we call debate outside of raw procedural fairness.

Bad strategies: I believe personally that debate's competitive nature encourages the above things: creativity, novel scholarship, and good research in general. However, the need to extract concessions from the opponent, often also encourages some nonsense, like obscene amounts of non-topic-specific NIBs and a prioris (three's pushing it) and buzzword vomit extensions that explain nothing. I will dock points for such strategies. There are also some obvious blunders that I will decrease points for, like reading multiple disclosure shells or dropping something that clearly blows open your whole contention like a case turn.

Being an [redacted for tabroom] gets your speaks tanked and coach+tab informed. Debate's community is rather toxic as it is right now and I do not wish the problem to continue. Ethos is one thing, but harassment is another.

NOVICES AND TRADITIONAL:

If you are debating a novice or a traditional debater and you are not either of those you should try to make the round more accessible. That does not mean you should change your strategy significantly, but I will expect you to do the following or else suffer low speaks:

1. Send analytics and extensions. This is thousands of times more important than anything else. If you are reading something dense, you should send analytics even if you don't spread.

2. Be very clear in cross-x. Do not try to pull any "what's an apriori" stuff or other tomfoolery. Get to the point.

3. Explain things more and slower than you usually would. Make sure the round is educational. Ideally, the opponent should be able to understand what you have said, and, in theory, could beat it back. Is it Kant? Make sure they exit the round knowing what the categorical imperative is. Baudrillard? Both sides should get the gist of the hyperreal by the time everything's done. Obviously, this is wishful thinking but please try.

BACKGROUND:

I have put this second to last because I don't believe it is important - the only thing you should take away from this was that I dabbled in many styles but did not master any.

I debated in LD for Lexington from 2017 to 2021. I was a trad debater as a freshman, a phil debater as a sophomore, a policy/phil debater as a junior, and fairly flexible my senior year - I read Ks and K affs whenever I could with occasional policy, theory and phil strategies. As a debater, I leaned more towards high theory (e.g. Paul Virilio, Giorgio Agamben, Yuk Hui, Ingrid Hoofd) than identity, though I did read an identity aff my senior year.

It should be noted that "fairly flexible" does not mean "circuit success" - I was in fact a very subpar debater and rarely cleared.

I am not debating in college.

FOOD:

I never understood why people gave judges food, but I had at least one teammate who was given food by a debater they judged so I will note some things down if you decide to do this.

1. Usually, I am not hungry. I will reject offers of food under nearly all circumstances. Do not be offended if your offer is for naught.

2. I despise eggplant dishes, most soy products (e.g. soymilk, tofu, edamame, etc,), and apples. The latter two cause my throat to itch and swell up a bit (not anaphylaxis, just a minor, if very unpleasant reaction). I have never eaten the former without literally gagging.

3. My spice tolerance is absurdly low. Shin black instant ramen has made me cry before. I wish this was a joke.