About Me:

-- Pronouns: he/him

-- Debate Background: I competed in policy for four years in high school and 2 years at the University of Wyoming.

-- Judging Background: I have judged at 3-5 tournaments a year for the last 8 years.

-- Yes, put me on the email: cullencdilldine@gmail.com

Tl;DR:

-- I think debate is an activity that should center on storytelling and strategy. The best teams I've judged/watched can strategically weave together their arguments into a cohesive and compelling story about why they should win and/or why the other team loses.

-- I'd rather judge a few well-developed arguments than listen to a wreck of cards that turn into a strategy in the 2NR. Reading multiple strategies is fine, but make choices and condensed down as the debate goes on.

-- I like when you tell me why you win. As a judge, I want to intervene as little as possible and will likely vote for the team that presents the clearest decision. For this reason, your speech overview should be my RFD. Tell me what is important, why you win that, and why winning it means you get the ballot.

-- I largely view debate through an offense/defense paradigm, so impact framing and impact calculus are essential.

Argument Specific:

-- K's on the neg: While I'm not well versed in a lot of K literature, I am generally a pretty good judge for k's given you have a clear and specific link story and a well-developed alternative. K teams that lose my ballot often do so because they don't pay enough attention to the alternative debate. I have a hard time figuring out how to solve the issues the negative is presenting without an alternative.

-- K's on the aff: I have voted on various k affs as a judge. The closer to the topic you are, the better. If you're going to read a k aff, don't be afraid to utilize the aff offense on the T/FW page. I will vote on T or FW. I think the most persuasive arguments for the negative deal with education and competitive equity. I"m not sure fairness is an impact in its own right; it's more of an internal link to competitive equity.

-- CP & DA/DA and Case: This is probably the world I am most comfortable in. I lean negative on most CP theory questions, but I think CPs should have a solvency advocate and am often annoyed by 10 plank CPs, most of which don't have a solvency advocate.

-- Case Debates: I love a good case debate, whether that features well-developed case turns, impact turns, or defense.

-- T & Theory: I love T, but understand that it requires a significant time commitment to win. Most theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument and not the team. I will vote on condo, but again, you'll have to invest a lot of time in it to win the debate on it.

Misc:

-- Debate should be fun! I love when debaters show their personality, and it's clear they're having a good time.

-- Be respectful. There's nothing worse than someone who is being a jerk in a debate.

-- My speaker points probably start at 28.5 and raise based on your performance. 28.7-28.9 probably means you're breaking, 29+ means you're probably a top 10 team at the tournament.

Feel free to ask questions before the debate!

Please consider me as a "Lay Judge". I am also a parent judge. I will most likely not follow S&D jargon and speed speaking.

Things I look for to be able to score and judge well are:

1. Convincing me on your points on the topic. I promise to pay my utmost attention but speaking clearly and slowly will help me follow.

2. Empathy towards your opponents.

3. Confidence in your arguments and counter arguments.

4. I'm open to DAs, CPs and Ks. However, I'm not familiar at all with K literature. As long as I can clearly understand the arguments you're making and they are convincing, I will vote on them.

5. I will judge stock issues.

Have fun and give your best!

PS: Put me on the email chain: arun.eachambadi@gmail.com

2016-2018 Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League

2018- present CSU Fullerton

email chain- javierh319@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Random/Misc

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

-know where u are losing but make it fashion

-dont be a jerk

I am okay with judging anything in round. I firmly believe that debates should be left up to the debaters and what they want to run. If you want to read policy or a new kritik; I am good with anything y'all as debaters want to run. Do not read anything that is homophobic, racist, ableist, or sexiest in round. Debate should be a safe place for everyone. A little bit about me I was a 1A/2N my senior year. I recently graduated from Sac State with a major in Communications and Women's Studies. I am currently applying to Law school and will be attending a law school in fall of 2024. I am currently a policy coach for the Sacramento Urban Debate League, coaching at CKM and West Campus.

Kritikal Affs: I love identity politics affirmatives. They are one of my favorite things to judge and hear at tournaments. I ran an intersectional k aff my senior year. If you run an identity politics affirmative then I am a great judge for you. For high theory k affs I am willing to listen to them I am just not as well adapted in that literature as identity politics. But on the negative, I did run biopower.

Policy Affirmative: Well duh.... I am good at judging a hard-core policy round or a soft-left affirmative. Once again whatever the debaters want to do I am good with judging anything.

Framework: I feel like the question for framework that debaters are asking here is if I am more of a tech or truth kind of judge. I would say its important for debaters to give me judge instruction on how they want to me to judge the round. If you want me to prefer tech or truth you need to tell me that, and also tell me WHY I should prefer tech or truth. The rest of the debate SSD, TVAs etc need to be flushed out and not 100% blipy. But that's pretty much how I feel like with every argument on every flow.

CP/DA: If you want to read 9 off you can.

Theory: I will be honest; I am not the best at evaluating theory arguments. I know what they are, and you can run them in front of me. But if you go for them, judge instruction is a must, and explaining to me how voting for this theory shell works for the debate space etc.

I like being told what to vote for and why. I am lazy to my core. If I have to look at a speech doc at the end of the round I will default to what happened in the round, not on the doc.

On a side note, go follow the Sacramento Urban Debate League on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. Also, I want to be in the email chain. My email is smsj8756@gmail.com thanks!

Hello competitors for the National tournament l. I am a parent judge so please take note of that, although I am willing to accept and evaluate all types of arguments. I have lots of experience judging and I have judged every event, from Congress, to LD, to PF, to Parli. So I may be a parent judge, but I do know what I am doing and what you are saying.

Please do not talk fast as we are on an online platform and there might be a second or two where your voice cuts out and I am not looking at speech documents. Debate is a game of talking, not having the judge look at your 20 page blocks of evidence. I care about how you are speaking, and what you are talking about. If you are obviously not in the topic area, I will be less likely to vote for you. I like interesting arguments.

Final thoughts: please be nice to each other in the round and do not be aggressive during cross-ex. It will damage your speaker points. I consider to be a truth > tech because I like to evaluate arguments based on whether they are true are not, but if an alternate way for me to judge the round is given, I will follow along.

Good luck !!!!

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round starts.

put me on the chain: rhys.debate@gmail.com

please keep your camera on (unless there's a good reason)

the rundown:

k affs are cool

framework vs k affs cool too

spreading is fine

will vote on technicalities or tricky args (theory, weird T shells, obscure framing args)

generally well versed in policy intricacies but less familiar with courts debates

i will reread your advocacy text to figure out what it does

i will take your advocacy text literally absent a consistent and reasonably extrapolated explanation

other stuff:

i debated policy at Garfield 2016-2020

consistently gave 1nr's on T (so run it)

cut and ran hard policy, soft left, and performative k affs

i will like it if you read a cool process cp (even vs k affs) and number arguments/use author names

generally understand common debate k lit but ask me about specific authors/fields

speaks are 25-30 but depend on tourney; 29.5 at washington locals is a 28 at nats

About me:

I mostly end up judging PuFo, so my paradigm is for that.

Judging style: Team

I like civility in the room. Be respectful and gain respect.

You don't need to change your style of speaking for me, I can follow fast speech, if I miss something, I do ask for cards mentioned.

Don't use too much technical stuff, if you do - explain it in short. Otherwise the argument will be lost on me. I have a daughter who does policy and LD and she has explained me what it is and how to evaluate it. Feel free to run it with me.

I give a lot of weight to impacts and mostly award points based on that.

Do not bring in a controversial topic in the debate unless it is absolutely necessary (eg: terrorism, 9/11, etc)

I do take notes so don't try to pull fast ones, chances are I will catch it (Not all the time though)

I like off time roadmap. Helps me be organized.

Judging style: Individual Speaker:

I award points based on how you speak, and how you conduct yourself in cross. If you are blatantly rude, offensive, racist, sexist, etc, you will be marked down to the lowest.

Let your opponent complete their thought in cross before interrupting.

General:

Do not try to shake hands.

If you need any clarity on paradigms, more than welcome to ask me before debate on a 1-1 basis or anyways.

I've been judging policy debate novice and open since 2015. I'm a former policy debater. Kill spreading. I like a fair and clean debate. Be friendly to each other! Puns are always welcomed!

Kritik's arguments are acceptable as long as they are thoroughly explained.

All theory arguments must have genuine rationale supporting them. Aggression and personal attacks of any sort will not be tolerated. No spreading, please. All docs and analytics must be sent before every speech. Things that are important for my ballot: - Organized speeches - Clearly articulated arguments (Avoid overuse of jargon) - Analogies for arguments to better explain concepts - Clearly emphasized impact calculus - Good etiquettes and respect for opponents The easier you make it to understand your augment the more likely I am to vote on it. All the best.

I have been judging mostly LD and Policy events and have been judging for 4 years

In a round, I prefer loud, clear, concise speech. I appreciate arguments that get to the point and spoken relatively slowly and clearly. Empirics are extremely important.

I would consider the following when I award speaker points

-how you speak

- if you are courteous and would let opponent complete their thought

- how you conduct during cross-ex

NOTE: This is geared towards policy debate at the moment, but much of the logic here applies to PF.

Note for NSDA Nationals 2022

I am a very late add to the policy pool. I should mention that I haven't heard a round on the topic this year.

Additional PF-specific notes at the top:

I find the practice of card paraphrasing to be problematic. It's educationally unsound and ethically problematic because the structure of the event really makes it difficult to check abuse. I would much rather see a long card with aggressive highlighting than a paraphrase.

If you are reading one-sentence cards or paraphrased cards, you should know that I will be very receptive to a theory block about it. If you present a card inside quotation marks that is not an actual quote, I will vote on that evidence abuse almost every time.

If we're going to run 20+ cards in public forum rounds, my expectation is that both teams share speech docs with full cut cards at the start or end of their speeches. Don't send cards one at a time, don't send one-sentence quotes, send full, cut cards.

That being said, my preference is for evidence-heavy debate (at least in constructives) where the cards provide the warrants and backing evidence.

My biggest pet peeve is teams reading blocks in rounds that they don't really understand and are maybe reading for the first time. There are moments when you are going to be surprised by a position or case in a round, but most of the time, you should be familiar with the blocks you read. This activity has to be more than teams reading blocks written by their coaches and other debaters. I want smart, round-specific analytical arguments and will give far more credit to a round-specific claim than something you read from a block.

I have been involved with policy for a long time, but have been out of the judging circuit after a long pause from the activity as a coach. In general, that means I am open-minded about any kind of argumentation but tend to prefer a policy-oriented round. I will listen to and vote for kritiks and critical Affs but I will be very sympathetic to arguments against K Affs. Very sympathetic!

Happy to vote on big impact positions, but perhaps more inclined to listen to smart analytical analysis of flaws in the evidence and link stories than most judges.

Perhaps a bit more clarification here is warranted: I really dislike the trend of contemporary debate to have rounds boil down to arguments about fairness/reasonability/etc. These arguments are often reductive and repetitive. They also encourage judge intervention if they become major voting issues, Make them in the constructives, but by rebuttals, let's move to more substantive analysis.

A few things I don't like

Really rapid analytical arguments without context or development (fewer, better analyticals are better for me), arguments that are exclusionary or demeaning, misrepresentation of evidence, stripping cards of their warrants in your highlighting.

Things I do like

Thoughtful comparison of impact calculus in rebuttals, respectful debate that is inclusive, thoughtful analysis of framework debates, signposting arguments.

Things worth knowing:

I want the 2AC/2NC/1NR/1AR segment of the debate to compare evidence and analysis. It's great that you've got some prepared frontlines but I am far more interested in strong in-round analysis than in competing prepped positions.

If the Neg runs a series of contradictory 1N shells, I am very inclined to consider Aff arguments that claim it's an abusive strategy. I prefer the Neg to take an intellectually consistent approach to the round. Don't run a K that says state action is genocide and a states counterplan and expect that you'll easily get out of it by kicking one in the block.

I flow what I can hear. Sure, I will look at the e-mail chain, but even if we're on Zoom, I want to be able to hear and understand your cards. I am not particularly interested in policy debate becoming an activity where five people read Word documents sent to one another. I will use your doc to supplement my flow, but I expect you to be clear enough that I can understand both tag and cards.

School Affiliations: Dougherty Valley High School

About me: Hi, my name is Roy Zheng, and I'm a parent judge who has judged for almost 6 years for my 2 daughters. One competed in Expository Speech all throughout high school, and the other is actively competing in Policy/LD Debate in high school right now.

Judging/Event Types: Policy, PuFo, LD, Speech Events

Speaker points: You can get good speaker points by being confident and having smart, concise arguments that are well-warranted and explained well. Please make sure you respect your opponents as well!

At the end of the debate, I like to look at arguments again and review which side made the best claims and had the best evidence for comparison. Impact weighing during your rebuttal speeches helps me a lot with my decisions too, so please make sure you don't forget to talk about your impacts! I will evaluate any type of impact, as long as you explain it well.

I take notes/flow the entire debate and listen to cross examination.

Feel free to ask me before the round starts if you have any questions. Please be kind and confident, as debate is supposed to be fun and we're all here to learn :-)