I am a former high school PF debater.

My biggest priorities are clash and quality arguments rather than quantity.

If there is no through line for a point in rebuttal and summary speeches I consider it dropped.

I flow logic rather than specific cards.

Please weigh.

Tim Alderete - The Meadows School

-It's either Aff prep or Neg prep - No one preps for free.

-Text, from a debater I just judged to their coach, who is a friend of mine: “What is your friend on? He started my timer early because I took a deep breath.” Me: I'm gonna put that in my Paradigm!

-I do want to be on the email chain, but I won't be reading along with your speech doc - timalderete@yahoo.com

-I am cantankerous about Prep time - for me, it ends when you hit Send on the Email.

-The majority of my decisions will revolve around a lack of flowing or line by line structure.

-I will vote for most any coherent argument. A "coherent" argument must be one that I can defend to the team or debater who lost. Many think this makes me interventionist, but you don't pref me anyway.

-I not the best judge for bad arguments, the Politics Disad, or dumb theory. I will try to take them as seriously as you do, but everyone has their limits. (For example, I have never voted for disclosure theory, because I have never heard an intelligent argument defending it.)

-I do not vote for unethical arguments. The "Contact Information Disclosure" argument is dangerous and unethical because it abets online predators. It will receive a loss and minimum points.

-I don't give great speaker points. To compensate, if you show me decent flows you can get up to an extra point. Please do this Before I enter the ballot.

-I "can handle" your "speed" and I will only call "Clearer" once or twice if you are unclear.

-I have judged and coached a lot of LD rounds – I like philosophical arguments more than you may expect.

-I have judged and coached a lot of Policy rounds – I tend to think like a Policy debater.

I am new to LD debate, please don't spread.

my pronouns are they/them

I have minimal topic knowledge so whoever's argument makes the most sense and connects to their value best, wins.

As a former debater, I am qualified and will give feedback not only on your speech but also in ways you can improve your case. Be sure that you offer well developed arguments that show that you understand the topic, as well as your case. In debate, it is important to make sure that you have enough evidence to back up your theories, but also enough commentary to tie everything back to the case as a whole. Make sure your case is not just a bunch of cards after another, I want to know why and how things relate.

Framework and your speeches are extremely important. Your framework should have relevance and be upheld throughout all aspects of your case. If you can prove to my why your framework is stronger than your opponents, this will give you an advantage on the ballot. Not only that, but your speech should be convincing and not unclear. Speed is fine, but make sure that your value and criteria, warrants, authors, or anything you want me to remember is understandable.

To win my vote on the ballot, you must do the following things. You must clash with your opponent. Do not spend all your speeches telling me why your case is the best and should win. You must tell me why your opponents case falls. Make sure that you clash. If you don't, it's no longer debate. It becomes two students public speaking. It is important to clash on framework. Your contentions may fall but convince me that your value/criteria is more important and should be upheld over your opponents. I value framework over evidence. Impact is also an extremely important factor of the ballot. Make sure you are kind and respectful throughout the round. Good luck!

ASU 2021 update

This is my first online circuit tournament. I do not have topic knowledge.

Pronouns: They/them

Please do not pref me if you read tricks. I will probably evaluate the round poorly and then we will both be sad.

I did policy debate (not very well) in high school. I did not debate in college. I have mostly judged LD. I judge more locals than circuit.

>

Things before the debate

Blatant discriminatory behavior (racism, sexism, homophobia, oppression good, etc.) will get you voted down and reported to tab.

Give content warnings.

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

>

Pet peeves

Any variation of "I'd like to thank my opponents and the judge for being here today and making this debate possible. Now moving on to my contentions..." – The phrase "off-time roadmap" – Knocking on things during the round – Quantum mysticism – The phrases "firm affirmation/negation" – Saying "Time starts in 3, 2, 1, now"

>

Judge things

eDebate - put the order in the chat please. I think it makes it easier for everyone. I would prefer it if your video is on, but you do you.

I try my best to be tech > truth.

Speed: on circuit I'm like a 4/10, Oregon like a 7/10 to a 8/10. Please slow down on tags and analytics. Please be slower when debating online.

Unwarranted arguments are not arguments.

I'll probably flow cx.

The onus is on you not to misrepresent your evidence, not on your opponent(s) to catch you cheating.

I am slow at typing my rfd. It's not you, it's me.

>

Thoughts on Specific Arguments

Case: For the aff: the debate starts in the 1AC, not the 1NC. You wrote the aff for a reason: articulate it, extend it, weigh it against (for example) t-framework. Use it in later speeches! For the neg: be sure not to just put defense on the aff. Solvency deficits are probably only meaningful when paired with offense on the same layer. Good case debate rewarding for both me and you.

Disadvantages/Counterplans: Yes. These are what I'm most comfortable judging. Debates on disads is usually the weakest on the link level. Please read complete counterplans with a solvency advocate at the very least. I am starting to wonder about how much leeway I should give "perm do both, perm do the aff, perm do the cp" one-liners.

Kritiks: I am worse for them than I would like to be. I probably don't know your literature base. Please over-explain how the links outweigh the perm.

Phil: Nothing against it. I probably don't know your literature base. I need you to articulate what offense looks like in these framings.

Topicality: T is good. For extra and effects T all you really have to say is "drop the non-t offense" and then do the line by line. Otherwise, please explain how your interp is necessary for good debates. Please put standards in the 1nc and not just in the block.

Theory: My default is to drop the argument unless articulated otherwise. I think frivolous theory arguments are probably bad. Please slow down on your underviews/spikes.

Framework: Is how you frame your work. Love to see it.

>

If you have any questions about anything feel free to ask/email me. I look forward to your debates!

Affiliations:

I am currently coaching 3 teams at lamdl (Steam Legacy, Bravo, Lake Balboa) and have picked up an ld student or 2.

I do have a hearing problem in my right ear. If I've never heard you b4 or it's the first round of the day. PLEASE go about 80% of your normal spread for about 20 seconds so I can get acclimated to your voice. If you don't, I'm going to miss a good chunk of your first minute or so. I know people pref partly through speaker points. My default starts at 28.5 and goes up from there. If i think you get to an elim round, you'll prob get 29.0+

Evid sharing: use speechdrop or something of that nature. If you prefer to use the email chain and need my email, please ask me before the round.

What will I vote for? I'm mostly down for whatever you all wanna run. That being said no person is perfect and we all have our inherent biases. What are mine?

I think teams should be centered around the resolution. While I'll vote on completely non T aff's it's a much easier time for a neg to go for a middle of the road T/framework argument to get my ballot. I lean slightly neg on t/fw debates and that's it's mostly due to having to judge LD recently and the annoying 1ar time skew that makes it difficult to beat out a good t/fw shell. The more I judge debates the less I am convinced that procedural fairness is anything but people whining about why the way they play the game is okay even if there are effects on the people involved within said activity. I'm more inclined to vote for affs and negs that tell me things that debate fairness and education (including access) does for people in the long term and why it's important. Yes, debate is a game. But who, why, and how said game is played is also an important thing to consider.

As for K's you do you. the main one I have difficulty conceptualizing in round are pomo k vs pomo k. No one unpacks these rounds for me so all I usually have at the end of the round is word gibberish from both sides and me totally and utterly confused. If I can't give a team an rfd centered around a literature base I can process, I will likely not vote for it. update: I'm noticing a lack of plan action centric links to critiques. I'm going to be honest, if I can't find a link to the plan and the link is to the general idea of the resolution, I'm probably going to err on the side of the perm especially if the aff has specific method arguments why doing the aff would be able to challenge notions of whatever it is they want to spill over into.

I lean neg on condo. Counterplans are fun. Disads are fun. Perms are fun. clear net benefit story is great.

If you're in LD, don't worry about 1ar theory and no rvis in your 1ac. That is a given for me. If it's in your 1ac, that tops your speaks at 29.2 because it means you didn't read my paradigm.

Now are there any arguments I won't vote for? Sure. I think saying ethically questionable statements that make the debate space unsafe is grounds for me to end a round. I don't see many of these but it has happened and I want students and their coaches to know that the safety of the individuals in my rounds will always be paramount to anything else that goes on. I also won't vote for spark, trix, wipeout, nebel t, and death good stuff. ^_^ good luck and have fun debating

Who am I?

As a debater I Semi'd the TOC, won an Octos Bid and a Quarters Bid and was relatively successful on the circuit. In college I competed in APDA and BP (College Parli) where I was 3rd TOTY and Semi'd Nats.

Yale Update (aka how you should pref me):

Everything written below still holds true but, after judging Harvard, I have realized that I have quite a strange paradigm by the standards of modern LD. Specifically, I strongly believe in the pedagogical value of and enjoy judging in-depth, substantive, debates. Although I am most experienced with philosophy arguments, I am agnostic to the form that good rounds take and actually I enjoy judging good and well warranted Util and K debates.

What does this actually mean:

You should pref me if you enjoy reading phil, well-defended topical util affs, clever and well justified NIBS and theory shells, or engaging in depth about kritikal literature (though you may need to do some extra explaining here).

You should not pref me if your strategy consists of spamming as many blippy independent voters, unwarranted auto-win issues, or egregiously under highlighted card.

If you make coherent arguments and your opponent doesn't, I will most likely give you the benefit of the doubt and have a higher threshold for silly drops.

However, in rounds where both debaters are blippy and unclear, I am probably most likely to act like a "tricks judge" because the decision will come down to dumb drops and I won't intervene for unwarranted 10 second version of extinction first against an unwarranted 10 second version of skep.

The Rest of the Paradigm:

I still flow and listen to spreading on a semi-regular basis, however I have lost my ability to decipher incoherent mumbling at top speed. Either be clear or go at 70% of your normal rate. I will not flow off the doc.

I strongly believe that judges have an obligation to adapt to debaters, not the other way around. This is your activity and you should read arguments and explore ideas that are interesting to you. My role is to act as an impartial adjudicator (in as much as this is possible). I will vote on any argument that is won, warranted, and weighed.*

The rest of this paradigm should be read as a guide to:

1] How my priors and predispositions will effect how I judge.

2] My background/experience with certain types of arguments.

3] How to get good Speaks.

*I will not evaluate 30 speaks theory and will give you bad speaks for reading it.

Philosophy Debate:

Go wild. This is my favorite type of debate and what I read most often; I believe it is what distinguishes LD from being a better version of PF and worse imitation of Policy.

I love unique frameworks. Generic Kant/Hobbes is fine, but I will bump speaks for creativity. Similarly, I will reward frameworks with actual syllogisms, as I dislike affs that just list 60 2-sentence "Independant justifications".

Weighing between justifications/establishing logical priority is often very important in these debates. It can be hard to resolve chicken or the egg claims about who controls the internal link to normativity or other random meta-ethical issues.

Policy:

I read these arguments occasionally in high school and feel comfortable evaluating them. Parli has made me appreciate good topical/utilitarian debate a lot more, and I am happy to judge these rounds.

Compared to the average judge, I probably give more credence to probable arguments with robust link chains. Winning an extinction scenario does not mean that you have 100% certainty that extinction will occur, just that the probability of extinction is meaningfully higher. I will still vote on marginal extinction impacts, but you should do explicit weighing as to why even small increases in existential risk come first.

Good analytics>>>bad evidence. Cards should have warrants, especially if they are making predictions and not just listing facts.

I enjoy creative plans, PICS, and counterplans and will boost your speaks if you read something outside of the box. I am not the biggest fan of advantage counterplans, but will vote on them.

I find the Planorama strategy against Nebel T very funny and will give you high speaks if you execute it well.

Please for the love of god do weighing. The round will not be resolvable if you do not do weighing. Do not just assert something bad happens and pretend your opponent doesn't exist.

I will not judge kick an argument unless you argue that I should.

Kritiks:

I went for these more than my reputation suggested, but I am not super well versed in the intricacies of K literature.

If you are reading something besides a common K (Afropess, Set Col, Ableism, Cap, etc) or something I have background knowledge of (Nietzsche, Buddhism, Baudrillard, philosophy stuff) err heavily on the side of over-explanation.

1ARs increase their chance of winning if they respond to the K on the line by line alongside generic blocks and case outweighs.

Non-T Affs should be debatable and have actual offense linked back to a framing mechanism. I dislike cases that are tautologies where the advocacy and the role of the ballot are identical.

Neg K's are much stronger if they have actual links to the aff. Three card K's which assert "every theory besides mine is wrong" are less strategic then positions that engage with the topic and their framing.

I will vote on identity K's and pessimism, but strong claims should have strong warrants. If you want to argue that nothing will ever get better, you should defend a cohesive theory of ontology or politics, not read an underhighlighted card that just lists empirical examples of oppression.

I will vote for or against T framework. I think the policy making good/education/TVA collapse is underutilized, but fairness first is first.

1ARs against Framework don’t need to read a counter interp (though this is cool and strategic), but they should establish a framing mechanism for weighing impacts. I have no idea how to weigh impact turns absent being linked back to accessibility or a role of the ballot.

Tricks:

Most people considered me a tricks debater and I am very familiar with these arguments.

That being said, I think 'tricks' is basically just used as a catch all term to lump together arguments that people don't like.

Some of these arguments are very bad such as the resolved apriori, aprioris that intentionally misdefine words in the resolution, or eval after the 1ar.

On the other hand, 'tricks' that are based in philosophy or cleverly apply literature to 'break the topic' are some of my favorite arguments in debate.

I am a huge fan of Skep, Burdens (bring these back), creative NIBS, clever topical aprioris, Contingent Standards (great speaks if you read one of these), etc.

Truth Testing is a great argument and incredibly strategic if you go for it well.

Theory:

I am fine with 'frivolous' and gamey theory shells that are relevant to the round.

Reasonability with a brightline of structural abuse is heavily underutilized as a response to shells which rely on the risk of marginal abuse.

I would rather not judge disclosure theory, but will vote on it.

I would really really rather not judge new affs bad, but will (unfortunately) still vote on it.

Topicality:

I find semantics impacts much more persuasive than most judges.

Nebel T is fine, but more debaters should read actual Topicality shells against plan affs that are borderline non-topical and defend super marginal advocacies.

Lay Debate:

For progressive debaters against lay/trad debaters.

-- Be nice and try to make the round educational.

-- Spreading the 1ac is fine, but go at a speed your opponent can at least understand for other speeches.

-- Probably don't spam theory shells, but normal circuit arguments are fine. I won't punish you for winning quickly and cleanly, but I will boost speaks if you make the round a positive learning experience.

For lay/trad debaters against progressive debaters.

-- Try to understand their arguments and make the responses that seem logical and obvious to you.

-- Engaging to the best of your ability increases your chances of winning more than vague claims that progressive debate is bad.

Lay vs Lay rounds

-- Do weighing and be comparative. The biggest problem with 90% of these rounds is a lack of weighing and engagement when both sides have radically different characterizations of the resolution.

-- I will not vote on new arguments.

I debated in high school LD and PF and was a college Parli debater, so I have a good amount of experience. I was a quarter finalist in CA for LD and a TCFL State Qualifier in LD (if that matters).

LD is first and foremost a value debate. Be sure to keep that in mind.

- Be cordial to each other. There is no reason to be rude to your fellow competitors. For zoom competitors, that means no giggling or whispering when your mics are off. Treat it just like a normal round.

- Time yourselves and each other, please.

- I am fine with speed, but I do not like spreading. I can keep up but I think that it's poor practice and your speaks will be reduced.

- Sign posting is extremely important to me. Always tell me what contention you are talking about or responding to.

- It’s extremely important that you show a good understanding of the topic and you are not simply throwing out arguments that you think fit and reiterating them.

- While I am more of a traditional judge, I am open to progressive debate (K, T, Theory, ect.) but give substantial explanation.

- I love clash. Be sure to actually respond to your opponents arguments rather than just say they don't matter.

- Apologies for any weird faces, I am processing and writing notes!

For speech competitors:

- Do your thing, I have no strong preferences!

My email is elibotham@gmail.com

I did LD for my Junior and Senior years of High School.

Pronouns: he/him

Try to explicitly describe which arguments your opponent has dropped, extensions in your rebuttal speeches, and explain how this impacts the flow of the round with focus paid first to the (A) details at the card level, (B) encapsulation into card "handles" that preferably include (B.i) an author name and year and (B.ii) a brief summary that can get shorter as it is referenced multiple times and (C) an analysis of possible interactions with other content, and (C.i) analysis must include a terminal analysis underneath a framework, otherwise your argument's impacts may be unclear and therefore relatively meaningless to me.

I think that an indicator of true understanding is when a person explains a rather complicated thing in simple language, or clear thought experiments with examples that are mapped back to the more abstract language, as well as explicitly described assumptions about the model that you're working with or that your opponent is working with.

I'm ok with some speed, I'll say "clear" if your spreading is unclear.  If it is too fast but enunciation is okay, I'll say "slower," and I will try to communicate with body language such as with affirmation like nodding my head if I am okay with increasing speed.  I'm not particularly fond of the strategy of reading so many arguments that it is easy to hide a critical argument in the mess of other poorly executed arguments with the intention of flowing it through in rebuttal speeches.  I call this phenomenon "shotgun debate," particularly when lots of theory is involved and there are tricks mixed in so that some of the many many shotgun pellets unpredictably expand in rebuttal speeches, and yet any of the pellets could have expanded. It is almost as though these new expanded arguments are entirely new arguments, so just be careful and make sure you're really connecting to prior arguments in rebuttal speeches. My tolerance for theory is somewhat low, and I need explanations for some of the jargon, due to lack of experience judging t debates.

I think that winning FW debate can be very strategic if you show how your opponent's impacts fail to fit underneath the winning (your) framework. An argument that drives home the irrelevancy of your opponent's arguments is a powerful one, especially on the AZ circuit where FW debate is practically non-existent and nearly everyone reads some version of util. I still suggest doing impact weighing underneath both FWs, however.

I think that explaining why your evidence is better than your opponent's is strategic. Dive into the methodologies of your studies versus your opponent's. This can be uber convincing.

A tip that I received from a wise judge: debate within the realm of familiarity. This will make your arguments make more sense and be more convincing. On the other hand, if your primary intention is to learn, take a few risks. Stray a little into unfamiliar debate territory if you want to learn faster.

I don't have much experience judging K on K debate, though I can still evaluate arguments.

Plans and CP's are always ok.

Make sure to explain the lit if you're reading a K or FW that isn't often read. Explain it to me to win, to your opponent so that you're kind. I'm used to hearing LARPers that read very straightforward versions of util or structural violence. I've heard Settler Colonialism a lot too. I've seen a few performance K's. I have some experience with running deontology as a debater myself, but I don't see it as a judge very often.

On the K: -------------------------

I like crystal clear Alts that paint me a picture of what the world of the Alt looks like.

I like well-warranted arguments that provide strong links from the Aff to the Neg. It's frustrating to me when Negs read their K's and don't explain the links because they didn't listen to the 1AC well enough to point to specifically on the flow where the Aff links.

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

I'll drop you if I see a blatant microaggression in round or treatment of your opponent that is demeaning, racist, homophobic, etc. I'll try my best to be as sensitive as possible when explaining my RFD since most of the time, I think that these sorts of behaviors are not consciously intended yet still important enough to base my RFD on.

Try to learn something in every debate round. Always argue for something that you find convincing, using reasons that you believe. Find a new reason to reaffirm your pre-existing beliefs or change your mind about something. In this way, every debate round should be a victory for both sides.

I think mutual disclosure before round is good for improving the quality of the debate.

I like clever humor. Clever humor increases the probability that vibration assessments of the room return positive and reduces debate toxicity. That being said, I won't vote on a vibe check of your opponent, especially if they're Neg.

I am a lay judge.

Do not spread.

I'm overall a pretty relaxed judge. Very objective and open minded.

[Speech]

I am familiar with every speech event.

Things I am looking for:

-Good blocking (Using your space, taking advantage of any gesturing you can, etc...)

-Memorization, even if you must ab lib (improvise), I'd prefer that versus pausing completely.

-Projection, if I cannot hear you I will not be able to judge you accordingly. Technology issues are understandable, but do what you can so I can hear you as clearly as possible.

In Oratory: I am listening not only for your performance, but logic as well. If the explanations, quotes, or speech itself is too complicated or irrelevant, you will lose my attention. If you use personal anecdotes, please be sure they make sense contextually. Make sure that your piece either persuades me or provides a call to action, there must be a purpose or else it's meaningless.

In DI/HI/POI: I prefer when there is fluctuation in tone and energy. Be expressive, clear, and realistic. My biggest piece of advice is to always maintain an openness, and in POI especially, don't cover your face with the binder, make yourself stand out. Otherwise, interpretation is up to you, and if you portray it well, you'll win me over.

In Info: I really enjoy this event, and if you are able to present me something that is unique, I am very likely to vote in your favor. I like creativity and expression. However, may the mood of the presentation match the emotion you convey as well. Fill in as much of your time as you can, and if you must use notecards, I suggest you look up as much as humanly possible. Try not to be codependent on them.

In Extemp: I'm less familiar with this event; however, if I have one suggestion fill as much of your time as possible. I have seen impromptu events, and I found that the speakers that did best were those who perspired, and carried out their speech. I like being told hard facts with proper backing, so throwing in a statistic and the citation would be wise.

[Debate]

I'm familiar with every debate event, but most familiar with LD.

Truth > Tech. I'll only vote on tech if the arguments constructed are with more logical imposition and there is no attempt at a response by the opponent.

I will say this once, and I'll say it again, morality is NOT a value. Morals and values are the same thing, so specify what moral value you've based your framework on.

I will flow everything including cross-ex, but it might not necessarily be taken into my consideration unless it gets abusive at any time.

I am open to unique arguments, but don't run a full DisAd (Please).

I absolutely love impacts, warrants, and clear emphasis of research so I highly suggest not reading generic blocks.

I don't mind people who spread, but try to be somewhat clear.

Please be respectful of your opponents, in all events. Don't interrupt during any constructive or speech.

K's are exciting, but don't feel obligated to include them if you're not sure what they are. I am a Traditional LD judge, so K's, Theory, RVI's.. etc. don't necessarily appeal to me, but that doesn't mean I won't vote on them.

LARP debate is interesting although I rarely have come across it on a local level. I enjoy this style of debate if the competitor who uses it is successfully able to link it back to the topic.

CP in Neg is always a bit redundant in my opinion because the burden of the negation is to prove to me why the status quo is better as is, but if you solve for the disadvantages of the AFF and prove why the CP is best done under your framework, by all means, do so.

I judge on framework, so make sure your speech doesn't border on topicality errors, because that can be weighed against you. T debate is still possible, but please do not read Trix. If you intend to do so, feel free to strike me.

Use academic language. I advise no profanity, but I will not hold it against you unless you're discriminatory by any means. Any slurs used will automatically result in L20 (no exceptions).

:) Good Luck!

PS: Make me laugh and I will add 0.5+ speaks. Don't try too hard to meet this criteria, otherwise it can come off as cringe and make me uncomfortable.

I am a debate coach whose decisions are incredibly flow based. I am a great judge for technical, mechanical line-by-line debate at any speed where I can crisply hear every syllable of every single word. My background is in policy debate, but I have primarily coached/judged LD for the past 5+ years.

Clarity and judge instructions are axiomatic. I find myself most often intervening (which I dislike) when debaters are unclear and when I lack directions. I unabashedly cannot flow analytical arguments at unclear card text speed - please slow down on important parts of the debate you want me to get down verbatim on my flow. Almost every paradigm regardless of ideology says "more judge instructions please" because debaters hardly ever do enough! The best rebuttals always start and end with directions. I implore you to treat the round like a fine dining prix fixe experience where you let me savor several courses thoroughly that you have exquisitely chosen and explained, rather than reading me the entire Cheesecake Factory menu at top speed while telling me everything is 'good'.

Debate is for the debaters, not for the judges or coaches. Debate is what the debaters want it to be. I believe in a student/debater centered model of debate. The arguments you choose to read should not be based on ideologically pleasing me. You should run whatever arguments you are passionate about, enjoy, think are strategic, are studying, and/or are just trying to get better at deploying and want some feedback. I appreciate debaters who take time to craft strategies they want to read and do not think my ideological beliefs should play a factor in the debate.

I do not have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you read. I try not to intervene and insert my personal biases or beliefs for arguments presented into the debate. I am not bias towards any particular style, content, or form. That being said, while I like to consider myself an incredibly flexible coach and judge, I am not an expert in all styles, content, and forms. You should assume I am a debate coach that is referentially familiar with what you are saying, but not a subject area expert that has flow shorthand abbreviations for the SAT words you expect me to get down perfectly. Even if I am particularly knowledgeable about the substance matter of the debate, I purposefully try to not fill in the gaps. Robust explanation is likely necessary.

I think the role of the judge should be to evaluate the arguments presented and reach the best decision requiring the least intervention. I think it would be highly improper and interventionist for me as a judge to impose certain argumentative burdens on the aff or neg. I do not ideologically care if you defend the resolution or not and will leave that up to the debaters. I do not believe that it is the judge's role to come in with beliefs that make them unwilling to believe or vote on issues like conditionality, zero risk, terminal defense, presumption, or affs that do not defend a topical plan - you get the point. I am just as willing to vote on conditionality bad as I am conditionality good - and am just as willing to vote on zero risk as I am "there's a risk so try or die". You should not assume I will "ignore" arguments like "instrinsicness", "fiat solves the link", "you misspelled a word in the plan/counterplan text" or RVIs, if these arguments are properly explained. Are these likely winning arguments if evenly debated by both sides? Probably not. But I am not going to ignore arguments presented with warrants just because I do not "believe" or "don't vote" for that argument because it is "not a thing". I do not have any preconceived ideas about debate arguments or theory when in the role of the judge and tend to vote based on only my flow. I am willing to vote on any claim that has warrants and implications with instructions. Just because your opponent is "trolling" or reading "tricks" does not mean you get a free pass to not answer these arguments and still win the debate. I do not carve out exceptions for arguments like wipeout and spark. While I personally think there is zero risk that I will win a gold medal in the 100m dash at the 2028 LA Olympic games, as a judge who takes their beliefs out of the debate at hand, I am willing to entertain explanations of the risk of my seemingly impossible quest towards gold.

I do not auto judge kick a counterplan/alternative without being explicitly told to do so in the last neg speech act as doing so would be judge intervention.

During the debate: I will flow unless instructed otherwise. I flow the speech not the speech doc. Please do not speak or organize your speech in a way that assumes I am following along in the document. I usually look at cards during cross and prep if they are being discussed.

Reason for decision process: I actively think about the debate during the actual debate itself. I often have the debate mostly figured out when the timer beeps for the last speech. I do not reconstruct the debates afterwards. I use a double check method where if I am going to vote neg, I go through the entirety of the flow of the 2AR after I have made my decision and try to make sure I am not missing anything and have an answer to every "what about this" question that is on my flow from the last speech. I generally type a written reason for decision on the ballot (typically several short paragraphs) before I submit my ballot where I explain how I decided the core issues of the particular debate.

Speaker point floor typically 29.0.

I am a 5th year LD coach for BASIS Phoenix in Arizona.

I did LD in high school (2009 - 2013) primarily in the Oklahoma local circuit attending a small private Christian school that no longer exists (American Christian School in Bartlesville, OK if you're curious).

Add me to e-mail chains: chisumdebate@gmail.com

SHORT VERSION

- Don't spread.

- Traditional LD good. Policy good. K’s good. Philosophy good. All of these have the caveat that if I don’t understand the argument and its warrants, I won’t vote on it.

- I have and will vote for non-topical cases, but I have a high threshold for doing so. My prior is that topicality is good for debate, and that debate itself is good. You are free to try to convince me otherwise in-round.

- Frivolous Theory bad (“I know it when I see it”). Tricks bad.

- Give voters; be clear how you want me to evaluate the round.

- Warrants, warrants, warrants. I need clear and developed reasons to believe your argument.

- Be respectful.

EXTENDED VERSION

Presentation

As said above, do not spread. That goes double in an online format where clarity is already impacted. I'm concerned about the quality, not the quantity of arguments presented, so excessive speed is both unnecessary and harmful. If you are going too fast for my taste, I will say "Clear!" After saying "clear" twice, I will simply stop flowing if you are still going too fast.

A lot of people ask me "How fast is too fast?" Here's my answer: Speak to me as you would speak to the most intelligent person you know who is not at all involved in debate.

Argumentation

I'm willing to vote on basically any argument that is well-warranted, clearly explained, and persuasively argued.

I have limited familiarity with most K and phil literature, so do not assume I will understand your arguments beforehand. If you do not believe you can explain the literature within the round in a way I can understand, probably don't run that K.

Policy Stuff

In terms of impact weighing, I tend to be more friendly to weighing on probability over magnitude (especially on extinction scenarios that are poorly warranted and obviously false). Instead of thinking solely of doomsday scenarios, risk evaluation is a much more practical way of thinking about impacts (and is much closer to how policy-makers in the real world make decisions).

For counter-plans, be careful that you are actually competitive to the Aff. I'm iffy on some of the more "tricky" CPs (Condo CPs, certain PICs, Agent CPs etc.), and I find perms or theory args against them to be fairly persuasive, so be careful about that.

Theory and Topicality

I have a high threshold for theory. In my view, theory ought to be a check on actual abuse, so if you're intending to run frivolous theory (I know it when I see it; you know you're running it), striking me is probably a good idea.

There are two questions that I will be willing to outright answer in the middle of a round:
1. “Judge, do you consider my theory (or my opponent’s theory) argument ‘frivolous’ theory.”
2. “Judge, do you consider my case (or my opponent’s case) topical.”

If I consider a theory arg frivolous, it will not be evaluated on my ballot, and it does not need to be addressed in rebuttals. If I do not consider a theory argument frivolous, it will be evaluated on my ballot and can be won by either side.

If I consider a case topical, I will not evaluate any topicality arguments on my ballot. If I do not consider a case topical, then I will be evaluating topicality arguments on my ballot, and either side may win that portion of the debate.

Other

I am a stickler on warrants. I need to understand why and how a claim creates specific impacts. If I don't understand your warrant or if it just doesn't follow, the only way I'll vote on it is if your opponent drops it entirely (and you extend it). Note: just because you have a card that makes a claim does not mean you have a warrant for why that claim is true.

If your opponent drops an argument, don't assume you automatically win the debate, or even that portion of the debate. You must extend that argument and tell me why it's important that it goes through.

Give voters. Tell me exactly why you should win the round. If you do your job as a debater, my RFD should sound extremely similar to the end of your last rebuttal.

As a last point, debaters should be respectful to each other and have fun. There's no reason to ever be disrespectful to an opponent or engage in any behavior that makes debate a less accessible and enjoyable activity.

Bryan Choi

Add me on email chains: bryanc0502@gmail.com

General:

Good debating can overturn any preference I explain below. I'll vote for who wins the debate.

It doesn’t matter if an argument was “conceded” or is a “voting issue”. Explain why that matters.

I come into the round with very few rigid preconceptions about how the round should go and I will try to intervene as little as possible.

Experience:

I have debated LD for 5 years, ranging from lay to circuit, so speed shouldn’t be a problem as long as I’m part of the email chain. I have judged public forum and parliamentary from middle school to high school level as well, but at the end of the day I am most comfortable with LD.

Framework:

I like to see clash between frameworks. If there is not a single word in the entire debate that mentions anything about fw, I will default to util. When you're extending your framework in your 1AR or 2NR, don't just say "extend the Pappas card"; you should explain why that card supports the idea of your framework being the more apt one for the round.

DA/CPs:

I like to see all parts of the DA being pretty clear. Make sure you impact out all your arguments and you weigh in the 2NR. I like creative counterplans quite a bit, but don't go too far. Counterplans should solve the case and avoid the link to the DA. Conditionality is usually good, but 3 or more is pushing it, and I’ll be more easily persuaded by theory arguments.

K’s:

I personally didn’t read a lot of K’s as a debater, but I will vote for it regardless. I think that the link should be very clear to the aff, and don’t give me trash alts that just say “reject the aff”. Please make it very clear how the alt actually addresses the problem that you are pointing out with the kritik.

T/Theory:

If you’re one of the debaters who comes into a round knowing you’re going to collapse to theory, please strike me.

If there is abuse in the round, for sure run theory, but that doesn’t warrant running friv theory just to get a ballot. Also, I have been noticing that everyone just defaults to “drop the debater”, but don’t make every single one of theory shells with drop the debater, especially when the abuse doesn’t really warrant it.

Personally believe that when judges have to think for a long time, that just means the debaters did not do good enough jobs. Be sure you give clear judge directions in your later speeches and tell me the really important issues and arguments you are using to win the round.

Won’t vote on tricks.

I am a relatively experienced judge and have competed in LD. I need to be able to hear and understand your case so please do not spread. I value a strong framework, relevant and well-used evidence, and good blocks.

This paradigm is in draft status.

I enjoy judging.

I prefer quality over quantity, so please avoid spread. It is also helpful when debaters tie the points you are making back to the aff or neg position being debated.

Choose your key words carefully. If "efficiency" is your key word, stick to it. It is okay to push your vocabulary, but be mindful of words you are using if they are central to your argument.

"Back then" are two words that add little value to historical references unless you can give a century. If you are talking about women's roles back then, do you mean before the 1900s or after? If you don't know the decade--which is fine, was it before or after women could vote, etc.? The same thing applies to racism. "Back then, when racism was a problem" is not a clear description. Do you mean slavery? Jim Crow era? George Floyd's death?

Scale is also helpful. What is the scale of the problem being debated? If the number of houseless people grows from 10,000 to 20,000 in a city, can you give a little perspective by saying whether you are talking about Los Angeles or Sherwood, Oregon?

Finally, I advise against talking down to a judge. I have not yet heard an argument that I simply didn't understand unless I couldn't hear it.

I admire your tenacity and persistence and will offer verbal comments when allowed if you would like them.

Best wishes to you in your debate rounds.

Email: rexyman212@gmail.com

Santa Monica High School 2020

Tech>truth but arguments must contain a claim, warrant, and impact—I'm likely to hold the line on underdeveloped arguments and will only vote on arguments I understand as presented in the debate.

Strong impact calculus wins debates whether it's policy, theory, philosophy, kritiks, or topicality. This is often the first place I look when making my decision. You should do comparative impact calculus and answer your opponent's.

Not a fan of most theory arguments--reasonability and reject the argument are often quite persuasive.

Speaks reflect a combination of strategic choices, clarity, quality evidence, and quality arguments.

LD:

This is my 8th year judging LD; I am a former competitor and a former LD coach. I'm currently working on a PhD in Molecular and Cellular Biology at Arizona State with a focus on the development of universal vaccines against influenza and enjoy giving back to the speech and debate community.

I prefer traditional argumentation, but that's all it is: a preference. I'm fine with, and welcome, speed and progressive argumentation (K's, DA's, CP's, perf, T, you can run whatever you want). Make sure you make good use of crystallization an key voters in the 2NR/2AR to ensure that I'm not missing whatever you feel is most important for my consideration.

Clear authors and taglines are appreciated, add me to the email chain/use the file share, and (specifically for novices) don't forget to crystallize, impact calc, extend, etc. Haikus are cool.

Policy:

See my LD paradigm but throw out the traditional argumentation thing (though there was one round I judged where the teams agreed to use LD style argumentation which was simultaneously disorienting and awesome). It's been a while since the days when I judged policy regularly. I didn't' do policy when I used to compete, and the activity has evolved so much in the couple of years since I regularly judged it. Bear with me, add me to the email chain, and feel free to ask me before round if you have any specific questions about anything.

he/him

email: bennettfees@berkeley.edu

I debated for 2 years at Brophy College Preparatory in LD. I did NPDA at Berkeley.

General Stuff:

• I’ll vote on any argument that’s warranted
• Speed is fine, just be clear.
• If you’re going to do an analytics dump just slow down so I can catch them and if you are reading multiple responses to an arg please number how many points there are before you spread through them (i.e. 4 points…)
• Speaks boost if you flash analytics and disclose open source.

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

Flows the doc ----------------------------------------X--Flow what I hear

Fairness/clash/research impacts on T --------X----------------------------------Movements?

Offense/defense on T -------------------------X-----------------Impact turns

Extinction outweighs vs K ---------------------------------------X---- Link level args/perm

Conditionality bad -------------------------X--------------------Infinite and good

Aff-leaning on T vs Policy Affs --------------------X----------------------Neg-leaning on T vs Policy Affs

Internal Link Answers ----X--------------------------------------Impact Defense

Actually extending arguments ----X--------------------------------------- Shadow Extensions

Policy: Love these. Please know the evidence and the internal link story well and extend arguments not just authors during cross applications. As always, weighing is ultra-important. Affs should have inherency and weighing should start in the 1AR. For CP’s you should say "condo -> judge kick" if you want me to judge kick. For DA’s quality over quantity- a couple well-cut cards with warrants that says what you want it to say > seven one-liners

Phil: I know a lot of phil as it was actually written by the author and I’m very comfortable judging these types of debates. Be sure to make comparative fw answers as well as line by line their framework. In debate I think phil gets used as a cop-out in favor of hiding tricks which I’m not a fan of. I’m fine with independent voters justified by the fw just be clear about them. If you must read tricks then be upfront about them and they should be grouped at the top or the bottom of the doc

Theory/T: Great. I think that line-by-line is especially important in these kinds of debates and value as many specific ties to the topic as possible. Weighing between standards is also a must that is too often overlooked. I default competing interps, DTA, no RVI, and fairness as a voter; however, I can be easily persuaded otherwise. Semantic heavy shells like nebel can be ok if it's cut right. I have a low tolerance for friv theory shells. Also, if you have a saucy justification or explanation of a standard that is unique from what most people would read SLOW DOWN so I can flow that independent of the stock stuff.

K: While I didn't run many kritikal positions in high school, I do it much more now and enjoy these types of debates. I’m comfortable with Baudrillard, Warren, Deleuze, Bataille and stock Ks, anything else I approach through how you explain the thesis of the K so be sure to describe what exactly your K is/does and why that means I should vote for you (clear overviews that explain the framing > extending obscure terminology) . I tend to buy “non-falsifiable” evidence versus most psychoanalytic theories, provided they’re warranted. I don’t like Floating PIKs and think the K needs to win its thesis of the world to win the round. I always appreciate a good link wall. For K affs v Topicality you need to explain how the process of debate functions under your model and should do more than just impact turn the voters. I think most K ROB don’t make much sense and the analysis of why certain impacts come first should just be included in the framing.

I am a certified theatre educator and director with over 15 years of directing experience.

1) Movement - how choreography is incorporated whether it is body language of different characters to make them stronger, or use of a black book creatively.

2) Fluid story - I should know from beginning to end the rising action, climax, falling action, and resolve in your story. If it is a POI, I should see the same thing in the cutting of the pieces.

3) Hidden message - from the teaser to the introduction, all the way to the end of the piece, I want to be able to understand the hidden message of why you picked this piece(s) to support something you are passionate about.

4) Characters - There should be distinguished characters in each of the pieces. If you have multiple characters in one piece, each one should have a different "story", body language and voice to tell them a part.

For LD:

1) Evidence - using evidence sufficiently to support the claims in your argument.

2) Argument - your argument has to make sense, meaning you can't just argue that your opponent is wrong because of everything you already said. In cross I expect a new form of argument that still supports your stance.

3) Claims - I should hear a speech in your debate that clearly states the issues and how you resolve it.

This is a debate - not a contest to see who can read a prepared statement the fastest. The debaters should prepare their written arguments but not read them. The written arguments should be used as the basis for the oral debate.

There is no substitute for presenting a clear and concise oral argument in support of the debater's position. The debater cannot and should not assume that the judge has received or, if received, will read the written statement.

This is a debate and it is up to the debater to orally present, explain, defend and prove his/her argument. To paraphrase of the famous line from the movie "Philadelphia" - "Explain it like you are explaining it to a second grader."

Absolutely no ad hominem attacks or comments should be made. The debater should let the facts speak for his/her side.

Affirmative -Arguments must be fact based and set forth without resorting to emotion or unsupported hypotheses. Rushing through the argument to get everything in is not preferable. It is better to leave out part of the argument during the initial presentation than to go so fast you cannot be understood or present an argument so convoluted as not to be understood. The goal is to convince the judges that the Affirmative argument is based in fact, logic and reason to the extent it cannot be denied.

Negative -It is up to the negative position to attack the conclusions and rationale of the affirmative position. It should be precise in its attack, but based solely on the argument. As with the affirmative, the position should be clear and concise, but the Negative should always targeting the Affirmative position with either rationale for such position's failings and/or alternative conclusions. To that extent a step by step rebuttal may be warranted. Even a simple dismissal of part of the affirmative as "not based in fact" is acceptable - if such dismissal is then backed up with counter-facts.

Cross examination - the art of cross examination is to get the other side to give your argument. The best cross examiners actually testify by asking questions in such a manner that the "witness" answers with a simple yes and is not given the opportunity to respond with long answers the eat up the questioner's time. For example: Q "Is it not true that people program the computers?" - A "yes" - Q "And people make mistakes" - A - "Yes" Q. "So if there is a mistake by the programmer then there will be a mistake by the computer." - A "Yes Q. "So the computer is no better than the person who programs it." No answer is required as the point has been made. - The best cross examination is one in which the witness is made to testify against him/herself while making the other side's argument for it.

Summation - the is the last opportunity to stress the strong points of your side and the weak points of the other side. It should be simple and direct and, whenever possible, a litany of comparisons between the two sides showing how your side is right and the other side is wrong.

I competed in college parliamentary debate, and have 5 years coaching public forum debate in Beijing, Taipei, and now back in the United States. Under my tenure in Beijing, we won the NSDA China National Championship two years in a row.

I am a flow judge. I expect debaters to provide evidence for their arguments and responses, but if they do not, it is the responsibility of their opponents to highlight a lack of warrants.

I do not flow crossfire, so any significant information gained in crossfire should be brought up in later speeches.

I am focused on content over style, but do believe there is a necessity to communicate major issues clearly and convincingly when the debate is coming to a close.

I am okay with spreading, as long as the debaters are speaking clearly.

Updated for Northwestern: It occurs to me I haven't touched this thing in awhile. They often feel quite self-aggrandizing, so I'm hoping to keep this short and informative.

For college debates, please add

caldebatechain@gmail.com

For HS, please add

nathankarlfleming@gmail.com

Ks & Framework: I like clash. I think debate is special because of the depth of debate it allows. That means if your K aff is only for you, I'm not. If your K aff defends topic DAs and has a cool spin on the topic though, I'm your guy. I don't believe that heg good isn't offense, and people should feel comfortable going for impact turns against the K in front of me, because it's cleaner than T a lot of the time. Fairness is an impact, but it's way worse than skills.

Theory: the primary concern is the predictability of the interp. In order for it to be predictable, it needs to be based in a logical interpretation of the resolution. This precludes the vast majority of theory arguments. People seem to be souring on conditionality --- I am not one of those people. I've yet to hear an objection to it not solved by writing and reading higher quality arguments.

A few closing comments: unsorted

-I'm kind of an ev hack. I try not to read cards unless instructed, but if you read great ev, you should be loud and clear about telling me to read it, and if it's as good as you say, then speaker points may be in order.

-Sometimes recutting the other team's card to answer their argument is better than reading one of your own. If you want me to read their card on your terms, include highlighting in another color so we're on the same page on what part you think goes the other way.

-Arguments I won't vote for

-X other debater is individually a bad person for something that didn't happen in the debate

-saying violence to other people in the debate is a good idea

-speech times are bad or anything that literally breaks the debate

-new affs bad

Lincoln Douglas

I judge this now, but I'm still getting used to it, so go easy on me. So far, my policy debate knowledge has carried me through most of these debates just fine, but as far as I can tell these are the things worth knowing about how I judge these debates.

-Theory doesn't become a good argument because speech times are messed up. Dispo is still a joke. Neg flex is still important. That doesn't mean counter plans automatically compete off certainty/immediacy, and it doesn't mean topicality doesn't matter. It does mean that hail-marry 2AR on 15 seconds of condo isn't gonna cut it tho.

-Judge instruction feels more important than ever for the aff in these debates because the speech times are wonky.

-I generally feel confident w/ critical literature, but not all of the stuff in Policy is in LD and visa-versa. So if you're talking about like, Kant, or some other funny LD stuff, go slow and gimme some time.

-This activity seems to have been more-or-less cannibalized by bad theory arguments and T cards written by coaches. I will be difficult to persuade on those issues.

-I don’t flow RVIs.

Public Forum

Copy-Pasting Achten's.

First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence.

This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence. The only exception to this is if one team chooses not to participate in the email thread and the other team does then all time used for evidence exchanges will be taken from the prep time of the team who does NOT email their cases.

I competed in Trad LD for 4 years and currently coach Trad LD in Colorado. I am a flow/experienced judge. I love clash and I love a good debate. I vote based on the flow and coverage first. I vote second based on the quality of the arguments and rebuttal efficacy.

Speed/Spreading: I do not want you to read your fastest. Save that for practice and your friends. I can handle moderate speed. If you choose to spread, I will give you the benefit of saying CLEAR once in the round if you are incomprehensible/going too quickly for me. After this point, if I do not understand you, I will not flow your arguments.

Kritiks, Counterplans, etc: if you choose to run these arguments, the burden is on you to make sure I comprehend them. Impact the importance of your K, counterplan, etc. Why should I care about this argument?

Rebuttals: You do not need to repeat what your opponent has said in previous speeches - signpost and then make your arguments.

Timekeeping: I ask that you keep your own time. However, I am the official timekeeper of the round and will be keeping time as well. I do this for one main purpose - to keep all debaters honest about speech and prep times.

Professionalism: I expect a moderate amount of professionalism in the round. I will not fault you for any technical issues, nor for your background/surrounding noise. I will also not fault you for dress. However, I expect professional behavior in the round. I will lower speaker points for rude behavior, and if I believe it was too aggressive or abusive, I will vote you down. It's okay to be confident, it's not okay to be cocky.

Signpost, signpost, signpost. I won't guess where you want me to flow an argument. You don't want me to guess anyway. Lay it out for me clean and upfront.

Additionally, give me some voters in your final speech. Tell me all the ways you won (while keeping attitude in check).

And finally, I do not disclose and I do not give oral critiques. I'll leave RFD and comments on the ballot. If you have further questions, don't hesitate to ask before the round starts. I'm not opposed to explaining more or answering other questions not addressed here.

I'm a second-year student at ASU with three years of high school speech and debate experience, specifically in LD. I coached at Southwest Speech and Debate Institute and am currently an assistant coach at Brophy College Prep in Phoenix. In terms of how to win my ballot, I will vote on pretty much any argument so long as it is well-developed and warranted throughout the round. My debate philosophy is that debaters should impact their arguments out to a framework and evaluate the round through a comparative worlds approach; that being said, don't let that limit the scope of the debate. While I was not a progressive debater, I have always been interested in progressive argumentation and enjoy watching these rounds. I prefer structural Ks above most forms of progressive debate and I place more value on that than I do policy style cases. I have a higher threshold for theory, but if there is abuse, I will consider voting for it. I'm fine with any speed (just put me on the email chain) but be sure that your opponent can understand you in order to have a productive round.

email: hanna.griffin88@gmail.com

I have been involved with Policy Debate since 1981, when I debated in High School in Arizona. I debated NDT for Arizona State in the late 80s, and have been coaching High School debate teams in Arizona, Wisconsin & California for a total of 23 years (off & on) starting in 1986. I coached Policy Debate most recently at Lowell High School in San Francisco from 2012-2016. I worked the 2001-2003 Stanford & Berkeley debate camps. I am Tabula Rasa, but default to Policy Making-I enjoy all aspects of the game, The K, The Counterplan-Disad debate, Case Turns, T whatever, it's all fair game. I do have a higher than average likelihood to pull the trigger on theory arguments if you develop them and win them (conditionality, pics, international actors etc.). Ultimately I think that virtually everything is debateable including the nature and function of the activity itself-that being said you will have an uphill battle the more aggressively anti-norm you get with me. I.E. I think that the affirmative should defend the Resolution, not attack it. Affirmatives without plans are fine, but not my preference. If you read an Aff without a plan I think you should read some Solvency cards for whatever performative experiment you are conducting. Speed is fine, be as loud & clear as possible. I prefer longer, more highly explanatory cards than a slew of 1 line cards, but also understand the tactical utility of the short card in high school debate-just be aware that I do tend to read a few cards after the round, so if you have a crucial argument that you need to win, read the long card. I love to see integrated strategies that are coherent and well-evidenced-love aggressive (but not obnoxious) smart, fast debaters. If you have any specific or more nuanced questions please let me know pre-round and I will answer them. Email chain to gerardgrigsby@hotmail.com

Assistant Director of Speech and Debate at Presentation High School and Public Admin phd student. I debated policy, traditional ld and pfd in high school (4 years) and in college at KU (5 years). Since 2015 I've been assistant coaching debate at KU. Before and during that time I've also been coaching high school (policy primarily) at local and nationally competitive programs.

Familiar with wide variety of critical literature and philosophy and public policy and political theory. Coached a swath of debaters centering critical argumentation and policy research. Judge a reasonable amount of debates in college/hs and usually worked at some camp/begun research on both topics in the summer. That said please don't assume I know your specific thing. Explain acronyms, nuance and important distinctions for your AFF and NEG arguments.

The flow matters. Tech and Truth matter. I obvi will read cards but your spin is way more important.

I think that affs should be topical. What "TOPICAL" means is determined by the debate. I think it's important for people to innovate and find new and creative ways to interpret the topic. I think that the topic is an important stasis that aff's should engage. I default to competing interpretations - meaning that you are better off reading some kind of counter interpretation (of terms, debate, whatever) than not.

I think Aff's should advocate doing something - like a plan or advocacy text is nice but not necessary - but I am of the mind that affirmative's should depart from the status quo.

Framework is fine. Please impact out your links though and please don't leave me to wade through the offense both teams are winning in that world.

I will vote on theory. I think severance is prolly bad. I typically think conditionality is good for the negative. K's are not cheating (hope noone says that anymore). PICS are good but also maybe not all kinds of PICS so that could be a thing.

I think competition is good. Plan plus debate sucks. I default that comparing two things of which is better depends on an opportunity cost. I am open to teams forwarding an alternative model of competition.

Disads are dope. Link spin can often be more important than the link cards. But
you need a link. I feel like that's agreed upon but you know I'm gone say it anyway.

Just a Kansas girl who loves a good case debate. but seriously, offensive and defensive case args can go a long way with me and generally boosters other parts of the off case strategy.

When extending the K please apply the links to the aff. State links are basic but for some reason really poorly answered a lot of the time so I mean I get it. Links to the mechanism and advantages are spicier. I think that if you're reading a K with an alternative that it should be clear what that alternative does or does not do, solves or turns by the end of the block. I'm sympathetic to predictable 1ar cross applications in a world of a poorly explained alternatives. External offense is nice, please have some.

I acknowledge debate is a public event. I also acknowledge the concerns and material implications of some folks in some spaces as well. I will not be enforcing any recording standards or policing teams to debate "x" way. I want debaters at in all divisions, of all argument proclivities to debate to their best ability, forward their best strategy and answers and do what you do.

Card clipping and cheating is not okay so please don't do it.
NEW YEAR NEW POINT SYSTEM (college) - 28.6-28.9 good, 28.9-29.4 really good, 29.4+ bestest.

This trend of paraphrasing cards in PFD as if you read the whole card = not okay and educationally suspect imo.

Middle/High Schoolers: You smart. You loyal. I appreciate you. And I appreciate you being reasonable to one another in the debate.

I wanna be on the chain: jyleesahampton@gmail.com

LD Paradigm

While I was a PF debater all throughout high school, I only have ~1 year of experience judging LD. I am familiar with common, traditional jargon used in debate, but am not familiar with the more in-depth strategies, which means that I will default to who has the best arguments/framework with robust impact analysis and effective counterarguments.

Speed

It is the debater's burden to make sure that speech is clear and understandable. While I will not knock spreading/speaking quickly immediately, the faster you speak, the more clearly you must speak and signpost. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it into my flow. I vote off of my flow for all rounds -- whoever has the most consistent flow-through and coverage will likely have the advantage.

Speaker Points

The quality of arguments alone does not impact speaker points, but the better you explain your arguments, your speaks are likely to improve.

As stated earlier, I do not take points off for speed, but if you lack fluency or clarity, your points will be docked.

Hi, I'm Phillip. I’d like to be on the email chain. phlublub@gmail.com

Background
He/Him/His
I competed 4 years at A-Tech in Las Vegas

Speech (Also applies to all debate)

For exempt:
+ Its usually best to follow the usual format. Intro, body paragraphs, conclusion.
+ I expect at least one piece of evidence for each point, and it should be cited with an author, date, and source.
+ Make sure to clearly define each point, letting me know when you are transitioning ideas.

Please do your best to speak loudly, steadily, and fluently. I am sympathetic to fluency breaks caused by stress or general nervousness, so if you need a second to collect your thoughts I will understand. Besides that, I value organization and conciseness--I wanna feel like you've put thought into what you're saying, why you're saying it, and even how you say it.

Public Forum Paradigm

+ Unless I indicate otherwise, assume I'm always ready.

+ Truth > Tech. I weigh on a framework of benefits and harms

+ Clearly warrant, cite, and explain evidence--no shallow appeals to common sense please

+ SIGNPOST. If you could signpost where you are in your rebuttal (E.g., "Starting with my case", "Moving onto my opponent's case", etc.), that would be great

+ Please don't unnecessarily interrupt during cross-ex. I want to see even engagement across the board, but don't give shallow or overly long answers

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

+ Unless I indicate otherwise, assume I'm always ready.

+ I competed in LD for 3/4 years, and this is the event I have the most love for. I performed well in my traditional circuit, and that's the form of debate I'm most comfortable with, and I feel my ballots in traditional rounds are best

+ My paradigm for PF carries over to LD, ESPECIALLY truth > tech. Instead of benefits and harms, however, I expect you to take a step back and focus on the moral admissibility (or the lack thereof, if you're on neg) of the resolution under your framework. Unless if the affirmative puts forward a plantext I'm less inclined to go for policy or post-fiat negs

+ Value/Value criterion debate all the way. Standards are fine as long as the presumptive value is morality. If you and your opponent have similar criterions, you should just cut to the chase and explain why your case works better under that framework

+ I already said my PF paradigm carries over, but please, I BEG you: clearly cite, warrant, and explain evidence in your speeches, and do not rely on appeals to common sense in your arguments.

Congress Paradigm

+ Unless I indicate otherwise, assume I'm always ready.

+ Roleplaying GOOD. Refer to your opponents as Representatives/Senators. I'm not one of those judges, however, who ranks competitors if they "act like legislators" by helping set the docket or resolve procedural conflicts. Just don't speak out of order and don't attempt to step over the PO or Parli. Do not handcuff yourself to anything in the debate room, especially as a form of protest.

+ RHETORIC. I enjoy unique rhetoric and purposeful speaking, so please go beyond the forensic grain when delivering your speeches. If you REALLY want to rock my ballot, a strong hook or extended metaphor in your speech and altogether sturdy rhetoric will expedite your path to a higher rank. Hearing debate jargon in this event (e.g., "contention", "block", etc.) tends to break away from what seems best for congress, so best rely on standard words and phrases.

+ STRUCTURE. If you warrant your claims and support them with reliable evidence, and on top of that impact your arguments to a broader context, and do all of this without filler or awkward digressions that interrupt the focus of your speech, I will rank you. Plus I want to hear your speech provide at least two distinct contentions (I said no debate jargon but whatever im the judge) so that your arguments don't blend into one-another

+ CLASH ON REBUTTAL SPEECHES. After the second or third cycle of speeches I expect that you spend your time speaking off the cuff and refuting/crystalizing the speakers before you. If you're called up late to deliver a speech and decide to NOT adapt to the situation and instead read off a constructive speech, you will fall in ranks. Even if you're not the best extemporaneous speaker, it still shows that you're engaged with the debate and want to make an impression

+ INTERNALIZE YOUR IMPACTS. I listen to impacts above all else, and to that end I expect your arguments will always point directly to a basis in reality. If you can make the room understand what it's like to be part of the population this legislation impacts most, you're not just giving a good argument, you're giving a great speech

+ For the Presiding Officer (PO): I will always rank the PO unless if they do something contemptible that specifically urges that I do otherwise (e.g., flagrantly violating procedural rules, favoring some competitors over others, unwarranted or nasty remarks towards others, etc.). Besides that, if you go fast, make little to no mistakes, and treat your fellow competitors equally and impartially, I will guaranteed rank you in the top 3

General things for y'all

+ For prefs: The more trad you are, the higher you should pref me

+ I prefer the competitors keep track of time, but I will keep time if that is either teams preference

+ Regardless of events, I will feel more compelled to vote for you if you demonstrate effective extemporaneous speaking in your speeches. Just have fun!

+ It should go without saying that being rude is different than being competitive or being strong, and fun. we aren't here to hurt each other and create hostility, but instead to progress all our education and have fun.

+ I'm still learning how to be a judge, and competing is far different from judging, so please go easy on me and lets all get better together!

+ Ask questions before the round if there's something you want me to answer that I didn't cover here.

+ Tournaments can be rough, and sometimes its hard to get lunch, so I understand if you want to have a snack in the round. With that being said, don't have any snacks that are loud, like opening chip bags, granola bars, or a full course meal, which I've seen happen as a competitor.

tldr: dont be mean and im a trad judge.

alexiajacksonn@icloud.com

I am a first-year student at Duke University. I did policy in high school and attended camp, so I am familiar with traditional and progressive arguments.

Keep track of time and prep on your own, please.

I generally am a flow judge and will vote through the lens of the framework. I appreciate impact calculus and weighing of arguments. Without this, many things will end up a wash on the flow or up to me.

K affs are fine

Condo args are fine ( I don't vote on them often, though I usually just end up giving leniency )

Speed is fine

For Policy:

I am fine with new in the two.

I will vote on T if it is a true abuse.

I am good with Ks

LD:

* I judge on value criterion and contention arguments, with almost equal weight.

* I'd like LD without excessive speed/spreading.

* I'd appreciate if you can explain the complex terms used and definitions in layman terms so that I can follow the arguments better

* prefer if you can please time each other

I am a volunteer parent judge, so adjust accordingly. I prefer if you do not spread.

I'm a parent judge who has judged debate for around 2 years.

Few key disclaimers

-Go slow and speak clearly so I can understand your arguments and warrants.

-I don't want to be on the email chain, I prefer you go slow and help me understand your points.

-I prefer a more traditional style of debate, make sure to simplify and explain any complicated arguments to me.

-Keep your own time please.

-Off-time road maps are helpful/Key Voters in 2NR and 2AR please.

-If you speak too quickly I will have difficulty flowing. I will give u a "clear" warning and the second time I won't flow so please GO SLOW.

How to get my vote

-I'm a believer in the fact that Aff should defend the resolution, and the negative should disprove the Aff. Try to stick by this doctrine when giving your speeches.

-I'm not gonna vote on an argument unless you bring it up in your 2NR/2AR because these are arguments that you consider most important. To get me to vote on an argument it must be extended throughout and explained with good warrants.

-I also base my vote majorly on impacts, so doing some impact comparison and weighing on your opponent's arguments really helps me to decide the ballot.

-Finally, I need good warrants/line of reasoning on any points you make otherwise I wont vote on it.

-Please guide me to your ballot by giving me key voters on what you are winning and why.

hey! i'm nate. put me on the email chain. natenyg@gmail.com facebook.com/nate.nyg

he/him! will boost speaks +.1 for debaters who ask before round :)

i did ld at hunter and qualled to the toc my senior year. I'm currently a 2n at wake forest where my partner and i reached quarters of ceda.

please read some interesting k stuff i am so bored

Short Version:

Read whatever you want as long as it's not oppressive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXLu_x0SRm4

i know i've got a tricks rep in ld but keep in mind i'm literally a policy k debater now lmao i promise you anything and everything is good in front of me. keep in mind i'm a bored college student, if you read or go for a really cool strat, read some dope k lit, or just have a really interesting and in depth round your speaks will absolutely benefit.

If you're rushing through prefs, use this as a guide:

K - 1

Phil - 1

Theory/Tricks - 2 (probably could be a 1 i'm 100% down and happy to vote on this i'm just a fyo so u may not want me for a super dense trix round)

LARP - 3

Super dense or difficult to understand K - 2/3

Long Version:

I primarily read different stuff each year. Sophomore year I was all about soft-left affs and larp. Junior year I read a ton of tricks and phil stuff. Senior year I mostly read Deleuze and Psychoanalysis. At Wake so far it's cap and Afrofuturism.

Err on the side of over-explaining super dense k lit. I'll vote on it but if you read something like Baudrillard and assume I know everything you're talking about your speaks will suffer.

Other stuff:

- Don't read afropess if you aren't black. If your opponent reads afropess and isn't black, make that argument, and you'll win. To clarify, this is within the round. If you want to argue that your opponent read it previously and should be dropped, I'm 100% happy and willing to vote on that, but I'll evaluate it as I would any other argument.

- If you want to make an evidence ethics or clipping allegation, tell me to stop the round and I'll evaluate the allegation. W30 to whoever wins and L25 to whoever loses.

- Email me or message me on FB w/ any questions!

Things I'll boost speaks for:

- Clever analytic PICs

- Well executed one off skep against phil or larp

- Well executed one off kritik against k affs

- Understanding your positions and explaining them well (please don't read stuff you don't understand)

- Making fun of any of the following people in a funny and not-too-offensive manner: Scott Klein, Matt Liu, Elizabeth Lee, Zach Lu, Curtis Chang, Jalyn Wu, Amanda Huang, Chris Xu, Annie Wang, anyone on Hunter LD

- Setting up the email chain before I get there, or you walk in if you're flight two

julian kuffour (any)

julianjudging@gmail.com

PF: My paradigm for public forum is fairly simple. If you are using a framework make sure to weigh properly on it throughout the round. Weigh your arguments in the summary and final focus so I know who to vote for. Also be nice to each other please.

LD: Please do not spread in the round. I am a more traditional LD judge and was very traditional when I competed. If you run policy args you are going to have to do a very good job of convincing me because I will be coming in with a bias towards those types of arguments. Please use a value and value criterion and engage in the value debate.

Dougherty Valley '19

The Ohio State University '23

Add me to the email Chain: lee.8871@osu.edu

he/they

If you are comfortable, please email me a speech doc before each speech. It makes judging so much easier especially on zoom :)

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

FOR yale,

haven't judged in lowkey a minute, be kind. Haven't judged on the topic either so i'm not too familiar with the literature, cards, etc. If there is a problem, make it clear, if an argument doesn't make sense, tell me why.

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

I competed nationally in PF and Extemp in HS, did a bit of Congress and LD as well.

I am tabula Rasa, and I'll vote on anything.
I try really hard to be non-interventional, but with more and more debaters reading scripts instead of cards, etc. I've grown the habit of calling for cards to confirm statements made by debaters.

In general:

I like warranted arguments. In fact, I would buy a strong Warranted and logical argument over an argument backed my evidence any day. Although I'll vote on anything, this is just how I evaluate it. I really enjoy impact calculus and would like to see that starting to be set up in Summary and maybe even in rebuttal. Just be really clear and extend your links cleanly.

I believe that 2nd Rebuttal should frontline, at least that's what I always did. I think it is a better competitive choice for 2nd Speaking team. At least touch the major offensive points of the case.

I am open to any critical argument and theory; however, I HATE frivolous theory. While I Think debate is a game, I do believe that public forum was an event made to be accessible to all as LD and policy became more progressive. That being said, go for it but proceed at your own caution.

Go as fast as you want, I'll tell you if you're going too fast. but for zoom, go slower.

Speaks depends on my mood. I won't ever go lower than a 27 for national rounds unless you give me a reason to tho.

Wear what you want, I just care about what you say (although I will include feedback for future lay rounds)

MY PARADIGM is also very similar to Saad Jamals:)

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=70840

Don't be afraid to ask Questions before the round because I know this Paradigm is short, but don't overcomplicate it!

Lay judge -

- Impact calculus is important, leave time in the 2AR and 2NR for you to compare your impacts with your opponents

- Speak clearly, spreading is fine but isn't preferred. Mumbling words fast isn't debate nor spreading

- The less LD slang, the better.

- Speak with evidence, it is clear when something is made up

Put your cases in the file share, along with any speech documents you have.

I am a tabula rasa flow judge, as in I will not do the work for you. You need to make clear extensions, and if your opponent makes a silly argument, it stands unless you attack it. I am pretty well versed in theory so you can run just about anything and I have a pretty good handle on it. Spreading is okay just flash cases please and thank you. Also if you have Calvin and Hobbes in your case, I will add speaker points.

If you have any other concerns do not hesitate to ask me in the round!

tldr do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.

--

About me:

she/her

policy coach @ damien-st. lucy's: spring 2022 - present

I am not a full-time debate coach. I have a degree in CS & economics; my full-time job is in tech. I say this for a few reasons:

a) you should not assume that I have spent time teaching at a 7-week camp, cutting a team's entire set of files, etc and you are probably better off over-explaining topic-specific things to me.

b) I coach debate because I love debate, I believe in the value of the activity, and I want to give back. This means positions like "debate bad" are likely to be unpersuasive to me! This also means I have almost zero tolerance for being unkind, sketchy, or otherwise trying to make the community worse. I spend my (increasingly scarce) free time judging your debates, and I am disinclined to enjoy spending time around people who try to make the activity worse.

c) talk to me if you are interested in hearing about how/why I think debate is one of the best things you can do even if you want a non-debate career in the future:)

--

Recently rewritten paradigm, probably best to give it a quick skim!

My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments.

I am good for policy teams that do topic research and aim to not go for process cp backfiles every 2nr. I am also good for k teams that do topic research and answer the aff and go for 2nr arguments that are substantive (not "role of the ballot"). I am bad for ld teams that go for ld-specific things ("tricks"), but am good for ld teams that are well-researched and read policy or k arguments.

More LD-specific notes/thoughts at bottom of paradigm.

--

Topic Knowledge:

I don't teach at a policy camp in the summer. I am involved in the Damien-St. Lucy's team research, and have vaguely kept up with the camp evidence updates. Most of my early-season topic knowledge is a result of hearing Chris yap at me about how he has a law degree in this field. So, consider my topic knowledge to be a less-smart version of Chris. Will update this section of the paradigm if/when that changes. Independent of this, I am generally a bad judge for arguments that rely on understanding of or alignment with community-developed norms -- I don't form my topicality opinions in July and then become immovable on them for the remainder of the season.

--

email chains:

ld email chains: nethmindebate@gmail.com

policy email chains: damiendebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

if you need to contact me directly about rfd questions, accessibility requests, or anything else, please email nethmindebate@gmail.com (please don't email the teamail for these types of requests)!

please include an adult (your coach, chaperone, or even parent) on the email chain if you are emailing me directly -- just a good safety norm to not have direct communications between minors & adults that don't know them!

--

flowing: it is good and teams should do it

stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow:)

--

Some general notes

Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve procedurals about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate. I feel increasingly uncomfortable evaluating debates that come down to accessibility/cw procedurals, especially when the issue could have easily been resolved pre-round.

Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. I can handle a decent amount of speed. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.

Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate's still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.

I am aggressively pro-disclosure. Disclosure is one of the elements of debate that is most important for small-school and novice accessibility. If you do not disclose, I will assume that you prefer the exclusionary system where only big schools have access, and I will punish your speaker points accordingly. I am so aggressive about enforcing disclosure with all teams (big and small school) because I believe in the mission of the open evidence project and other similar open source disclosure practices. tldr disclose or lose!

--

Speaker points:

Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.

I try to give points as follows:

30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive

29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots

29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined

28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix

28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round

27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors

27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors

26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament

25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.

Extra speaks for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.

Minus speaks for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.

--

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

--

Case:

I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.

Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the impact is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.

--

Planless affs:

I tend to believe that affirmatives need to defend the topic. I think most planless affs can/should be reconfigured as soft left affs. I have voted for affs that don't defend the topic, but it requires superior technical debating from the aff team.

You need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.

I tend to dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have a meaningful relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.

--

T/framework vs planless affs:

In a 100% evenly debated round, I am likely better for the neg than the aff. However, approximately none of these debates are evenly debated. Either team/side can win my ballot by doing the better technical debating. This past season, I often voted for a K team that I thought was smart and technical. Specific thoughts on framework below:

The best way for aff teams to win my ballot is to be more technical than the neg team. Seems obvious, but what I'm trying to convey here is that I'm less persuaded by personal/emotional pleas for the ballot and more persuaded by a rigorous and technical defense of why your model of debate is good in this instance or in general. I have historically voted against aff teams that made arguments along the lines of "vote for me or I'll quit debate."

I think that TVAs can be more helpful than teams realize. While having a TVA isn't always necessary, winning a TVA provides substantial defense on many of the aff's exclusion arguments.

I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness (or something else). I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponents' strategy.

I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.

--

Theory:

The less frivolous your theory argument, the better I am for it.

Please weigh! It's not nearly as intuitive to make a decision in theory debates - I can fill in the gaps for why extinction is more impactful than localized war more easily than I can fill in the gaps for why neg flex matters more/less than research burdens.

--

Topicality (not framework):

I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are your friend.

Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.

--

Kritiks (neg):

I tend to like K teams that engage with the aff and have a clear analysis of what's wrong with the aff's model/framing/epistemology/etc. I tend to be a bit annoyed when judging K teams that read word-salad or author-salad Ks, refuse to engage with arguments, expect me to fill in massive gaps for them, don't do adequate weighing/ballot analysis/judge instruction, or are actively hostile toward their opponents. The more of the aforementioned things you do, the more annoyed I'll be. The inverse is also true - the more you actively work to ensure that you don't do these things, the happier I'll be!

--

Disads:

Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.

Counterplans:

I don't have strong ideological biases about theory other than that some amount of condo is probably good. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.

No judge kick. Make a choice!

--

LD-specific section:

-you might think of cx judges in ld as people who despise judging ld and despise you for doing ld. i try to not let this be true about me. all of my issues with ld can be grouped into two general categories: 1) speech times/structure (not your fault, won't penalize you for it), and 2) the tendency to read unwarranted nonsense, such as "tricks," shoes theory, etc (you can avoid reading these args very easily and make me very happy)

-i am a horrid judge for tricks and frivolous theory. please just go for another argument!

-i am okay for phil. i don't have any personal opposition to philosophy-based arguments, i just don't coach/judge these arguments often, so i will need more explanation/hand-holding. many phil debates recently have involved tricks, which has soured me on this argumentative style, but i would be happy to judge a straight-up phil debate:)

-you don't get 1ar add-ons -- there is no 2ac in ld

-i teach at ld camp every summer, so assume i have some idea of community norms, but don't assume i am following trends super closely

--

Arguments that are simply too bad to be evaluated:

-a team should get the ballot simply for proving that they are not unfair or uneducational

-the ballot should be a referendum on a debater's character, personal life, pref sheet, etc

-the affirmative's theory argument comes before the negative's topicality argument

-some random piece of offense becomes an "independent voter" simply because it is labeled as such

-debates would be better if they were unfair, uneducational, lacked a stasis point, lacked clash, etc

-a debater's moral character is determined by whether they read policy or k arguments

-evidence ethics should be a case neg, as opposed to an opportunity for reasonable preround discussion and an opportunity to correct mistakes

-"tricks"

-debaters get to make arguments about how many speaker points they should get

-teams should not be required to disclose on opencaselist

-the debate should be evaluated after any speech that is not the 2ar

-the "role of the ballot" means topicality doesn't matter

-debaters get to claim the alternative is a floating pik after pretending not to know what a floating pik is during cx

--

Arguments that I am personally skeptical of, but will try to evaluate fairly:

-it would be better for debate if affirmatives did not have a meaningful relationship to the topic

-debate would be better if the negative team was not allowed to read any conditional advocacies

-reading topicality causes violence or discrimination within debate

-"role of the ballot"

-the outcome of a particular debate will change someone's mind or will change the state of debate

-the 5-second aspec argument that was hidden in the 1nc can become a winning 2nr

-the affirmative may not read a plan because of "bare plurals"

--

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! if there's anything i can do to make debate more accessible for you, let me know! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.

Speak slowly! Articulate your verbiage with great diction. Please present as few contentions as possible to allow both the affirmative and negative teams to have a quality debate. Always have excellent eye contact with the judge. Take pauses occasionally to allow everyone a break from the intensity of the argumentation. Use wit from time to time to lighten the moment. Never, never be sarcastic against your opponent! Be as passionate as possible no matter what side of the debate you are on.

My Speech and Debate experience includes competing in Individual Events and CEDA debate as an undergraduate student at the Universiry of Oregon (1988-1992) coaching Debate at Willamette University while I was in Law School (1002-1995), and judging High School and College Speech & Debate as a parent of debaters at McMinnville High and University of Oregon.

I have been a trial lawyer for 30 years. I like clash, quality evidence from qualified sources, comparative analysis, and crystallization in last rebuttals. Don’t take anything for granted. You have to explain your arguments, why your evidence is compelling, and how the arguments weigh in the round. It’s your job to persuade me and communicate your positions in a way that is effective - that is how you will win my ballot. I don’t like whining, personal attacks, dominance, aggression, and disrespect. I do appreciate professionalism, kindness, and integrity.

Be smart and speak well.

Elise Matton, Director of Speech & Debate at Albuquerque Academy (2022–present)
EMAIL CHAIN: enmatton@gmail.com

· B.A. History, Tulane University (Ancient & Early Modern Europe)
· M.A. History, University of New Mexico (U.S. & Latin America)

Competitive Experience:
· CX debate in NM local circuit, 2010 State Champion (2005-2010)
· IPDA/NPDA debate in college, 2012 LSU Mardi Gras Classic Champion (2011-2014)

Coaching Experience:
· Team Assistant, Isidore Newman (primarily judging/trip chaperoning — 2012-2016)
· Assistant Coach, Albuquerque Academy (LD & CX emphasis — 2017–2022)

Judging Experience:
· I judge a mix of local circuit and national circuit tournaments (traditional & progressive) primarily in CX and LD, but occasionally PF or other Speech events.

Note Pre-Jack Howe:

· Jack Howe is my 1st national circuit tournament in policy this season — I haven't seen or judged many rounds at all yet this year and definitely not too many fast/technical/progressive rounds on the topic. Do not assume I know Aff topic areas, core neg ground, abstract topic-specific acronyms, etc. Adjust accordingly!

General Notes (this is catered for policy and national circuit LD. PF notes are at the bottom).

· Speed is fine generally so long as it's not used to excessively prohibit interaction with your arguments. I do think there is a way to spread and still demonstrate strong speaking ability (varying volume, pacing, tone etc) and will probably reward you for it if you're doing both well. Go slower/clearer/or otherwise give vocal emphasis on taglines and key issues such as plan text or aff advocacy, CP texts, alts, ROB/ROJ, counter-interps, etc. Don't start at your max speed but build up to it instead. If you are one of the particularly fast teams in the circuit, I recommend you slow down SLIGHTLY in front of me. I haven't been judging many fast rounds lately, so I'm slightly rusty. I'm happy to call out "clear" and/or "slow" to help you find that my upper brightline so you can adjust accordingly as needed.

· Put me on the email chain (enmatton@gmail.com) but know I don't like rounds that REQUIRE me to read the doc while you're speaking (or ideally at all). I tend to have the speech doc up, but I am annoyed by rounds where debaters ASSUME that everyone is reading along with them. I flow off what I hear, not what I read, and I believe that your delivery and performance are important aspects of this activity and you have the burden of clearly articulating your points well enough that I theoretically shouldn't need to look at the docs at all for anything other than ev checking when it's requested. If someone who wasn't looking at your speech doc would not be able to tell the difference between the end of one card/warrant and the beginning of a new tagline, you need better vocal variety and clarity (louder, intonation change, inserting "and" or "next" between cards etc, etc.

· The most impressive debaters to me are ones who can handle intense high-level technical debates, but who can make it accessible to a wide variety of audiences. This means that I look for good use of tech and strategy, but ALSO for the ability to "boil it down" in clearly worded extensions, underviews, overviews, and explanations of your paths to the ballot. I strongly value debaters who can summarize the main thesis of each piece of offense in their own words. It shows you have a strong command of the material and that you are highly involved in your own debate prep.

· I believe that Tech>truth GENERALLY, BUT- Just because an argument is dropped doesn't necessarily mean I'll give you 100% weight on it if the warrants aren't there or it is absurdly blippy. I also have and will vote for teams that may be less technically proficient but still make valid warranted claims even if they aren't done formatted in a "Technical" manner. Ex: if you run some a theory argument against a less technical team who doesn't know how to line-by-line respond to it, but they make general arguments about why this strategy is harmful to debaters and the debate community and argue that you should lose for it, I would treat that like an RVI even if they don't call it an RVI. Etc.

· Use my occasional facial expression as cues. You’ll probably notice me either nodding occasionally or looking quizzically from time to time- if something sounds confusing or I’m not following you’ll be able to tell and can and should probably spend a few more seconds re-explaining that argument in another way (don't dwell on this if it happens — if it's an important enough point that you think you need to win, use the cue to help you and try explaining it again!) Note the nodding doesn't mean I necessarily agree with a point, just following it and think you're explaining it well. If you find this distracting please say so pre-round and I’ll make an effort not to do so.

· Use Content warnings if discussing anything that could make the space less safe for anyone within it and be willing to adapt for opponents or judges in the room.

Role as a Judge

Debate is incredible because it is student-driven, but I don't think that means I abandon my role as an educator or an adult in the space when I am in the back of the room making my decision. I believe that good debaters should be able to adapt to multiple audiences. Does this mean completely altering EVERYTHING you do to adapt to a certain judge (traditional judge, K judge, anti-spreading judge, lay judge, etc etc)? No, but it does mean thinking concretely about how you can filter your strategy/argument/approach through a specific lens for that person.

HOW I MAKE MY RFD: At the end of the last negative speech I usually mark the key areas I could see myself voting and then weigh that against what happens in the 2AR to make my decision. My favorite 2NR/2AR’s are ones that directly lay out and tell me the possible places in the round I could vote for them and how/why. 2NR/2AR’s that are essentially a list of possible RFDs/paths to the ballot for me are my favorite because not only do they make my work easier, but it clearly shows me how well you understood and interpreted the round.

Topicality/Theory

Part of me really loves the meta aspect of T and theory, and part of me loathes the semantics and lack of substance it can produce. I see T and Theory as a needing to exist to help set some limits and boundaries, but I also have a fairly high threshold. Teams can and do continue to convince me of appropriate broadenings of those boundaries. Reasonability tends to ring true to me for the Aff on T, but don’t be afraid to force them to prove or meet that interpretation, especially if it is a stretch, and I can be easily persuaded into competing interps. For theory, I don’t have a problem with conditional arguments but do when a neg strat is almost entirely dependent on running an absurd amount of offcase arguments as a time skew that prevents any substantive discussion of arguments. This kind of strat also assumes I’ll vote on something simply because it was “flowed through”, when really I still have to examine the weight of that argument, which in many cases is insubstantial. At the end of the day, don’t be afraid to use theory- it’s there as a strategy if you think it makes sense for the round context, but if you’re going to run it, please spend time in the standards and voters debate so I can weigh it effectively.

Disadvantages

I love a really good disad, especially with extensive impact comparisons. Specific disads with contextualized links to the aff are some of my all-time favorite arguments, simple as they may seem in construct. The cost/benefit aspect of the case/DA debate is particularly appealing to me. I don’t think generic disads are necessarily bad but good links and/or analytics are key. Be sure your impact scenario is fully developed with terminal impacts. Multiple impact scenarios are good when you can. I'm not anti nuke war scenarios (especially when there is a really specific and good internal link chain and it is contextually related to the topic) but there are tons more systemic level impacts too many debaters neglect.

Counterplans

I used to hate PICs but have seen a few really smart ones in the past few years that are making me challenge that notion. That being said I am not a fan of process CPs, but go for it if it’s key to your strat.

Kritiks

Love them, with some caveats. Overviews/underviews, or really clearly worded taglines are key here. I want to see *your* engagement with the literature. HIGH theory K's with absurdly complicated taglines that use methods of obfuscation are not really my jam. The literature might be complex, and that's fine, but your explanations and taglines to USE those arguments should be vastly more clear and communicable if you want to run it in round! I have a high threshold for teams being able to explain their positions well rather than just card-dump. I ran some kritiks in high school (mostly very traditional cap/biopower) but had a pretty low understanding of the best way to use them and how they engaged with other layers of offense in the round. They weren’t as common in my circuit so I didn’t have a ton of exposure to them. However, they’ve really grown on me and I’ve learned a lot while judging them- they’re probably some of my favorite kind of debate to watch these days. (hint: I truly believe in education as a voter, in part because of my own biases of how much this activity has taught me both in and out of round, but this can work in aff’s favor when terrible K debates happen that take away from topic education as well). Being willing to adapt your K to those unfamiliar with it, whether opponents or judge, not only helps you in terms of potential to win the ballot, but, depending on the kind of kritik you're running or pre-fiat claims, also vastly increases likelihood for real world solvency (that is if your K is one that posits real world solvency- I'm down for more discussion-based rounds as theoretical educational exercises as well). I say this because the direction in which I decided to take my graduate school coursework was directly because of good K debaters who have been willing to go the extra step in truly explaining these positions, regardless of the fact I wasn’t perceived as a “K judge”. I think that concept is bogus and demonstrates some of the elitism still sadly present in our activity. If you love the K, run it- however you will need to remember that I myself wasn’t a K debater and am probably not as well versed in the topic/background/author. As neg you will need to spend specific time really explaining to me the alt/role of the ballot/answers to any commodification type arguments. Despite my openness to critical argumentation, I’m also open to lots of general aff answers here as well including framework arguments focused on policymaking good, state inevitable, perms, etc. Like all arguments, it ultimately boils down to how you warrant and substantiate your claims.

MISCELLANEOUS
Flash time/emailing the doc out isn’t prep time (don’t take advantage of this though). Debaters should keep track of their own time, but I also tend to time as well in case of the rare timer failure. If we are evidence sharing, know that I still think you have the burden as debaters to clearly explain your arguments, (aka don’t assume that I'll constantly use the doc or default to it- what counts is still ultimately what comes out of you mouth).

I will yell “clear” if the spread is too incoherent for me to flow, or if I need you to slow down slightly but not if otherwise. If I have to say it more than twice you should probably slow down significantly. My preference while spreading is to go significantly slower/louder/clearer on the tagline and author. Don’t spread out teams that are clearly much slower than you- you don’t have to feel like you have to completely alter your presentation and style, but you should adapt somewhat to make the round educational for everyone. I think spreading is a debate skill you should employ at your discretion, bearing in mind what that means for your opponents and the judge in that round. Be smart about it, but also be inclusive for whoever else is in that round with you.

**PUBLIC FORUM**

I don't judge PF nearly as frequently as I do CX/LD, so I'm not as up to date on norms and trends.

Mostly when judging PF I default to util/cost-benefit analysis framing and then I evaluate clash and impacts, though the burden is on you to effectively weigh that clash and the impacts.

Final Focus should really focus on the ballot story and impact calc. Explain all the possible paths to the ballot and how you access them.

Compared to LD and CX, I find that clash gets developed much later in the round because the 2nd constructive doesn't (typically?) involve any refutations (which I find bizarre from a speech structure standpoint). For this reason, I appreciate utilizing frontlining as much as possible and extending defense into summary.

Impressive speaking style = extra brownie points for PFers given the nature of the event. Ultimately I'm still going to make a decision based on the flow, but this matters more to me when evaluating PF debaters. Utilize vocal intonation, eye contact, gestures, and variance in vocal pacing.

Grand Crossfire can be fun when done right but horribly chaotic when done wrong. Make an effort to not have both partners trying to answer/ask questions simultaneously or I'll have a really hard time making out what's going on. Tag-team it. If Grand Crossfire ends early, I will not convert the time remaining into additional prep. It simply moves us into Final Focus early.

I have a much lower threshold for spreading in PF than I do for CX/LD. I can certainly follow it given my focus on LD and CX, but my philosophy is that PF is stylistically meant to be more accessible and open. I don't mind a rapid delivery, but I will be much less tolerant of teams that spread out opponents, especially given email chains/evidence sharing before the round is not as much of a norm (as far as I've seen).

I am often confused by progressive PF as the structure of the event seems to limit certain things that are otherwise facilitated by CX/LD. Trying to make some of the same nuanced Theory and K debates are incredibly difficult in a debate event structured by 2-3 mins speeches. Please don't ask me to weigh in on or use my ballot to help set a precedent about things like theory, disclosure, or other CX/LD arguments that seem to be spilling into PF. I am not an involved enough member of the PF community to feel comfortable using my ballot to such ends. If any of these things appear in round, I'm happy to evaluate them, but I guess be cautious in this area.

Please feel free to ask any further questions or clarifications before/after the round!- my email is enmatton@gmail.com if you have any specific questions or need to run something by me. Competitors: if communicating with me by email, please CC your coach or adult chaperone. Thank you!

I enjoy all forms of debate and argumentation. I’ll vote on anything that is persuasive.

This is a new tabroom account so please excuse the lack of judging history.

I have participated in PF, LD and Policy within the 8 years of me being in the debate community.

Please email me if you have any questions as I continue to update my paradigm thank you.

H.montague1998@gmail.com

OR - If you have any immediate question for PREFS you can always find me on facebook Heaven Montague

UNDER CONSTRICTION:

Tech or Truth?

I am a technical judge BUT I WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY ARGUMENTS THAT MAKE STATEMENTS SUCH AS RACISM GOOD AND ETC.

My email is alex.mork@harker.org. Please add me to the chain

General:

1. An argument is a claim, warrant, and impact. I will not vote on anything that does not meet this threshold and I will vote on basically anything that does. The fact you say the word "because" after your claim does not mean what follows is a warrant.

2. I won’t vote on any argument that I cannot explain back to your opponent after the round. I need to be able to explain it back based off your explanation, not my prior knowledge of the argument.

3. Assuming they meet the threshold set in #1 and #2, I’m willing to vote on “bad” arguments. However, the less intuitive/worse that I consider an argument to be, the lower the threshold I have for the response.

4. If something is conceded, I grant it the full weight of truth. If I did not realize that an argument was being made, then I will not consider it to be conceded.

5. I will attempt to err on the side of least intervention. I think it’s the job of whoever presents an argument to prove the argument is true. So, for example, if the NEG team says “X card is a link to our K because it’s gendered” and then the AFF team says “no link, X card is actually criticizing gender norms, not perpetuating them,” I would consider both these explanations to be lackluster and have no way of resolving the question, but instead of reading the card and coming to my own conclusion, I would err AFF and assume there’s no link because it is the job of the NEG to prove a link to the K, not the job of the AFF to disprove it.

6. **********Debaters have an obligation to flow. You should send a marked version of the doc indicating where cards were cut immediately after the speech, but you should not delete the cards that weren't read. If your opponent wants to know what was/wasn't read, they must take prep or CX time. I will deduct speaks for debaters who don't adhere to this.

7. **********Slow down on analytics. This is especially true now that I don't judge very often! I rarely miss entire arguments but I have recently judged several debates in which I didn't flow a 1ar warrant for an argument that the 2ar collapsed to. I am sympathetic to the difficulty of the 1ar as a speech, but I think the way to navigate this challenge is by making less arguments that are more robustly explained, not vice versa

8. Theory defaults: drop the team for T (or other arguments about the plan), condo, disclosure; drop the argument for everything else; no RVIs; competing interps. These are admittedly very arbitrary and I only created them so that I would have a consistent way of evaluating rounds in which neither side establishes paradigm issues - these defaults can and will change as soon as one team makes an argument to justify their paradigm issues. In fact, I would almost always suggest making a reasonability argument (especially against 1ar theory if you have specific warrants!)

9. I think good evidence is important in so far as it allows debaters to make arguments about author qualifications, recency, the methodology of their studies, quality of warrants, etc... but the onus is on you to make these arguments. I don't decide rounds based on my own readings of evidence unless there is a specific dispute about what a card says.

10. I don’t flow author names

Ethics:

I will end rounds in which I witness clipping because to the best of my current knowledge not clipping cards is an NDCA “rule,” and doc speaks when I see miscut evidence because to the best of my current knowledge, properly cut evidence is a “norm” (although reading theory about miscut evidence or ending the round for an evidence ethics challenge are still fair-game).

This is my third year out from college debate. I competed in a variety of formats, including policy, and on the NPDA/NPTE national circuit for three years.

The further out I get, the fewer hard opinions I have. I no longer feel strongly about conditional counterplans, whether the aff is topical, etc., etc. If there are specific things you want to know about, I always try to give debaters some time to ask questions before the round, but my answer is probably going to be "you do you."

The one thing that I still emphasize is framework and impact calculus, which I feel are two sides of the same coin. It is to your advantage and mine to contextualize your arguments through the framework. We almost certainly have different opinions and backgrounds, and you can increase predictability by telling me what to think via the framework debate. It also means I have to think less, which is good.

amanda072086@gmail.com
Speak clearly. Any speed is fine as long as you slow down and read your tag lines and main points very clearly. Spreading is fine. Give clear indication of when you have reached the burden you set out.

LD: I am a true values debate judge in LD. Tabula rasa judge. Flexible to any kinds of cases and arguments as long as they are respectful. If your case is not topical or abusive and your opponent argues and proves that in their speeches then I am willing to vote based on topicality, education and abuse.

PF and CX: Be respectful and cordial to your opponent. I’m open to most anything in Policy rounds. Always stay on the debate topic, don’t wander off onto an irrelevant subject because it’s more enjoyable to argue about than the topic is. Always allow your opponent the opportunity to complete their sentence before continuing to cross.
I’m a Tabula rasa Judge especially in Policy debate. If you don’t tell me how you want me to weigh the round and set a minimum burden for each side to have to meet within the round to win then I will default to judging based on the block and will turn into a games playing judge and will make voting decisions based on what my flow shows and dropped arguments or arguments that were lost or conceded will very much factor into my vote. Impacts, Warrants and links need to be made very clear, and always show me the magnitude.

Add me to the chain - Aidin123@berkeley.edu

ASU LD: Do what you do best. Though within progressive-based arguments, I have a better understanding of some arguments over others; below is a quick look for prefs:

1 - Policy/Traditional

2 - Theory, Common K's (Cap, Set-col, etc..)

3 - Phil, Whacky K's (Need more explanation for me to evaluate fairly)

5/Strike - Non-T K Aff's, Tricks, Friv Theory (I do not have the background that I think I need to have to evaluate all arguments fairly and to the quality that you deserve, and friv theory is just an incredibly annoying nuisance)

- Scroll to the bottom for some additional specifics about things

- I haven't judged fast debate in like a year so please please start slow and build into it I need to adjust back.

LD at the bottom:

Just call me Aidin

UC Berkeley Chemistry 23' GO BEARS! BOO PINE TREES!

LD Coach Park City (2020 - Present)

TLDR;

I'm a very expressive person if my face says I hate it. It means I hate it. If I nod or smile, I like what you're saying. Follow the faces

I hate extinction level impacts! I think they create lazy debating where there is a convoluted link chain that will never remotely happen, BUT UTIL!!! So you can run extinction, but to your opponents say MAD.

Impact turns anything that isn't morally repugnant -- corruption, terrorism, oil prices -- because there are two sides to every story

I will say clear three times before I stop flowing altogether. Whatever is not on the flow is not going to be evaluated. PLEASE SIGNPOST!

Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh a little more, and then after weighing, weigh again for good measure

Write the ballot for me in the last speech; the easier it is for me to vote for, the more likely you are to win

Utah Circuit: I debated a lot on the local circuit and now judge a lot. Have impacts and weigh.

- One rule: An extension is not an extension without an explanation and warranting behind it. I will not flow "Extend Contention 3," and that's it.

PF:

Follow my dearest friend Gavin Serr's paradigms for a more comprehensive look at how I would judge PF.

BIGGEST THINGS

- Don't steal prep - It's not hard to start and stop a timer.

- I default Neg. If there is no offense from either side, I'll stick with the status quo

- It's not an argument without a warrant

- A dropped argument is true, but that doesn't mean it matters. I need reasons why the extension matters. I'm not voting on something that I don't know the implications of it.

- Reading a card is part of the prep, without a doubt.

- If you want me to read a card indite, it's not my job as a judge to win you the round.

- If you will talk about marginalized people, framing and overviews are your friends.

- Please have link extensions in both the summary and FF

- Weighing requires a comparison and why the way you compare is better. Which is better, magnitude or timeframe? IDK, you tell me.

LD:

LARP

Solvency

DAs need to have solid internal links

Offense on the DA needs to be responded to even if kicked

Perms need to be contextualized

K's

A flushed-out link story is fabulous; do this every time you run a K.

line by line analysis is of the utmost importance

explanation and quality is better than quantity; I do not vote on things I do not understand, so take the safe route and spend a little more time explaining 5 arguments than dumping 15 that are all blippy

Use a framework and weighing case as your friend.

AFF - please extend and weigh case

Theory

I love the theory. Few caveats, however.

1) I hate frivolous theory. If you run condo bad on 1 or 2 off, I will likely drop your speaks because you're annoying. That being said, please respond to it, but the more frivolous it is, the lower my threshold for responses to it.

2) Disclosure is a MUST. Don't run disclosure theory if your opponent doesn't know what the wiki is. You don't need to disclose new aff's. 30 is enough time to prep.

3) Please WEIGH as much as possible I don't know the difference between an opponent winning time screw and another winning on the ground.

4) Competing interps - The less I intervene, the better for y'all, especially on the highest layer of debate where the round is won or lost. So I try to limit "gut checks" and reasonability unless otherwise told to in the round.

5) No RVI's default but can be changed with hearty effort

6) Please slow down on theory; it's hard to flow everything at top speed, especially if it's not carded and has 5 sub-points.

How I write my RFD's: “Sometimes I’ll start a sentence and I don’t even know where it’s going. I just hope I find it along the way.” - Michael Scott

How I give my RFDs: “I talk a lot, so I’ve learned to tune myself out.” - Kelly Kapoor

How I feel judging: “If I don’t have some cake soon, I might die.” - Stanley Hudson

What I want to do instead of judging: “I just want to lie on the beach and eat hot dogs. That’s all I’ve ever wanted.” - Kevin Malone

What happens when no one weighs: “And I knew exactly what to do. But in a much more real sense, I had no idea what to do.” - Michael Scott

Have questions about chemistry or Berkeley? Ask away

Debate is something to be proud of, win or lose, and have a smile on your face.

Ananth Panchanadam

2020 Update: Ananth Panchanadam

Education: B.A. Political Science, New York University (December 2018). Ms in Finance, Georgetown University, McDonough School of Business (May 2021), Unionville High School(2015)

Professional Experience: Internships in Investment Banking and Corporate Finance

Coaching/Teaching Experience: Stuyvesant, Ransom Everglades (Students qualified to TOC from both schools)

Competitive Background: Policy Debate

Paradigm: Wanted to keep this simple and quick. Feel free to ask more in-depth questions

I like students who have plans and by plans I mean students who have a clear vision as to what they are trying to accomplish in each speech. I want to reward debaters who have an idea of how to win the debate and can explain and execute that it. I prefer that over debaters who just extend their scenario and do line by line without any broader strategy.

I don’t have any style of argumentation preferences and have had coaching success with Policy, K and performative strategies. Speed is fine, please be clear and don’t blaze through theory shells and pre-written analytics.

I also think that the goal for most students is to win a debate and that students look to exploit points of arbitrage to secure victory.

T: I believe that Affs have a prima facie burden to be topical. What it means to be T is up for debate. You can also reject the topic but be ready to defend it. I don’t have a strong preference for reasonability or competing interps. It seems inevitable that both are used in my decision. Def go for it if you have a good explanation. I treat standards as linear disads and actual abuse is more persuasive than potential abuse.

Ks:

Role of Ballot is the first thing I evaluate on a k flow but I do need to believe that there is a reason for the ballot to have a role and that the specific role of the ballot is good.

Role of Judge =/= Role of Ballot. Role of Judge, ideally, helps me prioritize an issue or method that influences the way I interpret the arguments made in a round.

I view links as independent disads to the aff. Good teams will explain them as reasons to vote for the alt and/or the squo.

DAs/CPs:

Use case arguments to strengthen your DA arguments. Strong link work will serve you well. Specific counterplans and texts are good.

Personal Opinions/Conventions:

1) I disclose and call for cards unless told otherwise

2) Tech vs Truth is stupid: Drops =/= wins and strong truth claims don’t always beat technical drops. Use situational awareness to determine how to approach technical aspects of debate

3. 3) Author Quals matter. Peer reviewed research, respected news sources, industry opinions (especially for Finance and Econ). Authors from relevant fields.

4) Science, Statistics and Data analysis are good.

5) I don’t have a revolution or reform good bias for K debates

6) I generally don’t find g-lang type arguments persuasive and I will not vote for them against ESL students.

7) I don't like arguments made in bad faith and you'll know it when you see it. I don't like sketchy disclosure practices (Either do a reasonable disclosure or don't disclose at all and be prepared to defend the consequences of your decision).

8) I don't take prep for flashing/Emailing. Not everyone has a $3k macbook.

Feel free to ask me any questions you have and good luck!

Siddharth Panchanadam

Unionville’19 UPenn’23

Contraints: Unionville High School

Experience: Debated 4-years of Policy, LD

Email Chain: 24siddhipan@gmail.com

Policy: Refer to LD paradigm I haven’t had time to write it up before semis. Feel free to ask any questions

I think debate is an extremely valuable activity, and I will always try to encourage debaters. I will be extremely respectful, and if you think I’m not paying attention, let me know! You deserve a fair judge.

Please tell me where you are in a speech, so I can make sure that I’m considering your arguments the way you want them to be considered. While I prefer that you have a road map, I will be fine as long as you clearly sign post.

Note: I will NOT vote for any clearly abhorrent (racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic etc.) arguments. I prefer that debaters avoid any problematic language, and will doc speaker points accordingly, but I’m also sympathetic to those genuinely trying to improve (novices, ESL, etc.) Just don’t be unnecessarily abusive, so I don’t have to worry about this.

LD Paradigm:

I am a CX debater, and tend to evaluate arguments from that mindset. Just because you run Ks, CPs and other policy style arguments doesn't mean I will automatically vote for you. I expect a level of rigor and understanding to all arguments that I judge.

I am comfortable with both traditional value/value criterion framework as well as policy style argumentation. I don’t have a preference for which style of arguments, but I want you to tell me how and why I should evaluate the debate in a certain way. That means if you run a kritikal argument, you need to explain why I should evaluate your argument under the lens of that philosophy. If your running theory or topicality, you need to justify the impact of the violation beyond just “something is unfair”. You should tell me a story of why concepts of fairness matter.

I want you to write my ballots for me. I will always favor more nuanced and detailed argumentation, and the last thing I want to see is two people yelling unconnected things at each other.

Quick Notes:

Theory: As mentioned above, I need better reasoning for voting against a team then “there argument is unfair” Explain how this operates and weigh the impact of your story with their’s. I’m not a person that like theory heavy debates, but if you prove that the other team violates, show why I should prefer your theory of debate, and explain the story of why that abuse matters, I will vote for you.

Topicality: Like in policy debate, its the Aff’s burden to be topical, and I generally won’t drop the neg team on topicality. However, like in theory, you need to explain the reasons why I should care. Furthermore, if the Aff’s sufficiently proves that they are topical or explains why the abuse of them being forced to be topical outweighs, then I will not vote neg for topicality. My approach to this is similar to theory, and I will always look for an evaluation between the two competing abuse stories.

Kritiks: I’m completely supportive of running Kritik’s, as I’ve run Ks in both LD and policy in the past. However, I need a clear articulation of the alternative and the link chain/story of the argument. I want to see more attention to the link debates, and while its easy to read generic cards, I will more likely vote for the team that has a strong explanation of this part of the debate. Furthermore, I want a clear articulation of the impact calculus, and why I should weigh certain impacts over others. While I really enjoy K debates, I will vote you down if you don’t have a legitimate answer against theory/framework arguments.

Other Policy Style Arguments: I like these. Like I mentioned in the K section, I want you to spend time on the story of these arguments. I want you to explain exactly what happens in the world of the Aff’s/Neg and how I should vote as a result. I always want your arguments to clearly link, so make sure you put in the work to make it count.

ROB/Judge: Hopefully, you’ve heard this from your coaches and mentors (since I have a lot), but your job is to write my ballot. Don’t just tell me how I should think; tell me why I should evaluate the debate in your lens and what the net benefits to that approach is. Make sure you properly explain the link and impact analysis. At a fundamental level, I view every argument as part of an overall story of the round, and your job is to frame that story for me.

I love everything from the Value/Value Criterion Debates to the K vs K debates, so show me your best arguments, and give me a reason to vote for you.

I have been judging for two years, primarily LD; but, at the core, I am still a lay judge. I vote more on tech than truth. If you defend your argument with REASONABLE points, and your opponent does not refute it, then your argument will stand.

At the end of the day, remember the following points:

1. Don’t spread— If I can’t understand your argument, then I won’t vote for it.

2. Be Reasonable— While LD is not an evidence based debate, don’t make unreasonable claims or present unreasonable (aka untrue) evidence.

3. Make impacts— Explain WHY you are right and your opponents are wrong.

4. Be respectful— Don’t yell, and obviously no foul or disrespectful language.

In conclusion, be clear, persuasive, and HAVE FUN.

Bellarmine ’19, Stanford ’23

Put me on the email chain: ashwin.pillai19@gmail.com

*Notes for online debate (ASU 2021) - I haven’t listened to much spreading in the past ~2 years, so I'll miss a lot of stuff if you go too fast.

For context: I did LD for 4 years, primarily on the local and state circuit. I competed on the national circuit for 3 years and broke at the Cal Invitational my junior and senior years.

1] Tech over truth, but truth will help decide an incredibly close (or messy) technical debate for me. The more judge instruction, the better.

2] I’ll evaluate any argument as long as it’s warranted, but as a debater I was most comfortable with philosophy and some Ks (mostly philosophy-based ones; was less comfortable with identity-based ones). Most of my friends in high school were policy debaters, so I'm quite familiar with policy arguments but still very rusty. I'm not the best judge for heavy theory debates.

3] High speaks for good strategy and bonus points if the round is entertaining. Low speaks for ignoring the framework debate (in whatever form that takes place).

4] I’m absolutely down to hear a good slow/traditional debate! If your opponent is traditional, make it as accessible as possible for them, or I'll be irked.

I am a traditional LD judge. Even though I understand K's, counterplans, etc., I am not a fan of them in LD. Plan on referencing the philosophers and why your case offers the values and criterion needed to win the round. Clear speaking, not speed counts.

I am not a fan of speed but I can deal with it to a certain extent. Your analytics and your tags must be clear or your speaker points will suffer accordingly. I will not tolerate rude, racist, or sexist behavior in the round.

Updated 9/16/24 for Jim Fountain

I am appreciative and grateful to support the Arizona Speech and Debate community. I have tremendous respect and admiration for the time and energy you, your teammates and coaches invest in preparation.

Congress

PO begins the session ranked first. To move above the PO participants must present all three speeches *(authorship/sponsor, mid round and round ending speeches) that are exemplary and delivered with polish and grace. Based upon Scottsdale Prep I would repeat my hope that experienced CDers will PO. Remember never to read a speech and consider speaking throughout the session first, mid and last. Often that strategic decision will be reflected in your ranking. Never break cycle as that will also be reflected in your rankings to your detriment.

For more click here

Debate

No spreading, warranting > evidence, truth > tech, no progressive or critique. LD and PF please click through and skim the detailed paradigm you will find there as my preferences will be reflected in my rankings. Ethical use of evidence!!!

Click here for more.

Speech/Interp

I value a logical narrative over citation and authenticity in performance over technique

For further detail click here.

Hey I’m Jack! I went to and now coach at Northland in Houston, TX. Feel free to ask questions before or after the round. Add me to email chains at jbq2233@gmail.com

TLDR: I will vote on anything that has a claim, warrant, and impact. I most enjoy judging policy arguments.

Defaults

- Tech > Truth

- Fairness > Education

- 1NC Theory/T > 1AR Theory

- T/Theory > K

- Comparative Worlds

- No RVIs, Competing Interps, DTD

- Presumption flips neg unless they go for an alternative advocacy

- No judge kick

Preferences

- I'm cool with anything as long as it has a claim, warrant, and impact. None of my personal opinions or interests in arguments will factor into my decision.

- I want you to debate the way you debate best. I want debaters to read what they know and are invested in.

- No buffet 2nrs please

- Be nice to one another and don't take yourself too seriously

Hot Ls

- If you are sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist or something similar

- Clipping/losing an ethics challenge OR a false accusation

- Stealing prep

Things I'm not voting on

- Any argument concerning out of round practices (except disclosure)

- Any argument concerning the appearance/clothes/etc. of another debater

- Any auto affirm/negate X identity argument

- "Evaluate the entire debate after X speech". However, I will evaluate "evaluate ___ layer after X speech".

- IVIs not flagged as IVIs in the 1NC/1AR (possibly a 2NR exception)

Policy Arguments

- My favorite type of debate to think about and judge

- Evidence comparison and impact calc are the most important things

- Great for heavy case pushes. Impact turn heavy strategies are good and solid execution will be rewarded with solid speaks

Kritiks

- I don’t have a strong preference for or against certain literature bases

- I won’t fill any substantive gaps in your explanation (this goes with anything, but it seems most relevant to what I’ve seen in K debates)

- It really helps when the 2NR includes lots of examples, especially with more uncommon literature bases.

K Aff/T Framework

- The affirmative needs to provide a model of debate with a role for the negative

- Neg teams should have an answer to case

- It is vital that aff teams provide an explanation of solvency that I can easily explain back (maybe slow down a bit here)

Phil

- Not good for dense phil v dense phil (good for util vs other phil)

- I’ve noticed that lots of phil aff contentions are pretty weak, I’d like to see more neg teams go for turns on the contention

- Neg teams should read more CPs with phil offense

Tricks

- Fine if there is an actual warrant and implication.

- Not voting on something that I don’t understand/can’t explain back

- I would recommend going MUCH SLOWER in rebuttal speeches. The current standard for an extension of a paradox or some kind of logic based trick is functionally re-spreading through the exact same block of text or contrived piece of evidence. In these debates I have found that I err heavily on the side of the other team simply because I do not understand the argument in the rebuttal.

Theory

- Great for theory

- The frivolous nature of some shells does not factor into my evaluation. Although, reasonability tends to become easier to justify and the answer becomes easier

- I’ve never voted for a team that violates in a debate where they don’t disclose (this means they didn’t disclose anything in any way) the exception is obviously new affs

T

- Caselists are necessary

- The negative needs definitions. Debate over T definitions are great. Slow down when doing comparison

- Recent explanations for bare plural arguments by negative teams have been nothing short of atrocious – please understand the semantics before you read Nebel

Misc.

- Prep ends when the email is sent

- CX is binding

- Email should be sent at the start time - I'll dock .1 speaks for every minute it's not sent (unless I'm not in the room)

Speaks

- Less prep and sitting down early will be rewarded with higher speaks.

- Clarity is VERY IMPORTANT. If you are unclear and I miss a “game changing” argument – that’s a you problem.

- Speaks will be awarded for good debating (strategy, technical ability, good CX, etc).

Email: williamdrace@gmail.com

Be persuasive – First, that means making arguments that you feel most comfortable with. Second, be clear. Both in form and content. Use jargon only if it contributes to clarity. Third, make your arguments longer and more nuanced rather than running more off case positions.

My ability to flow spreading will probably be pretty bad, especially online. I’ll also be reading through your evidence while you’re speaking. Go at a brisk pace for the tags and you can spread through the rest of the card. Please, do something to audibly separate cards from each other. Breath, pause, say ‘next’, or change speed.

CP = DA >= K (Capitalism/Security) = T >= Phil > K (anything else) = Theory

Other considerations:

Use the cards that you read

Long internal link chains only work if you have good evidence and you properly extend them

Defense is enough to neutralize a disad or advantage

Please, please, please do evidence comparison and impact calculus

Parent lay judge.

Don't spread. Speak clearly. If I cant understand your argument I cant vote on it/weight it.

I need clear reasons (warrants) to vote on. Make sure that your arguments are logical and easy to follow. A dropped argument isn't going to be a reason for my decision if the the argument is not warranted properly.

Links must be reasonable/logical. From the rounds I've judged, I've found extinction impacts extremely hard to vote on.

Make sure your rebuttals are organized and logical. Off-time roadmaps help fulfil this. Make sure to signpost.

Lastly, be nice. Don't be snarky or roll your eyes at your opponent while they are speaking. Also, debate is meant to be fun and educational and if I find you are abusive in any way I will dock speaker points or possibly drop you.

Hi! My name is Sierra, my pronouns are she/her/hers, and my email is sierraromero002@gmail.com for the email chain.

Bio: I've done 3 types of debate (ld, cx, pf), but most of my judging has been in LD. In high school, I competed at Albuquerque Academy and I got an at-large to the TOC in LD senior year. I also coached at Academy 2020-21 season and ISD summer 21. I'm a sophmore at Columbia prob studying math and african-american studies (idk), and I've done parli once.

Basics:

1. truth > tech. I have no tolerance for racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist etc. and I will comfortably vote you down if these arguments are made. I also think that you should be mindful of the impacts you are talking about if you do not belong to that group of people. Debate has material impacts for the people in it, and winning tech arguments will not change that.

2. Layering sets up my ballot. The top of the 2NR/2AR should start with layering. Framing/ROTB is one of the best ways to do this. impact calc is also very important with layering

3. Speed- Please don't spread through analytics if you aren't flashing them (flash your interps too). Go with the speed your most comfortable with.

General: (these are somewhat in the order of what I prefer to evaluate)

Ks

I am most persuaded by links to the specific action that the aff takes. If the neg proves that the action the aff takes links to the K, then it makes it much harder for me to grant the aff a permutation. For the alt, I need a clear explanation for how it solves for the impacts of the K. Winning your theory of power/having a clear explanation of your lit is really important.

For K/performance affs, tell me why your interpretation/rejection/framing of the topic comes first. I also need to know what the world/methodology of the 1AC is for me to vote for it which entails a clear explanation of your lit. For T/FW vs K affs, it's most strategic to go for education as your impact in front of me. I don't recommend going for procedural fairness bc I will be very hesitant to vote on it.

For affs hitting Ks, win the perm debate and explain the world of the permutation. For me to vote on a perm you need to 1) win the link debate, 2) win impact calc on the perm. I am hesitant to grant perms on performances/methodology. The other route to go would be disproving the K's theory of power. If you are going this route, I would expect that you are very familiar with the lit in order to understand its specific problems.

Policy/LARP

I feel pretty comfortable with anything except theory debates (I am not the best judge to go for theory in front of). If you are going to read more than 4 off, don't do it for the time suck. I enjoy policy debates that are built with good strategy, where any off case position could be in the 2NR. Good DAs/CPs are some of my favorite arguments to hear. DAs should have a clear link to the aff and internal link story in the 1NC and good impact calc/weighing throughout the round.

T/FW

I am most persuaded by arguments that tell me why your model of debate is better for education. I love, love, love, impact turns on T, and I think that that is one of the most strategic answers to T. BUT you have to be winning the fairness debate for me to evaluate the impact turn or tell me a reason why your impact turn layers before fairness does on my ballet.

For T vs LARP affs, I need a very clear explanation for why your interp produces better clash and why that's better for education. In T/FW vs K affs, I want to hear why your model of debate is better and doesn't exclude the aff's education. If you want to go for T in front of me, make sure to warrant all of your arguments really well/sequence how I should evaluate the round (i.e. tell me why T comes first or smt).

Phil

I am not too familiar with phil authors, but a clear explanation of your author and weighing will make the round much easier for me to evaluate. This means that you have to be winning your framing, but also contextualize it to the rest of the impacts in the round. Tell me how to weigh specific impacts through your framing or why specific impacts come first.

Theory

I definitely have the least experience with theory/tricks. If you go for either of these in front of me, you need to tell me why procedural arguments come first (i.e. why does it come before fiat, pre-fiat, etc.). Please explain what the impact of your shell is and weigh it against the model of debate that your interpretation excludes (impacts are very important for me if you want me to vote on the shell). Lastly, if you're going for theory make sure to extend the entirety of your shell, meaning that you should extend your interpretation and violation, otherwise I won't feel comfortable voting on it.

Haven't judged debate in a minute, but do whatever you are comfortable with, and I'll do m best to evaluate.

I was a policy debater for four years in high school and four years in college at Arizona State University. I debated at the NDT in 1988 and 1989, and broke in 1989.

I don't have strong opinions what arguments should or should not be made. I'm fine with critiques, framework, theory and performance but also like "traditional" (plan, solvency, topicality and disad) debates. My verbal paradigm when I'm asked is that I have probably seen it all and have voted for it at some point. I am fine with speed and will take a flash of the speeches to get a better idea of the evidence as it is being presented. My RFD's are based on in-round arguments. I've been a volunteer coach and judge since about 2008 and in that time have judged multiple debates on each year's policy topic. I also judge Lincoln Douglas with the same paradigm.

Advanced Technologies Academy 2020

Fourth-year at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas

He/Him

General –

· please include me on the email chain samuelself20@gmail.com

· tech > truth

· depth > breadth

· using your brain > card dumping

· debate is a game

· ld is short policy

· no friv theory (not super persuaded by most)

· write your ballot in the 2ar/2nr. don’t put me in a position where i need to intervene. you will make the round 1000x more difficult for the both of us. note that layering will set up which impacts i should prioritize in my decision.

· i read most types of arguments in high school (except for tricks, i have standards). i am best at evaluating policy style args. i welcome you to read whatever you’d like, just know i’m most comfortable with evaluating these debates.

· i swivel around 28.5. extra speaks if your funny or an absolute savage. haiku overviews are OP

· but please be nice! i will give you terrible speaks and a loss if you are racist, homophobic, a huge jerk etc.

Online Debate –

· just make sure I am awake before you start your speech.

· don’t go full speed. i can’t vote for you if i am missing every other sentence bc of the online format. i would slow down on important analytics, interps, cp texts (put them in the doc too if possible). i won't let you redo your speech, so maybe record yourself speaking so we can play it back if absolutely necessary.

· please lmk if there is anything i can do to make our online debate experience better

I am a parent judge, and I have very basic understanding of debate jargon, so please do not use excessive jargon. I don't do well with speed, and I don't have experience in debate. So if you are unsure of your speed, then please slow down and speak at a conversational speed. Debaters, try to keep your points clear and convince me of your view points. Happy Debating!

extemp
grace is okay, go 7:29 if you need it, but manage time well across points

need sources with Day, Month, and Publication (EX: "As of the New York Times on Feb 28th, 2021...")


cx/ld
explain all of your arguments, don't assume I know what something like T is
spreading is okay but you need to be clear
you have to explain Ks and be able to defend them
don't run an absurd amount of disadvs without a really good reason why
overviews + line by line are nice
do impact calc, and if your impact is nuke war, make sure you have solid cards and not a huge link chain
^on that, try to not have your impact be total annihilation of living beings and the ecosystem without solid evidence
aff: if the plan and cp aren't mutually exclusive, just perm
neg: try to be as specific as possible with everything, and don't run things to waste or fill time

pf

line by line is great

do the impact weighing for me, before final focus is better

kick things you aren't going for

i'll listen to anything

speed is fine, as long as you can be understood

tell me when you're moving to different parts of the speeches, organization is key especially with online debate

Please add me to the email chain: tsxbcdebate@gmail.com

Top-level Debate Opinions:

1. I'll evaluate almost any argument presented to me in round.
2. If an argument is conceded and adequately, I'll consider it in my decision.
3. I love, love, love seeing smart analytics against bad arguments.
4. The best way to get my vote is by having a clear view of where you want to spend your time and telling me a coherent story as to why the arguments you are going for mean you have won the round.

2023-2024 Policy Topic: New to the topic. Don't assume deep knowledge.

Case: Contest the affirmative. Most AFFs are not well constructed and their impact scenarios are embarrassingly fake. So, if you are deciding between adding a T shell --- that you and I know you won't go for --- and having more case arguments, do the latter.

Counter-plans: I'll listen to any CP, doesn't mean every CP is fair --- tell me if the NEG is cheating. Using CX to isolate how the AFF solves, then explaining how the CP solves those mechanisms, is how to win the CP debate.

Disadvantages: These are my favorite debates to judge. Do impact calculus and sprinkle in some turns case analysis, and you have a winning recipe. Prioritize DAs that link to the AFF.

Kritiks: I enjoy well thought out Ks that have specific links and reasons why the 1AC is a bad idea. As the links become more general, I give increasing leeway to the specificity of the AFF outweighing generic indicts of topic or whatever the K is problematizing. You would also being do yourself a great disservice if you don't answer the AFF. Also, going for the K doesn't mean you can skip impact calculus.

K-AFFs: These are fine (even ran one for a season), but I think that framework is a powerful tool that is very persuasive if articulated well. If you are reading a K-AFF, thorough explanations of what voting AFF means and why that solves your impact is the path to victory.

Speed: I am fine with spreading, but always choose clarity over speed. I'll call out clear and slow as appropriate. Using a more conversational speed during the rebuttals is an excellent way to create contrast and emphasize your winning arguments.

Theory: I don't particularly enjoy judging these rounds. I'll still listen to your theory shells and definitely include it in your 2AC, but, if you are going to go for theory, have a compelling reason.

Topicality: T debates are fun to judge. What I enjoy are NEG teams reading T for the sake of reading T shells; why not just use that time to do something that will actually help you in the 2NR?

Thank you for opening my paradigm.

1. I'm not too familiar with debate slang, so I'd appreciate it if their use wasn't integral to understanding any talking points.

2. Please speak at a conversational pace and ENUNCIATE your words. I know that sometimes you have more words on the page than time to say them all slowly, but if I can't understand you, I'm unable to fairly and effectively judge you.

3. BE NICE. any hostility or personal attacks towards an opponent will be an automatic lose.

4. relax and have fun! you're gonna do great!

email chain: cammiesoderquist@gmail.com

History: Former LDer and policy debater in previous century. LD state champ, nationals, etc.

Side note: I get that 21st century LD has become more like policy in regards to solvency, plans, spreading and the like. I like direct clash, thus I prefer LD stay in LD camp ("should we...?") and policy stay in policy camp ("how do we solve...?"), but I'll judge fairly on what's presented. I'm a flow judge.

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

Specifics:

Framework. If two are presented, tell me why yours is superior or, better yet, how you uphold both.

Argumentation. Claim, warrant, impacts. Please weigh everything in rebuttals and explain why I have no choice but vote for you.

***This is probably the most important point I can make. Don't just say your evidence says the opposite of your opponent's evidence. Explain WHY your evidence is superior, and if both are saying the opposite, WHY yours still outweighs. I want to hear the analytics.***

Theory. Explain why critical. I will not vote on frivolous theory, but I have voted on educationally-sound theory before (ex: time skew spreading abuse).

DAs. Be explicit on uniqueness. I'd love to see interesting impacts other than the tiresome environmental extinction, nuke war. (ex: DA with impact of losing one's soul/loneliness/isolation. It was awesome!)

Ks. These can be interesting, but this is often less clash. Explain why you would choose this strategy instead of direct clash. (If you can't explain why, don't do it.) Make link obvious. I rarely vote for Ks because I have seen many debaters reuse them to avoid preparing on the new topic. I have voted on a few which were extremely well executed and applicable. (ex: Trans K ran on "The illegal use of drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not criminal justice." with examples of hormone therapy--expertly applied to topic.)

Plans/CPs. Not my fav at all. We're not solving things in LD, that's policy, but I will judge fairly provided links and uniqueness are strong and why yours is clearly better.

Spreading. Don't. Although I was a policy spreader, this technique should stay in policy debate, simply due to the evidentiary requirements to support plans. LD doesn’t require proof as it’s asking “should?”, and I want to hear the reasoning not blasting of evidence. Instead of spreading, convince me with your amazing and unique analysis and weighing. I won't call "clear". That's not a speed appropriate for clash and crystallization.

Tricks. Don't like 'em. Instead of these tactics, wow me with your analytics, CX and and knowledge of reso.

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

Things that make me happy:

• Argument clash, crystallizing why your position is superior and why you win the round. Make it easy, do the weighing for me.

• Strategic CX. Lay foundation for args in speech and I'll be singing Pharrell Williams. I LOVE CX! (Unless it's brought up in speech, though, it won't flow, but just say "as I showed in CX, or as my opponent agreed to in CX.")

• Key voters. (Don't just list contentions, have the REAL KEY VOTERS of that round and why you win.)

Things that make me sad:

• Giving a win due to a dropped arg instead of why.

• 1NC spreading for the express purpose of the above (weak tactic).

• Referring to cards by citation only in rebuttals. You’ve heard your case 20x, I haven't. Don't just refer to the citation (ex. "williams '20"), please use tag and cite (ex. "my williams '20 card that explains the negative psychological impacts blah blah")

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

Random:

• There's a word I love (mentioned 10x above). Use it often, and it will make you a superior debater.

• Evidence is important, but a logical, well-thought-out argument to question evidence is even better. Analytics is what I see missing from LD nowadays, and it's very sad. It shouldn't be who can blast as many pieces of evidence, it should be who can logically and thoughtfully use the evidence to make an argument and support it the best. I love unique arguments based on simple logic. (ex: "The US ought not provide military aid to authoritarian regimes" where Neg explained the psyche of dictators is that they ONLY speak in terms of weaponry thus applying Aff's examples to Neg and gaining those impacts. Unique and brilliant strategy!)

• I leave bias (political, social, etc.) at the door and only judge on what is in round. Do not worry about any arg that I might personally disagree with--doesn't matter. I was a debater; I get it. Tech over truth, except for totally obvious historical facts.

• Casual/friendly. Be comfy, take off jacket, heels; hope opponents can be friends--joke and laugh

My primary coaching event is Congressional Debate. Don't freak out, I prefer the debate portion of the event as my high school background is in PF/LD.

For CD: I’ll always consider a balance of presentation, argumentation, and refutation. If you happen to drop the ball on one of those traits during a speech, it won’t ruin your rank on my ballot. I look for consistency across the board and most importantly: What is your speech doing for the debate? Speaking of which, pay attention to the round. If you're the third speaker in the row on the same side, your speech isn't doing anything for the debate. I definitely reward kids who will switch kids or speak before their ideal time for the sake of the debate, even if it's not the best speech in the world.

For both PF/LD: As long as you're clear/do the work for me, I have no preference for/against what you run/do in the round. I'll vote off of what you give me. With that, I really stress the latter portion of that paradigm, "I'll vote off of what you give me". I refuse to intervene on the flow, so if you're not doing the work for me, I'm gonna end up voting on the tiniest, ickiest place that I should not be voting off of. Please don't make me do that. Respect the flow and its links.

PF specific: I love theory. I don't prefer theory in PF, but again I'll vote off of where the round ends up...it'd be cool if it didn't head in that direction as a good majority of the time you can still engage in/ win the debate without it.

I don't time roadmaps, take a breather and get yourself together.

Speed isn't an issue for me in either event.

Avoid flex prep.

I prefer googledocs to email for evidence sharing (brittanystanchik@gmail.com).

tabula rasa... no spreading please. outline format preferred. roadmaps and signposting a plus.

Hey I'm Calvin ( cbtyler@usc.edu ),

USC '24

BCP '20

I debated 3 years, 2 on the national circuit, at Brophy College Preparatory. Qualifications: I debated both traditional and circuit, qualifying to the TOC my senior year and breaking at a decent amount of nat circs.

Debate Views:

I will try to be as tech > truth as possible, but everyone has their biases and areas of expertise. I was mainly a larp debater but branched out into theory and some critical literature my senior year. I am increasingly finding myself persuaded by all forms of arguments as long as they are well warranted and won on the flow.

I AM NOT A GOOD FLOWER - so be clear and slower when extpemping analytics if you want me to flow them.

I will vote on tricks(and anything with a warrant), but if the argument is silly, I will also have a low threshold for responding to it.

Most of all: be nice, debate is supposed to be a safe and supportive environment.

While I have not participated in speech and debate myself, I have been judging Lincoln Douglas debate for several years now and am trained in traditional forms of debate. If you want to use progressive argumentation, that is fine as long as you are clearly explaining your argument and defining any rare terms you use. It helps to tell me why you're winning the framework debate and why that matters in the round. Also, please roadmap, do key voters, etc. Impact calc and extensions will help you immensely. I'm not comfortable with spreading (very high rates of speech); if I cannot understand you, I can't flow you, and that's not good for anyone. I'll say "clear" as a heads-up if I can't keep up with you.

It's important to me that everyone is considerate to one another and has fun!

Harker 2013-2017 (debated policy all 4 years, 2A for the last 3 years). Currently a senior at Rice University (not debating).

Updated before ASU 2021 to gear my paradigm more towards LD now that I rarely judge policy.

please put me on the email chain - molly dot wancewicz at gmail dot com

Online Debate:

I'll say clear once if I can't hear you but not beyond that because I don't want to miss even more of what you're saying. Record all of your speeches locally - if there's some kind of error/issue I will listen to the recording but will not allow you to re-give or re-do your speech. It would be excellent if you could have your camera on during the entire debate (at least CX and prep!) but I know everyone has different situations so if you can't/don't, I won't hold it against you. Please no prep stealing or other shenanigans that take advantage of online debate.

Arguments:

I think LD = short policy.

Theory - I have a higher threshold than most judges for voting on theory. I am not interested in hearing you throw out a bunch of random theory shells and see what sticks. There needs to be significant in-round abuse for me to vote on theory. Not wanting to engage with the aff is not the same thing as abuse. My threshold for abuse is probably slightly lower for cheating counterplans like consult, add-a-condition, object fiat, etc. I will literally never vote on an RVI.

Phil - I am not a good judge for a phil debate. I evaluate debates using the offense-defense paradigm, so I will be a much more effective judge if you read your argument as a kritik with an alt, or even as a DA, rather than as a traditionally-structured NC. At bare minimum you need to explain how your NC means that I should evaluate the debate and its offensive implications but I will be unhappy.

Framework - I default to util unless told otherwise.

Negative Strategy - Splitting the 2NR is almost never a good idea. Will definitely affect speaker points.

DAs and Case - I will be really really happy if this is the debate I'm judging :) Everything is fair game - politics and spinoffs, elections, topic-specific DAs, etc. Technical case vs. DA debates are great and proficiency here will have a significant positive impact on speaker points. I have a higher threshold on voting for neg arguments that aren't contextualized to the aff.

Nontopical affs - I will admit that I'm neg-leaning in the nontopical aff (k aff) vs. topicality (framework) debates. I find topical version of the aff arguments very persuasive. Fairness is a less compelling topicality/framework argument to me, but I would still vote on it as a net benefit to the TVA. I think k affs need to have an advocacy of some sort and be related to the topic.

Kritiks - I am reasonably familiar with the basics (security, cap, colonialism, etc) and a lot of identity arguments. I am much less familiar with high theory/postmodern stuff. Regardless of the author, though, contextualization to the aff is extremely important to me in the kritik debate - at the very least, the 1NC should include one specific link card. I find generic kritiks that aren't contextualized very unpersuasive. I think most k alts are implausible/prohibitively vague and/or don't solve the link - I find CX pressing the plausibility and details of the alt really effective. In addition, I am often very willing to vote on case outweighs and/or case solves the K given that these arguments are well-explained in the 2AR.

Counterplans - Need to have a solvency advocate. I like specific counterplans and I think DA+CP is a great 2nr, but I'm not a fan of cheating CPs (see theory) and I'm pretty aff-leaning on the theory question for these.

Topicality (vs policy affs) - I’m willing to vote on T. Even if your violation is bad, I’ll vote on tech in the T debate (within reason obviously)

Don't be rude - If you're mean to your opponent or partner (if applicable) your speaker points will reflect that.

If I happen to be judging PF:

Impact comparison is really important at the end of the debate - please don't make me do it for you.

I am new to judging. I was in speech in high school, and in a discussion-based college involving philosophy and politics.

I am looking for direct communication on salient points without oversimplification. I appreciate slower speech, and attention to debate etiquette.

Since I'm new to judging, I'd appreciate no kritik or theory shells.

Hello All,

Background: My name is Eli Wiles, I use he/him/his pronouns. I went to McMinnville High School where I debated for four years of Public Forum on the Oregon and National Circuit. I also did extemp and occasionally a satirical speech.

What I Like:

Strong links and applicable evidence are prerequisites to large impacts. If you cannot defend your links then you will not have access to your impacts when I weigh the round.

All judges enjoy clashes, so please try and make the debate competition. If there is no clash, the ballot is harder to fill out.

When judging it is easy to see when teams contradict themselves. If a debater is able to expose these flaws I will be very happy.

CP's must be mutually exclusive and topical, otherwise, I expect the affirmative team to perm the plan and eliminate negation ground.

K's and theory work, but you must have ample links to them. You can win on K's and Theory, but if you ignore the case, and theory drops you will take the L. If you want me to hear your theory and understand it, please slow down when reading it. I am not the most experienced with LD/CX terminology, but I don't think that will impact your round.

Speaker Points: I was never the best speaker on my team, which is probably why I believe you do not have to be a pretty speaker to win a debate. Usually, the team that has an in-depth understanding of the topic and is not debating for a speaker award are the ones that are winning. I will give everyone good speaker points. The better speakers will get 29/30, but everyone in the senior debate should be 26-28 range at least.

Pronouns: They/She

Email: patriciayango@arizona.edu

I am a 2020 graduate of Perry High School (AZ) and a 4 year competitor in a variety of speech and debate events at both the local and national levels. I am competing for the University of Arizona. I'm the Arizona District Assistant Coach of the Year (2021).

tldr; signpost always. run whatever you want (no trix tho pls). check your privilege.

you are responsible for the weighing, extensions, and impact calc (and explaining unfamiliar lit).regardless of if you debate trad or progressive, good comparative impact calc will prob win you my ballot. if i don't understand ur contention, i probably wont vote on it. if i don't understand ur k/t/phil/da/cp/whatever else i probably wont vote on it.

i am a lazy judge. in an ideal world, you are filling out my ballot for me. tell me what i need to vote on EARLY IN THE ROUND and why. if you leave that up to me, you probably wont be happy with my RFD. pretty much any argument goes as long as you have a warrant and can explain it well.

****Last Updated: Greenhill 2021****

Background

· I’m a fourth year pre-med student at Purdue University. I aspire to attend medical school in a couple years. I competed in LD for duPont Manual High School (Louisville, Kentucky) from 2014-2018. I cleared at almost every bid tournament I attended and reached bid rounds at Emory and UPenn. I mostly LARPed, but I enjoyed reading Ks and T/Theory too during my time on the circuit.

TL;DR

· Add me to the email chain: dsyi12400@gmail.com

· I’ll vote on any argument that meets the minimum requirements of having a claim, warrant, and impact. The more arcane aspects of debate don’t matter to me (for example, I don’t have an opinion on whether PICs are bad or 3 condo CPs are good) because it’s the debaters’ responsibilities to generate arguments and defend their positions. I’ll evaluate the flow as technically as I can because I care more about the debating than the ultimate truth of your arguments, so tech > truth. I do, however, believe that debate is designed to be a competitive research game.

· Maintain a local recording of each of your speeches. If there’s a disconnect, finish your speech and promptly send out the recording.

· Feel free to ask me questions about my preferences before the round via email or Facebook. Good luck and don’t forget to have fun!

Specific Preferences

Procedurals

· Speed is good, but do NOT use your top speed in online debates. If you have analytics typed out in the doc, I’ll have a higher threshold for “too fast,” but over the course of my judging history (all which has been online) I’ve come to realize that my worst decisions have come from debates where the debaters are going too fast. Efficient and well enunciated speeches will seriously trump fast and unclear speeches: I CANNOT vote on arguments I didn’t hear. I’ll yell clear as much as I need to. Please pop tags and author names.

· Prep ends when the doc is compiled. Sending the doc isn’t prep, but don’t steal prep.

· I’ll disclose speaks if you ask and if both debaters are ok with it. Speaks are adjusted according to the tournament’s difficulty. They reflect how well I expect you to do.

· If you make a Star Wars reference I’ll add +0.1 to whatever your speaks were supposed to be. I’ll add +0.2 if it's a Darth Vader or Yoda quote. Don’t be afraid to “do it.” Add it to the speech doc and make it stand out, so I don’t miss it!

Likes

· weighing that is contextualized to your opponent’s arguments

· good overviews

· collapsing

· fast and efficient tech skills

· good case debate—I appreciate negs that actually read carded arguments and analytics against the aff and I am impressed by affs that are very techy when responding to case dumps

· numbered arguments

· good evidence comparison

· impact turns—bonus speaks if you can end the debate with these

· being funny (making me laugh will get you bonus speaks)

Dislikes

· saying your opponent conceded something even though it wasn’t conceded

· saying the word “extend” a ton or trying to extend every author name—just make the argument and tell me its warrant and impact in the round

· jumping around different parts of the flow

· power tagging

· going for everything in your last speech (although this is justified sometimes)

LARP

· Extinction scenarios are very entertaining—these positions were my favorite strategies in debate. I find these debates easier to adjudicate when debaters have high quality evidence.

· Impact calc and comparative weighing are imperative.

· Evidence comparison could be make it or break it. This includes reading cards: I like it when 1ARs and 2NRs strategically read cards to extend their scenarios, but they better be relevant and well-explained!

· Extensions need to have warrants—even in the 1AR/2AR. All I need is an overview of the advantage, but your extension of the aff should match the degree to which its warrants have been contested. You don’t need to say every card name. Just tell me what the aff does, what it solves, and how it does so.

· I think CPs are some of the best neg args. All types of CPs are cool, but don't blame me if your opponent reads theory.

· CPs should avoid a DA or turn to the aff, so just saying “CP solves better” isn’t a DA to the perm.

· DAs are great. The best DAs have a “DA turns case” component. 2NR impact calc is critical: probability and magnitude are important, but strength of link and evidence specificity need to be articulated as well.

Phil

· Some of my favorite debates to witness have been phil debates. In fact, some of the best speaks I’ve given have been a result of good phil debate (and the frameworks weren’t util—surprise!).

· Err on the side of overexplaining. I’m good on most framework authors.

· DON’T extend every card and go for every justification—give an overview of your framework’s thesis and go from there.

· The best phil debaters are able to contextualize real world examples that illustrate their ethical theory.

· You have to contextualize why the justification you go for matters in the context of your opponent’s framework. Too many phil debates end up being two ships sailing past each other in the middle of the night.

T/Theory

· I enjoy judging T/Theory debates. They demonstrate whether debaters have good tech skills and whether they know how to defend their personal convictions about debate as an activity. If you’re willing to be persuasive and you’re serious about defending your interp, then go for it.

· I “default” to the norms of the activity, which seem to be drop the debater, no RVIs, and competing interps (unless justified by debaters that I should do otherwise).

· Not all theory arguments need to be in a shell format.

· I adjudicate on a strength of link style on various layers of the theory debate (i.e. if you have a ton of offense to education, and they have a tiny amount to fairness, the fact that fairness slightly outweighs is probably not sufficient to vote for their shell).

Ks

· I’ll probably have a basic understanding of whatever K you read, but I will not vote for you unless YOU explain your theory.

· SHORTER TAGS ARE EASIER TO FLOW. PLEASE.

· Aff specific links paired with generic links are preferable to solely relying on generic links: negs should use lines directly from the aff to make the links more robust.

· I don’t believe there is a significant distinction between “post-fiat” and “pre-fiat.” The most important facet of the debate is that you defend your arguments and prove why the aff or neg is good/bad/correct/incorrect/etc. It is a fact that nothing truly happens after the round—the only thing we take away from the round is the knowledge derived from the arguments that were made by the debaters. You should stray away from using the terms “post-fiat” and “pre-fiat.”

· I expect detailed explanations for the interaction between the K and the aff. Use the appropriate K tricks and explain why the K outweighs/turns the case/perm fails/is a prior question/solves the aff/etc.

· Your aff doesn’t need to be topical, but I expect good 1AR and 2AR explanations of your offense. Buzzwords will only get you so far.

Tricks

· Honestly, I’d rather listen to a beautiful 2NR that goes for a K that is meaningful to the debater or a strategic 2AR that goes for an advantage and does amazing impact calc. I empathize with debaters who have committed hours and hours to research/prep about the topic or literature of choice because I believe in hard work. This is what I did back in the day, so I want to reward students who are going through the same thing; however, strategy and winning ballots is important, so I’ll listen to and vote on your arguments. Just be prepared to receive the appropriate speaks.

Final Thoughts

· In high school I had a great time with debate. I was fortunate to never have any serious drama or traumatic experiences during my time in the activity and I think that everyone should be able to say the same. I hold my peers to a high standard, and I hope you all help each other to do that as well. As someone who is now out of the activity, I cherish the years that I debated. It was a major part of my life and I learned a lot from the activity and the people around me. You all should make the most of every moment and do your best so that you don’t have any regrets.

· An atrocious AP Physics teacher I had in high school once told me that you can only be unhappy about an outcome if you’ve truly put in every ounce of effort and you still don’t reach your goal.

· Disclaimer: Parts of this paradigm were borrowed from Kieran Cavanagh, Alan George, and Adam Tomasi. Shout out to them for letting me borrow their content.

· May the force be with you!

I am a parent judge :)

Hey everyone! So, if I'm your judge for LD, you can basically run ANYTHING you want to. I really don't want to limit anyone on what they feel comfy with! If you plan on running progressive, make sure you are able to explain your arguments to let's say.. your grandparents who have never seen these theories before. Make sure you can summarize things up in simple man's terms, in other words. All the more power to you :)

I'll flow the round as everyone is debating, so at the end, my winner is based off who has won the most arguments either by extension, drops, or impact analysis. In the case of a tie, I will glance at framework but honestly it's not something super important to me as a judge (so there's no point in engaging in framework debate), BUT if you tell me I need to accept your framework as the framework of the round and it's a decent argument, I'll flow as such.

The only thing I will say: I was never well-versed in theory when I did LD in high school, so I won't be able to give you constructive feedback on it other than whether or not I bought the shell in the first place. And regardless of what you run, make sure there's lots of clash!

Best of luck!